HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO-07-052 - CMF Pt.2 Schedule 'C' Class Environmental Assessment - Selection of Preferred Site
~~
Po~
f../ ~t S l,. Cry
Report To: Finance & Corporate Services Committee
Date of Meeting: November 19, 2007
Submitted By: Consolidated Maintenance Facilty Steering Committee
Prepared By: Hans Gross, Director of Project Administartion & Economic
Investment
Wards}Involved: All
Date of Report: November 7, 2007
Report No.: CAO-07-052
Subject: CONSOLIDATED MAINTENANCE FACILITY
PART 2 SCHEDULE C -CLASS EA STUDY
SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED SITE
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Consolidated Maintenance Facility (CMF) Review -Part 2 completed by IBI
Group (Project No. 15290) dated November 2, 2007 be received, and further;
2. That the CMF Review reports completed by Stantec Consulting Ltd (dated May 9, 2007}
and by IBI Group (dated November 2 , 2007} be filed fora 30 day review period in
accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Class Environment Assessment
process, and further;
3. That a Consolidated Maintenance Facility be approved as a one-site model on
approximately 45 acres of privately owned redeveloped property at 131 Goodrich Drive,
Kitchener, as recommended in the IBI Group report, and further,
4. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an Agreement of Purchase and Sale
with TC MidAtlantic Development Inc to purchase land and buildings at 131 Goodrich
Drive, Kitchener, said Agreement to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor, and further,
5. That Council approve proceeding with the design stage of the CMF project subject to the
completion of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process.
BACKGROUND:
Report No. CAO-07-031 provided a summary of events from December 2004 to October 2005
and reported on the results of the peer review study completed by Stantec Consulting Inc.
On October 24, 2005, Stantec Consulting Inc was awarded the assignment to complete a peer
review of the CMF Business Case completed by city staff.
The purpose of the peer review study was to:
~ Validate the need for a new CMF
~ Determine the best model and sites for short and long-term service demands
~ Carry out a peer review of the CMF Business Case completed by City Staff
~ Undertake the peer review study through aSchedule C -Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment process to ensure compliance with the provincial
regulations and to ensure public participation
In May 2007, the Stantec peer review study concluded that:
• There is a need to consolidate and replace the current Works yards facilities
• A one-site model is more efficient and cost effective than atwo-site model
• A one-site model requires a total building area of approximately 290,000 SF on a
useable site of approximately 41 to 45 acres and would require a capital
investment of approximately $60 to $80 million (excluding land and in 2006
dollars)
• A two-site model requires a total building area of approximately 302,000 SF on
useable sites totalling approximately 50 to 55 acres and would require a capital
investment of approximately $61 to $81 million (excluding land and in 2006
dollars)
No feasible one-site or two-site models were identified during the study period (Oct. 2005 to
May 2007), therefore an evaluation process and selection of a preferred option could not be
completed.
Following the completion of Stantec's study, a proposal was received for a potential one-site
option on private property which is being redeveloped at 131 Goodrich Drive.
In addition, the private property owner of #41 Ardelt Place, from whom a proposal for a CMF
was previously received by the City, had recently acquired additional adjacent property. This
provided the potential for the development of a phased one-site model cif additional land was to
be acquired) or atwo-site model using city-owned land.
On June 25, 2007, Council received staff report numbers CAO-07-031 and CAO-07-037 and
passed resolutions to accept the recommendations contained therein, namely:
C;AC~-Cl7-Cl:~ 1
"That the Consolidated Maintenance Facility (CMF) Review completed by Stantec
Consulting Ltd. Project No. 114501112) dated May 9, 2007 be received, and further;
That the fee paid to Stantec Consulting Ltd. for the study be increased from $175,055.60 to
$202,413.48 plus GST) as a result of scope changes approved by the Steering Committee,
and further;
That a consultant selection process be initiated to retain a consultant at a fee not to exceed
$95,000 plus GST to complete Part 2 of the Schedule C -Class EA Study which will result
in the selection of a preferred model and site(s) for the new CMF, and further;
That the following options be considered and evaluated in Part 2 of the Schedule C -Class
EA study:
Option 1: A one-site model on approximately 45 acres of privately owned redeveloped
property at 131 Goodrich Drive.
Option 2: A one-site or two-site model through a phased development approach on
approximately 23 to 40 acres of privately owned land at or adjacent to #41 and
#75 Ardelt Place. This option may need to be supplemented with City-owned
site(s) if sufficient area does not become available.
Option 3: A three-site model on approximately 62 acres (50 useable acres) on the following
City-owned properties:
• Elmsdale Operations Centre (8.7 acres)
• Strasburg-Huron Industrial Site (37.7 acres of which 27.7 useable)
• Battler Yard Site (15.8 acres)"
c:A~-n7-n~7
"That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an Option/Letter of Intent with TC
MidAtlanic Development, Inc. to purchase land at 131 Goodrich Drive, Kitchener, said
Option/Letter of Intent to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor."
On August 27, 2007, City Council passed a resolution awarding the Part 2 of the Schedule C -
Class EA Study to IBI Group.
REPORT:
1. Overview
1.1 IBI Group was awarded the assignment to complete Part 2 of the Schedule C -Class
EA Study on August 27, 2007
1.2 The purpose of IBI Group assignment was to:
Analyze the site options identified in Council's resolution of June 25, 2007
~ Select a preferred site through an evaluation and public process
~ Prepare the Schedule C Class Environmental Assessment documentation as required
by the Province of Ontario
1.3 The City's Project Steering Committee consists of:
Carla Ladd -Chief Administrative Officer
Ann Pappert -General Manger Community Services
Pauline Houston -General Manger Financial Services
Ken Currier- Director of Operations
Laurier Proulx- Director of Facilities Management
Larry Gordon - Director of Purchasing
Hans Gross - Director of Project Administration & Economic Investment
1.4 The Consultant team consists of:
IBI Group -Lead Consultant
AW Hooker -Cost Consultant
Trow Associates Inc -Buildings Science Engineers
LGL Ltd -environmental analysts
Chung and Vander Doelan - geotechnical engineers
And
Coldwell Banker Commercial Peter Benninger Realty -the City's real estate provider for
property valuations.
1.5 IBI Group's final report dated November 2, 2007 consists of:
o A full report which includes an executive summary}
o A construction cost report prepared by AW Hooker separately bound
o A property valuation report prepared by Coldwell Banker Commercial separately
bound
o An environmental report prepared by LGL separately bound
2. Identification and Evaluation of Site Options
2.1 Site Options
The site options to be considered were defined in Report CAO-07-031 (refer to Background
section of this report).
The consulting team combined the properties in various ways to form a long list of 11
options. The team, in consultation with the project Steering Committee, eliminated those
options that clearly had insufficient land for the needs and functions of the new CMF. The
resulting short list comprised of 6 site options for detailed analysis.
Site 0 Lion Pro ernes
Report
Designation Public
Display
Board
Desi nation
1 A 131 Goodrich Dr
4 C 21, 41, 75 Ardelt PI., 39-51 Overland Dr.,1585 Battler Rd.
5 B 41, 75 Ardelt PI., north and west of 1760 Strasburg Rd.
6 B-1 21, 41, 75 Ardelt PI., north and west of 1760 Strasbur Rd.
7 - 41, 75 Ardelt PI., north and west of 1760 Strasburg Rd.
11 D 1760 Strasburg Rd., 83 Elmsdale Dr.,1585 Battler Rd.
2.2 Evaluation Criteria
The Project Steering Committee and the consulting team developed a list of criteria against
which to evaluate the various site options. Over the course of the study, the list was refined
to comprise a total of 13 criteria described below.
1. Cost: market value of all properties including City-owned properties, plus construction
of new buildings, as well as renovation costs for reuse of existing buildings. The market
values were developed with the assumption that any necessary site remediation would
be carried out at vendors' expense.
2. hand Size: usable area, in acres, for each property comprising each site option and
including the total useable area for each site option, to accommodate requirements up to
the 2040 time horizon
3. Expansion Opportunities: ability to expand slightly beyond the requirements of 2040
time horizon
4. Flexibility of site layout: takes into account the geometric configuration of each
property as well as effects on planning flexibility of natural features and reuse of any
existing buildings
5. Site access: ease of movement between the main public road(s) and the CMF site
6. Adequacy of adjacent transportation network: capacity of adjacent roads and
intersections to accommodate CMF traffic
7. Efficiency of location: time/distance factors, taking into account the degree of
centrality of the sites. Based on the Stantec report, multi-site options will incur a 10%
operating cost premium to recognize the need to move between sites. This premium
can be expressed in terms of additional time and distance
8. Infrastructure improvements: the extent of road and utility improvements necessitated
by development of the CMF facility
9. Compatibility with surrounding uses: the extent to which adjacent uses are industrial
in nature as opposed to residential, commercial or institutional
10. Topography: extent of surface variations that could impede site planning and/or
necessitate significant cut and/or fill
11. Approvals necessary: extent of the need for development approvals that could add
costs and time to the implementation process
12. Public acceptance: public reaction to press releases and to details provided at the
Public Information Centres
13. Impact on Natural Features: how natural features such as vegetation, wetlands and
wildlife habitats are affected
2.3 Evaluation Process and Results
The consultant team together with the project Steering Committee assessed each site
option with respect to the evaluation criteria.
A comparative evaluation of site options was completed by comparing each site option with
every other site option with respect to each of the 13 evaluation criteria. For each pair
comparison, the site option judged superior was awarded 2 points and the other site was
awarded 0 points. If the two site options were judged equal, they were each awarded 1
point.
Following is a total point summary of the evaluation results concluding that Option 1 is the
preferred site:
Option No. Total Points
1 100
4 54
5 45
6 68
7 66
11 57
The detailed site evaluation matrix is shown in Appendix L of the IBI Group report.
3.0 Cost Analysis
Construction cost estimates were provided by A.W. Hooker, IBI's cost consultant, for all options.
The City retained Coldwell Banker Commercial Peter Benninger Realty to provide the market
value of the various properties involved in the options with the exception of Option 1. Even
though the City owns some of the properties, the market value would be attached to the use of
the property in recognition of the "lost" opportunity cost if the property was used for the CMF.
Following is a table summarizing the "Total Project Cost" range for all evaluated options. It is
clear that the ability to reuse the existing building and site at 131 Goodrich Drive results in a
significant cost saving.
Site Options Total value land and
existin buildin s Estimated cost of new
construction needed Total estimated
project costs
Low Hi h Low Hi h
1 - 1 sin le site $20.2 $25.9 $28.5 $46.1 $48.7
4 - 2 sites $15.5 $64.6 $71.1 $80.1 $86.6
5 - 2 sites $14.0 $64.2 $70.6 $78.2 $84.6
6 - 2 sites $16.2 $64.7 $71.2 $80.9 $87.4
7 - 2 sites $16.2 $63.4 $69.7 $79.6 $86.0
11 - 3 sites $15.4 $65.1 $71.6 $80.5 $87.0
Annual travel costs were estimated for each option using criteria that reflect as closely as
possible the current and future travel practices. The details of the analysis are shown in
Appendix G of the IBI report. The results indicate that there is very little difference between the
options.
4.0 Public Consultation
In accordance with Ontario Environmental Assessment requirements, the City and the
consulting team held two public consultations. The first focused on understanding the problem
and indicating which sites were being considered for development. The second focused on
reviewing the criteria, the evaluation process, and providing evaluation results. Both
consultations collected stakeholder comment. See Appendix J for documentation and results.
The first public information centre was held at the Bramm Street Works Yard on September 19,
2007. Approximately 150 staff and 4 non-staff viewed the display boards. A total of 41
responses were received via feedback forms, on-line, e-mail, voice mail and mail in. The
majority of responses X76%) selected the Goodrich Drive site as their preferred location.
The second public information centre was held at the Bramm Street Works Yard on October 17,
2007. Approximately 150 staff and 3 non-staff viewed the display boards and listened to the
presentation which identified the Goodrich Drive site as the preferred option. The verbal
feedback from the group was overwhelmingly supportive of the selection. A total of 9 written
responses were received. Forty (40%} percent selected the Goodrich Drive site, ten X10%)
percent selected the Ardelt Drive site and fifty X50%) selected the three-site option which
incorporated the Elmsdale property.
5.0 LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
The City of Kitchener has recently expressed a desire to attain at least a LEED Silver
designation with third party verification as part of the construction of new municipal buildings.
The new CMF is no exception. Although Option 1 -the Goodrich site involves the reuse of an
existing industrial building, there is an opportunity to incorporate environmentally friendly
practices in the redevelopment of the building and the site.
The IBI Group report was not required to address this matter. Preliminary discussions between
staff and an environmental building firm indicate that there is a potential to achieve LEED
certification at a modest cost. Details, although not available at this time, will evolve during the
design /development phase of the project.
6.0 Conclusions
The IBI Group report has concluded that the one-site model for a new CMF on approximately 45
acres of privately-owned, redeveloped property at 131 Goodrich Drive is the preferred and
recommended option.
The conclusion is supported by the results of the public consultation process and by a detailed
and comprehensive evaluation by the consultant and Steering Committee teams which indicates
that:
~ Total costs are less than 60% of the cost of each of the other options due to the
ability to reuse as much of the existing buildings as needed;
~ It has adequate, fully usable land size, with some expansion possibilities and
flexibility of layout within the 45 acres planned for purchase;
~ There are no constraints regarding the site access;
~ There is no need for infrastructure improvements beyond what is already
planned;
~ The site functions are compatible with surrounding uses and site topography;
~ The proposed use is compatible with development legislation;
~ There is a high degree of acceptance of the location on the part of CMF staff
stakeholders (primarily from staff);
~ The development will have minor impact on natural features.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Based on a preliminary class "B/C" estimate for the construction and renovation of the property
on 131 Goodrich Drive, staff have developed the following financial projection:
A B A+B
YTD Projected Total
Actual Additional Project
1-Nov-07 Rev /Exp Budget
Revenues
Contribution from Capital 1,712,523 20,925,000 22,637,523
Contribution from Reserve 330,000 - 330,000
Contribution from Gas 936,000 624,000 1,560,000
Contribution from Water 936,000 624,000 1,560,000
Contribution from Sewer 936,000 624,000 1,560,000
Contribution from DC 675,000 2,624,000 3,299,000
Land Sales 14,650,000 14,650,000
Existing Capital Funds 428,000 428,000
5,525,523 40,499,000 46,024,523
Ex erases
Land Costs 1,806,308 20,604,000 22,410,308
Consulting- Architect 397,211 2,000,000 2,397,211
Consulting- People Amalgamation 200,000 200,000
Art 200,000 200,000
Miscellaneous (Fees & Permits 6,527 100,000 106,527
Building Alterations 18,000,000 18,000,000
Relocation Costs 300,000 300,000
Information Technology System 300,000 300,000
Contingency 2,300,000 2,300,000
Interest Costs 1,996,288 1,996,288
2,210,047 46,000,287 48,210,334
Revenues less Expenses - (2,185,811)
A funding shortfall of $2.2 million is projected at this point in time, which represents
approximately 4.5% of the total project budget. Staff recommends that options to address the
shortfall be considered through the project planning phase as designs and costs are finalized.
The potential shortfall may be mitigated through a variety of approaches, including:
• Use of City staff and the winter works budget to undertake some site preparation or
building renovations;
• A reduction in the scope of work to fit costs within funding available;
• Increased Funding from development charges, utilities and capital out of current; and/or
• Funding from the Asset Management Reserve Fund generated through additional land
sales.
The following significant assumptions have been made for budget purposes.
1. Project cash flows -Cash flows during the term of the project will fluctuate significantly
depending on the timing of revenue inflows and capital outlays. The net negative cash
position will reach as much as approximately $17 million at the end of 2008. This is
mainly due to a significant portion of the land purchases (approximately $21 million)
happening early in 2008, whereas the majority of the funding from internal sources and
land sales comes in later years (2009 through 2011). The City is currently in a healthy
position with respect to overall general cash balances and should be in a position to
internally finance the projected temporary cash shortfall on this project. This will also
result in an interest cost over the term of the project of approximately $2 million. The
City has internally financed on past major projects, an example being the construction of
City Hall. The risk of taking this approach is, should City cash balances decline
significantly over the short term for unforeseen reasons, the City may be challenged to
temporarily finance the cash flow requirements of this project.
Staff have tried to manage the timing of the move of the various facilities and employees
to the new Consolidated Maintenance Facility in order to help alleviate the negative
impact on the cash flows. Transit, Chandler and Elmsdale operations are projected to
relocate to their new location by June 30, 2009. This will allow for the sale of the
properties with the highest value at the earliest opportunity. Bramm St Operations will
move to their new location August 31, 2010 to allow us to defer some of the higher
renovation and constructions costs later in the cash flow forecast.
2. Land Values -Staff have allocated values for land sales using the mid to high-end
estimate supplied by the valuation consultant. There is a risk that the City may not
realize the land sales values or there may be some unknown environmental issues at
some of the sites that will reduce the net realizable value to the City.
3. Quality of estimate -Staff note that the quality of the estimate for the project is a "B/C"
at this point in time. A "B/C" quality estimate is based on a functional concept plan
where major features and requirements have been identified, quantities of work have
been estimated and unit construction prices are based on industry standards. A
construction cost variance of +_ 10% is a standard feature of a cost estimate at this stage
of the project. Costs will be refined through the next phase of the project which includes
detailed site planning, design and costing. Staff will report back with an updated project
budget prior to going to tender for building renovations.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Status updates of the CMF project have been provided to City staff, City Council and the public
on anon-gong basis.
A communications plan to generate interest and comments was developed as part of the Part 2
Study.
Following is a brief summary of the actions taken:
1.0 Timelines
Sept 6 E-mail to Council explaining to Communications strategy and actions
Sept 7 All Departments email sent out providing update on the project and details for
feedback. Posters posted in all facilities
Sept 8 & 10 Advertisement in the Record for study commencement and open house
Sept 19 Staff information /feedback session from 2 - 4 pm; Public Meeting #1 from 4 - 8
pm
Sept 25 Information presentation to and meeting with Utilities staff from 9:45 to 10:45 am
Sept 26 Informational presentation to and meeting with Parks Operations and Fleet staff
from 7-8 am
Sept 27 Informational presentation to and meeting with Operations staff from 7 - 8 am
Oct 11 E-mail to Council advising of the second Public Information Session
Oct 12 & 13 Advertisement in the Record for second Public Information Session
Oct 15 All departments e-mail advising of the upcoming public information session
Oct 17 Staff information /feedback session from 2 - 4 pm; Public Meeting #2 from 4 - 7
pm
Oct 18 Informational presentation to and meeting with Parks Operations and Fleet staff
from 7-8 am
Oct 18 Informational presentation to and meeting with Utilities and Facilities
Management staff from 7 - 8 am
Oct 19 Informational presentation to and meeting with Operations staff from 7 - 8 am
2.0 Communications Objectives
~ Ensure through an effective public consultation /awareness process that citizens are aware
of the project, its details and background, its timelines the need for it, and of citizens' ability
to provide feedback during the process
~ Gather public opinion and comment that can be considered by the project steering
committee and the consultants in formulating their recommendation; and by Council in
making its final decision on the project
3.0 Communications Tools
• Media Releases /Advisories
• Website (formal written feedback)
• Public meetings (2) -general verbal feedback and formal written comment sheets
• Dedicated phone line (voice mail messages =formal written feedback)
• Dedicated email address (formal written feedback)
• Use of regular mailing address (formal written feedback)
• Ads in The Record (re: public meeting dates)
• Staff Information /Feedback Sessions
• Posters in all City Facilities
4.0 Next Steps
Following receipt of the IBI report by Council, both the Part 1 (Stantec) report and Part 2 (IBI)
report will be filed fora 30 day review period as required by the Class Environmental
Assessment process.
At the end of the 30 day review period, if no request has been made to "Bump Up" the project,
then the Class EA process is complete and the design /construction phase can begin subject to
the direction of Council
CONCLUSION:
Numerous options for a model and location for the new CMF have been identified and evaluated
through a technical and public review process.
The IBI Group study report, completed co-operatively by the consultant team and the City's
project team, has considered all information and is recommending that the City proceed with the
Site Option 1 - #131 Goodrich Drive for the new CMF.
Hans Gross
Director of Project Administration & Economic Investment
Attachments:
Consolidated Maintenance Facility Review
Part 2 - Schedule C Class EA Study
Prepared by IBI Group