Body: Council Type: Agenda Meeting: Regular Date: February 20, 2019 Collection: Council Agendas Municipality: Frontenac County
[View Document (PDF)](/docs/frontenac-county/Published Agendas/Advisory Committees of Council/Administrative Building Design Task Force/2019/Administrative Building Design Task Force - 20 Feb 2019 - Agenda.pdf)
Document Text
Administrative Building Design Task Force Meeting Wednesday, February 20, 2019 – 11:00 a.m. or immediately following the County Council meeting Bud Clayton Memorial Room, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie, ON
AGENDA Page 1.
Call to Order
Election of Officers a) Election of Chair b)
Election of Vice Chair
Adoption of the Agenda a) That the agenda for the February 20, 2019 meeting of the Administrative Building Design Task Force be adopted.
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
Adoption of Minutes a) Minutes of Meeting held August 13, 2018
3-5
That the minutes of the Administrative Design Task Force meeting held August 13, 2018 be adopted.
6-8
Deputations and/or Presentations
Reports a) 2019-028 Background Report This report is for information purposes only.
9 - 44
b)
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects Recommendation: Whereas the Committee has reviewed the Shared Facility Analysis
Page 1 of 44
Page report prepared by Colbourne & Kembel Architects (CKA), Whereas, the CKA analysis confirms that the savings for the County of Frontenac, Township of South Frontenac and Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority are of sufficient magnitude to merit continued investigation of a joint facility, Be It Resolved That Council authorize the Administrative Building Design Task Force to participate in a joint meeting (or series of meetings) with the potential partners intended to address questions of ownership model, site selection and servicing, And Further That, the Committee Chair and Chief Administrative Officer report back to County Council on a regular basis prior to making a final recommendation to County Council. 8.
Communications
Other Business
Next Meeting
Adjournment
Page 2 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #a)
Minutes of the Administrative Building Design Task Force Meeting August 13, 2018 A meeting of the Administrative Building Design Task Force was held in the Bud Clayton Memorial Room, County Administrative Office, 2069 Battersea Road, Glenburnie on Wednesday, August, 2018 at 12:30 pm. Present: Councillor Vandewal, Chair Councillor Dewey, Vice Chair Councillor Inglis Councillor Nossal County Staff Present: Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer Kevin Farrell, Manager of Continuous Improvement/GIS Jannette Amini, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk, (Recording Secretary) CRCA Members Present: Geoff Rae, General Manager Rob McRae, Manager, Watershed Planning and Engineering Donna Campbell, Assistant to the Chair and General Manager Max Kaiser, Councill Greater Napanee Bert Herfst, Loyalist Township Gary Oosterhof, City of Kingston Ross Sutherland, Township of South Frontenac Tom Beaubiah, Manager Conservation Lands Also Present: Robert Wood, 8020 Info Inc. (Facilitator) 1.
Call to Order
The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. 2.
Adoption of the Agenda
Moved By: Seconded By:
Councillor Dewey Councillor Nossal
That the agenda for the August 13, 2018 meeting of the Administrative Building Design Task Force be adopted. Carried
Minutes of Meeting held August 13, 2018
Page 3 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #a)
Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof
There were none. 4.
Adoption of Minutes a)
Minutes of Meeting held July 18, 2018
Moved By: Seconded By:
Councillor Nossal Councillor Dewey
That the minutes of the Administrative Design Task Force meeting held July 18, 2018 be adopted. Carried 5.
Deputations and/or Presentations
Reports a)
Next Steps to Validate Potential Partnership and Co-location of Administrative Offices
Mr. Wood reviewed with the Task Force and guests, the work done to date as noted in his report. The emphasis now would be to validate the case for a shared facility or not as well as determine whether to further validate the initial concept in a next step. After discussion, there was consensus that in order to determine any validation, a dollar figure needs to be known. The key factors in determining whether this partnership(s) proceeds will be:
Location Total costs and potential cost savings Brand Identity Who’s in and who’s out
An initial informal quote for the cost for architectural fees for delineating 3 identities would be around $12,000; however it was suggested that an upset limit of $20,000 be provided. Mr. Wood’s report included a recommendation for approval to proceed with a joint budget to engage architectural and engineering expertise for a joint administrative building for each partner to take to their respective Board/Council in which a few minor Administrative Building Design Task Force Meeting Minutes August 13, 2018
Minutes of Meeting held August 13, 2018
Page 2 of 3
Page 4 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #a)
amendments were made, including amending the upset cost to $20,000 and that the reporting back deadline be extended to December. Whereas, on the basis of the partners’ initial discussions and high-level assessment of the potential for savings and other benefits by sharing administrative offices on a common site, Be It Resolved That that a combined budget of $20,000 be allocated to engage appropriate architectural and engineering expertise to confirm these assessments and provide a report by the end of December enabling the partners to make a final decision on pursuing a shared development project, or not. Costs of this assignment are to be shared equally among the participating partners. And Further That the scope of the assignment, including life cycle costs include:
- architectural/engineering analysis of the initial needs assessment,
- preliminary conceptual/schematic floor plans to meet partner needs,
- options for potential configuration of common spaces for best efficiencies,
- implications for parking, water & similar services, building code etc,
- potential options to preserve brand identities on shared site, and
- initial budget-level estimates for comparison with stand-alone options.
Communications
Other Business
Next Meeting
At the call of the Chair. 10.
Adjournment
Moved By: Seconded By:
Councillor Dewey Councillor Nossal
That the meeting hereby adjourn at 2:04 p.m. Carried
Administrative Building Design Task Force Meeting Minutes August 13, 2018
Minutes of Meeting held August 13, 2018
Page 3 of 3
Page 5 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #a)
Report 2019-028 Committee Information Report To:
Chair and Members of Administrative Building Design Task Force
From:
Kelly J. Pender, Chief Administrative Officer
Prepared by:
Jannette Amini, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk
Date of meeting:
February 20, 2019
Re:
Administrative Building Design Task Force – Background Report
Recommendation This report is for information purposes only to provide the new members of the Task Force with a brief overview of the work done by the Administrative Building Design Task Force to date. Background The Service Delivery and Organizational Review (SDOR) project completed by KPMG and approved by County Council in 2014, provided the following regarding the County administrative offices: “The physical work environment for the staff assigned to the Old House is not a professional office environment. Work stations are scattered throughout the various rooms of a residential house which results in a noisy and inefficient work environment.” This is one of the last outstanding items identified in the SDOR. Comment In March 2016, County Council was presented with Space Review Analysis reports 2016-030 followed by 2016-086 which provided Council with a range of options moving forward regarding the Corporate Offices and resulted in the establishment of the Administrative Building Design Task Force. The Task Force was mandated to
2019-028 Background Report
Page 6 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #a)
recommend the design team and to work with the architect to bring back design options/costing for Council consideration. In December, 2016, the Task Force met to receive a third Space Review Analysis Report 2016-137 where staff were asked to begin looking at two options, those being the full cost of a new building including the cost of having to maintain the Old House, and the cost of relocating Frontenac Paramedic Services (FPS) and refurbishing the Old House to accommodate Administrative Staff. The Task Force did not meet in 2017 as discussions began with the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) with respect to the construction of a potential joint administrative facility. As a result, in 2018 the Task Force met on several occasions, including joint meetings with the CRCA, and in April, 2018 met to discuss Site Selection Criteria and Priority Setting report 2018-058. In June and July, joint meetings with the CRCA were facilitated by Mr. Rob Wood, 8020 Info Inc. who provided a Discussion Guide regarding Site Criteria and Priority Setting. It was also indicated at this time that the Township of South Frontenac would be interested in being a third party if the location were to be in the Township of South Frontenac. In August of 2018, the Task Force had its final meeting of that term of Council which was again a joint meeting with the CRCA facilitated by Mr. Wood who took the Committee through its Next Steps to Validate Potential Partnership and Co-location of Administrative Offices. As a result, the County, the Township of South Frontenac and the CRCA agreed to the following resolution: Whereas, on the basis of the partners’ initial discussions and high-level assessment of the potential for savings and other benefits by sharing administrative offices on a common site, Be It Resolved That that a combined budget of $20,000 be allocated to engage appropriate architectural and engineering expertise to confirm these assessments and provide a report by the end of December enabling the partners to make a final decision on pursuing a shared development project, or not. Costs of this assignment are to be shared equally among the participating partners. And Further That the scope of the assignment, including life cycle costs include:
- architectural/engineering analysis of the initial needs assessment,
- preliminary conceptual/schematic floor plans to meet partner needs,
- options for potential configuration of common spaces for best efficiencies,
- implications for parking, water & similar services, building code etc,
- potential options to preserve brand identities on shared site, and
- initial budget-level estimates for comparison with stand-alone options. A report is being presented later in the meeting to review the Cost Summary Evaluation by Colbourne & Kembel, Architects.
Committee Information Report Administrative Building Design Task Force – Background Report February 20, 2019
2019-028 Background Report
Page 2 of 3
Page 7 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #a)
Sustainability Implications Depending upon options selected and the level of environmental considerations implemented, the overall greenhouse gas foot print of the County could be reduced as a result of this project, thereby assisting in meeting our GHG emission requirements. Financial Implications There are no financial considerations associated with this report. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected
Committee Information Report Administrative Building Design Task Force – Background Report February 20, 2019
2019-028 Background Report
Page 3 of 3
Page 8 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Report 2019-029 Council Recommend Information Report To:
Chair and Members
From:
Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer
Prepared by:
Kelly Pender, Chief Administrative Officer Jannette Amini, Manager of Legislative Services/Clerk Kevin Farrell, Manager of Continuous Improvement
Date of meeting:
February 20, 2019
Re:
Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Recommendation Whereas the Committee has reviewed the Shared Facility Analysis report prepared by Colbourne & Kembel Architects (CKA), Whereas, the CKA analysis confirms that the savings for the County of Frontenac, Township of South Frontenac and Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority are of sufficient magnitude to merit continued investigation of a joint facility, Be It Resolved That Council authorize the Administrative Building Design Task Force to participate in a joint meeting (or series of meetings) with the potential partners intended to address questions of ownership model, site selection and servicing, And Further That, the Committee Chair and Chief Administrative Officer report back to County Council on a regular basis prior to making a final recommendation to County Council. Background At the September 19, 2018 meeting of County Council, the following motion was approved by Council: Whereas, on the basis of the partners’ initial discussions and high-level assessment of the potential for savings and other benefits by sharing administrative offices on a common site,
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 9 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Be It Resolved That that a combined budget of $20,000 be allocated to engage appropriate architectural and engineering expertise to confirm these assessments and provide a report by the end of December enabling the partners to make a final decision on pursuing a shared development project, or not. Costs of this assignment are to be shared equally among the participating partners, And Further That the scope of the assignment, including life cycle costs include:
- architectural/engineering analysis of the initial needs assessment,
- preliminary conceptual/schematic floor plans to meet partner needs,
- options for potential configuration of common spaces for best efficiencies,
- implications for parking, water & similar services, building code etc,
- potential options to preserve brand identities on shared site, and
- initial budget-level estimates for comparison with stand-alone options. Appended is a copy of the Colbourne & Kembel, Architects Inc., Shared Facility Analysis (the “Analysis”) dated February 4, 2018. CKA has gained considerable experience designing multi-facetted at multi-agency buildings for clients including new construction and renovation of existing buildings. Comment The analysis completed by the architects provides a detailed summary of costs and space needs for the joint facility. The floor plans provided in the analysis are intended to illustrate the general space needs and potential relationships. The committee should expect that, should the project move forward, that considerable changes will likely be made based upon site needs and consultation. The analysis takes into account reasonable shared space assumptions, the building code, zoning considerations and water/waste water requirements. The assumption was also made that the new facility would be located in the Township of South Frontenac. As the project moves on, all these assumptions will be re-tested. Based upon this analysis, the following is provided by CKA as the primary benefits:
a reduction in land requirements from 9.85 Ac to 5.12 Ac (48% savings)
total floor area reduction from 30,357 ft2 to 26,367 ft2 (13% savings)
Reduced capital cost due to reduced land cost and reduced construction cost
Elimination of duplication in common site and building services (e.g. water, electrical, sanitary), and associated further cost savings.
Elimination of duplication in shareable site and building spaces (e.g. parking, meeting rooms, reception, mail room, copy room, IT services, lunch room, locker rooms), and associated further cost savings
Reduced Construction cost /ft2 to build one larger facility than 3 smaller facilities
[Recommend or Information] Report to Council Title of report Date of meeting
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 2 of 4
Page 10 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Reduced overall operating costs significant reduction in inactive time of meeting rooms and associated washrooms and parking spaces. If all three groups were to construct separate buildings, there would be a total of 4,950 ft 2 of meeting space, with a calculated total occupancy of 613 persons, along with all the associated washrooms and parking spaces required by this quantity. In the joint facility, with meeting rooms that satisfy the minimum stated needs of all users, there is a total of 2,903 ft2 of meeting space, with a total calculated occupancy of only 359 persons. These rooms themselves would cost LESS to construct, and the reduced requirements for washrooms and parking would further reduce construction and operating costs.
Housing these three sites in a common facility would allow for cooperation, collaboration, and team-building between these various governmental bodies with separate but overlapping areas of authority, governance, and expertise. Buildings have environmental impact two different ways – they create waste and greenhouse gases when the building is constructed, and they create waste and greenhouse gases when they are being operated and occupied. The design and use of one shared facility versus three individual facilities will reduce the environmental impact of all three user groups in both of these phases.
Additionally, having the user groups in a combined space adds flexibility and efficiency for future expansions. If one user group expands and another shrinks, there will be possibilities for space exchange with the existing building. And any additions or expansions to the building will similarly be able to be shared between user groups in a more efficient manner.
Lastly, having these three user groups located in one community hub will allow all groups to provide on-site integrated service delivery, and to develop each group’s image with the public. Any member of the public using the services of one group will automatically be made aware of the presence and location of the other two groups, and community members will be able to efficiently get the information they need from any or all groups at one location and with one visit.
The report also notes that there are disadvantages regarding compromises on site selection and identity. With respect to identity, the architects note that this is not an uncommon concern and one that they have successfully addressed in previous projects. Next Steps The purpose of the CKA analysis is to provide the Committee and Council with a sense of the potential savings that could be anticipated with a joint facility, based upon a reasonable set of circumstances. It is not intended to be a call for a commitment or a projection of final costs. Should the decision be made to proceed (and the other two partners also agree), the next step is proposed to be a facilitated joint meeting (or meetings) with the parties to begin to map out the next series of steps and answer fundamental questions such as ownership model, refining site selection and the selection process and servicing options. A “go/no go” decision would then be required prior to land purchase and detailed design. [Recommend or Information] Report to Council Title of report Date of meeting
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 3 of 4
Page 11 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Sustainability Implications The architects provided an analysis of the impact of LEED certification and notes an approximate 16 year pay back. There may be an opportunity to utilize innovative waste treatment solutions for a project of this scale that could reduce costs or make application for a grant attractive. Financial Implications Based upon the analysis and the assumptions contained in the report, the savings for a standard build could be expected to be $2.73M in capital costs and for a LEED certified building $3.28M, or approximately a 28% capital costs savings for each scenario. On the operating (O&M) cost side the annual savings for a standard building could be expected in the $108K range, while the annual O&M savings for a LEED certified facility could be approximately $81K. The O&M savings over a 30 year lifecycle for the building could be approximately $5.98M (standard) and $5.72M (LEED). The cost of the analysis report is approximately $14,000, split evenly by the three parties. There are no further financial implications at this point. Organizations, Departments and Individuals Consulted and/or Affected Todd Colborne, Architect, Colbourne & Kembel, Architects Inc TJ Kerr, Colbourne & Kembel, Architects Inc Geoff Rae, GM, Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority Wayne Orr, CAO, Township of South Frontenac
[Recommend or Information] Report to Council Title of report Date of meeting
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 4 of 4
Page 12 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CKA
SHARED FACILITY ANALYSIS
for
CRCA / County of Frontenac / Township of South Frontenac
February 4, 2019
COLBOURNE & KEMBEL, ARCHITECTS INC.
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 13 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA / County of Frontenac / Township of South Frontenac
Shared Facility Analysis February 4, 2018
Note to Reader: This analysis is based on basic space needs estimates provided by the users. No in-depth functional needs analysis has been completed at this point in the process. Refer to ‘Background & Assumptions’ paragraphs below. All floor plans and site plans have been created for cost comparison purposes only, and thus should not be considered concept designs or draft plans.
- INTRODUCTION 1.1. The Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority, County of Frontenac, and the Township of South Frontenac are discussing the possibility of constructing a joint facility, shared by all three groups, to serve as a base for the services offered by all three bodies. Colbourne & Kembel, Architects Inc (CKA) was retained by the Planning Group to complete conceptual plans and high-level cost analysis to inform the business case for moving forward. The designs and analysis below explore two options: Individual buildings for each group, and a shared facility for all three groups. The intent is to clarify what potential efficiencies can be realized by constructing and operating a shared building, including consideration of associated site and building services, as opposed to each group building and operating its own facility. 1.2. The three groups who are considering participation in this joint facility are: 1.2.1. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority (CRCA) – A provincially mandated water management agency that manages 11 watersheds in the region, spanning from Brockville to Adolphustown, and north as far as Newboro, the CRCA currently runs their operations out of the Little Cataraqui Creek Conservation Area, just north of Kingston, where they house more than 30 planners, engineers, foresters, biologists, education specialists, and administrative & operations staff. 1.2.2. County of Frontenac (CF) – The county encompasses almost 4,000 square kilometres, from Wolfe Island in the south, and northward as far as Black Donald Lake. It is made up of four municipalities: Central Frontenac, Frontenac Islands, North Frontenac, and South Frontenac. Its offices are currently located on Battersea Road in Glenburnie. 1.2.3. Township of South Frontenac (SF) – Located in Frontenac County, South Frontenac is an amalgamation of the former townships of Bedford, Loughborough, Portland, and Storrington. Their administrative offices are currently located on George Street in Sydenham. 1.3. The joint planning group provided CKA with a space allocation estimate from each user group, specifying required space for staff and the public (refer to Appendix C - Shared Facilities Concept Planning Session). In that estimate were included areas that could be considered ‘shareable’ in a joint facility scenario. In general, the spaces considered sharable in the client program are meeting rooms, reception, washrooms, showers / lockers, kitchen / lunch room, and mechanical room. Although not all user groups listed them as such, we would also consider the IT / server room and the mail / copier room as shareable and have shown these accordingly on our concept plans.
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 14 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
- BACKGROUND & ASSUMPTIONS 2.1. For the purposes of this analysis, we have assumed that all theoretical building sites will be of adequate size to fit all interior spaces on a single storey, and large enough to fit all required site work, including parking, fire access, and site services, including a septic system. Naturally, each concept is entirely hypothetical, and is being designed solely for costing purposes. For this reason, no architectural features or finishes that are only aesthetic are being shown or considered. This means that the resulting costing is base-line and more valid for comparison purposes. 2.2. For all occupancy-related assumptions, occupant loads have been calculated based on the following loads formulas that are stipulated by the OBC or the applicable by-laws: Meeting Rooms (A2 Occupancy) .75 m2/person (or 8.07 ft2/person) Office spaces (D Occupancy) for water closets 14 m2/person (or 151 ft2/person) 2.3. In reality, those spaces may well be designed with posted occupancy limits lower than the calculated values. However, for the sake of valid comparison, we have used the regulation formulas so that all figures are comparable. 2.4. For the load calculation of the office areas (D occupancy) we’ve used the staff count listed in the user’s space needs chart, plus 10 additional ‘visiting’ occupants, which would allow for increased occupancy for future growth, visiting clientele, summer students, interns, temporary staff, etc. 2.5. For the ‘dedicated’ floor space for each user group, we have used the estimates in the Space Allocation Estimates provided by each group, adjusted if necessary for space deemed ‘sharable’ in our joint facility. 2.6. For the calculation of the total area of meeting rooms required (A2 occupancy), we have used the areas on the conceptual floor plans, since the shared facility meeting room requirements are obviously based on meeting the needs of all users, and thus are based on a designed layout as opposed to hypothetical floor areas. 2.7. Similarly, for ‘shared’ or ‘shareable’ space we have used the areas drawn from the conceptual floor plans, since this area will more accurately reflect the efficiencies possible with the shared facility. 2.8. For purposes of consistency, it has been assumed that all concept buildings are in the Township of South Frontenac. Comprehensive Zoning By-Law Number 2003-75 has been used. 2.9. We are assuming the buildings would be on a lot zoned CF (Community Facility). It’s possible that they would be considered RC (Rural Commercial), but the lot size and road frontage requirements are the same for both of these zones, with only a slight difference in setback requirements. 2.10. We have calculated required parking using two different methods. For the comparative cost estimates, we have used the more stringent method. In reality, the numbers may be able to be reduced using lower posted occupancy limits, and by clarifying when full capacity may or may not occur. The two methods are: Assuming that the entire building is a government building, and falls under by-law paragraph 5.30.1.9, where one parking space is required for every 247.6 ft2 (23 m2) Assuming that the office space and 1/2 of the common space is a government building as above, and that the meeting space and 1/2 of the common space is a place of assembly and fall under by-law paragraph 5.30.1.13, where one parking space is required for every 3 people at maximum occupancy. This is the assumption we use in our estimates below.
2
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 15 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
2.11. The required area for a septic drainage bed varies widely depending on soil and drainage conditions of a specific site. For the purposes of comparison, we have used a hypothetical drainage bed from a project with a similar occupancy to the CRCA building, and we’ve adjusted the size proportionally for each concept. When an actual site is selected, the size of the drainage bed would need to be based on the actual site condition and could be quite different than the hypothetical. 2.12. Note that because the user-provided floor areas were provided in imperial units, our figures in this report are also imperial. Typically, we would use metric units. 3. FACILITY OPTIONS (refer to Appendix A - Floor Plans) 3.1. Separate Facilities for Each Organization 3.1.1. Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority 3.1.1.1. According to the estimates in the ‘Shared Facilities Concept Planning Guide’, the CRCA requires 6,830 ft2 of dedicated office space. This figure includes an IT Room and lockers/showers. In our analysis, we have deemed these as shareable spaces, so for our concept plan we have adjusted this to 4,805 ft2. Based on the concept floor plan for a stand-alone CRCA building, an additional 5,613 ft2 would be required for building services, corridors, meeting rooms, and other spaces which could be considered ‘shareable’ space. The meeting rooms total 1,950 ft2. The staff count comes to 34. 3.1.1.2. The building has a gross floor area of 10,418 ft2. For the concept plan, there is a calculated maximum occupant load of 292 persons for the calculation of water closets. For the calculation of parking spaces, we’ve assigned 7,473 ft2 as office space and 2,945 ft2 as assembly space. This means there will need to be: 5 water closets for males 7 water closets for females 151 standard parking spaces 3 barrier free parking spaces 3.1.2. County of Frontenac 3.1.2.1. According to the estimates in the ‘Shared Facilities Concept Planning Guide’, the County of Frontenac requires 4,374 ft2 of dedicated office space. Based on the concept floor plan for a stand-alone County of Frontenac building, an additional 3,961 ft2 would be required for building services, corridors, meeting rooms, and other spaces which could be considered ‘shareable’ space. The meeting rooms total 1,250 ft2. The staff count comes to 27. 3.1.2.2. The building has a gross floor area of 8,335 ft2. For the concept plan, there is a calculated maximum occupant load of 192 persons for the calculation of water closets. For the calculation of parking spaces, we’ve assigned 6,357 ft2 as office space and 1,978 ft2 as assembly space. This means there will need to be: 4 water closets for males 6 water closets for females 106 standard parking spaces 3 barrier free parking space 3.1.3. South Frontenac 3.1.3.1. According to the estimates in the ‘Shared Facilities Concept Planning Guide’, the Township of South Frontenac requires 6,495 ft2 of dedicated office space.
3
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 16 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
3.1.3.2.
Feb 4, 2019
This figure includes mail room/copier room/ lockers/showers. In our analysis, we have deemed these as sharable spaces, so for our concept plan we have adjusted this to 5,997 ft2. Based on the concept floor plan for a stand-alone South Frontenac building, an additional 5,607 ft2 would be required for building services, corridors, meeting rooms, and other spaces which could be considered ‘shareable’ space. The meeting rooms total 1,748 ft2. The staff count comes to 33. The building has a gross floor area of 11,604 ft2. For the concept plan, there is a calculated maximum occupant load of 259 persons for the calculation of water closets. For the calculation of parking spaces, we’ve assigned 8,866 ft2 as office space and 2,738 ft2 as assembly space. This means there will need to be: 5 water closets for males 7 water closets for females 148 standard parking spaces 3 barrier free parking space
3.2. Joint Facility 3.2.1. Since part of the goal of this analysis was to lay out conceptual plans for a joint facility, for our occupancy calculations on the shared facility we are using the areas from our concept plan. The total area of floor space dedicated to the user groups is 15,176 ft2. Based on the concept plan for a shared facility, an additional 11,191 ft2 of common, or ‘shared’ spaces would be required, including building services, corridors, meeting rooms, etc. The meeting rooms, which are configured to meet the needs of all user groups, total 2,903 ft2. The total staff count is 94. 3.2.2. The building has a gross floor area of 26,367 ft2 (2,450 m2). For the concept plan there is a calculated maximum occupant load of 422 persons for the calculation of water closets. For the calculation of parking spaces, we have assigned 21,860 ft2 as office space and 4,507 ft2 as assembly space. This means there will need to be: 7 water closets for males 10 water closets for females 274 standard parking spaces 4 barrier free parking spaces 4. BY-LAW ANALYSIS AND SITE AREA 4.1. For the purposes of this study, it has been assumed that all hypothetical sites will be in the Township of South Frontenac, and that Comprehensive Zoning By-Law No. 2003-75 will apply. In reality, the hypothetical individual buildings could be located in other jurisdictions, but overall this would not have a significant impact on the requirements or costs, and to simplify the comparison, we have based our analysis on one jurisdiction. 4.2. We have assumed that an appropriate lot can be found for each building within South Frontenac, and although by-law paragraph 5.17.1 allows that local government buildings can be built in any zone so long as they comply with the restrictions of that zone, our analysis is based on the restrictions of a CF Zone (Community Facility), as laid out in Section 29 of the by-law: Lot Area (Minimum) 8000 sq. metres (86,114 sq. ft.) Lot Frontage (Minimum) 76 metres (250 ft.) Front Yard (Minimum) 10 metres (32.8 ft.)
4
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 17 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
Rear Yard (Minimum) 10 metres (32.8 ft.) Interior Side Yard (Minimum) 7.5 metres (24.6 ft.) Exterior Side Yard (Minimum) 10 metres (32.8 ft.) Lot Coverage (Maximum) 40 percent Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 5.30.
- Ontario Building Code (OBC) ANALYSIS 5.1. As stated earlier, we have assumed the site for each of the concept buildings will be of sufficient size to allow for a one-storey building. For every building, the selection of which OBC building conformance article to design to is based on site and design specific criteria. Factors that influence the decision and impact the required design include Occupancy Classification, building area, # of storeys, # of streets (or on-site access lanes) facing, combustible or noncombustible, and sprinklered or not. 5.2. If the selected site is on municipal water service, then providing a sprinkler and/or standpipe system is easier and less costly than if the site relies on a well for water supply. Since the only area in Frontenac County that has municipal water is the village of Sydenham, it is appropriate to consider that this building may be on a rural site with well water supply. 5.3. In terms of occupancy, all three User Groups are a Group D (offices) occupancy, however the inclusion of public meeting space above and beyond meeting space for occupants means that this becomes an A2 (Assembly) occupancy. If the building is designed to avoid a sprinkler system, the applicable Conformance Article would therefore be 3.2.2.25. 5.4. For all three of the individual buildings, the building area is small enough that under 3.2.2.25 they can face just one street, be non-sprinklered, and be of either combustible or noncombustible construction. 5.5. For the Joint Facility, the estimated building area of 2,450 m2 slightly exceeds the maximum permitted area under 3.2.2.25, even assuming it faces 3 streets. However, there are various options in the subsequent design stage to resolve this issue, including sprinkler the building if it lies in the serviced area of Sydenham (and use a different conformance article), reduce the building area slightly to be under 2,400 m2 (but this then leaves no flexibility for future additions unless they are separate ‘buildings’), or divide the ‘building’ in to two ‘buildings’ with a firewall. 5.6. If the building is not sprinklered, then depending on its location, fire department response time and availability of nearby fire department accessible water supply, there may be the need to include a fire tank on-site.
- COST ESTIMATES (refer to Appendix B - Cost Estimates) 6.1. Initial Costs (site & construction) 6.1.1.Separate Facilities: If each user group were to purchase their own site and construct a stand-alone facility using standard commercial-grade construction materials, the total sum cost would be approximately $9.9 M. 6.1.2.Joint Facility: A shared site and facility that housed all three user groups constructed using standard commercial-grade construction materials would cost approximately $7.2 M, for a savings of $2.7 M. 6.1.3. Environmental Sustainability: If an energy efficiency certification system (see 6.3.1 below) is utilized in the design and construction of stand-alone buildings, the total sum cost would be approximately $11.9 M (based on a rough up-charge of 20% for high energy efficiency design and construction, including consulting fees for certification). If the same 5
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 18 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
system was utilized in the design and construction of a joint facility, the cost would be approximately $8.6 M, for a savings of $3.3 M compared to three stand-alone sites. 6.2. Operating Costs 6.2.1. Separate Facilities: Using rough estimates of the cost to run and maintain these hypothetical buildings, we estimate that the sum total annual cost to operate three standalone facilities of standard commercial-grade construction would be approximately $455 K. 6.2.2. Joint Facility: The annual cost to operate and maintain one site and building that houses all three groups in a building of standard commercial-grade construction would be approximately $345 K, for savings of $110 K per year compared to three stand-alone sites. 6.2.3. Environmental Sustainability: If an energy efficiency certification system (see 6.3.1 below) was utilized in the design and construction of stand-alone buildings, the total sum annual cost to operate and maintain the three sites would be approximately $340 K (based on a rough savings of 25% in maintenance & operating costs). If the same system was utilized in the joint facility, the annual operating and maintenance cost would be approximately $260 K, providing an annual savings of approximately $80 K compared to three stand-alone sites. Note that the savings realized by a certified energy efficient joint facility are less than those realized by a non-certified facility because the overall operating costs are lower. The life cycle costs are lowest in a certified joint facility, as illustrated in the attached life cycle cost spreadsheet. 6.3. Life Cycle Cost Analysis: 6.3.1.There are several recognized certification systems used in Canada to quantify and designate the design and construction of buildings as environmentally sustainable and responsible. The most widely recognized of these would be ‘Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design’ (LEED), but there is also the ‘Zero Carbon Building Initiative’ (aka Net Zero, or Carbon Neutral), ‘Passive House’, and ‘Green Globes’. All of these systems have their pros and cons, but each of them in their own way promotes and recognizes building owners and designers for constructing a structure that responds to the global crisis of our times by investing in methods, materials and technologies that reduce or eliminate the carbon footprint of a construction project. ‘Zero Carbon’, operated by the Canadian Green Building Council, is currently considered the best practice certification system in Canada. 6.3.2.Using a standard 30-year study period, the attached spreadsheet calculates a simple linear life cycle projection of a certified high-efficiency building (as per Zero Carbon, LEED, or other energy efficiency certification system) versus a non-certified facility. Note that the analysis does not include projected capital costs, financing costs, residual costs, or discount rates. This is simply an annualized operating cost projection to illustrate the longterm benefits of employing an energy efficiency certification system in the design and construction of a new building. 6.3.3. Although the initial cost of a high-efficiency building is higher, the utility costs (due to efficient energy and water uses) and maintenance costs (due to higher-quality and more durable finishes and materials) are lower. Additionally, user comfort and air quality both contribute to lower absenteeism and lower health care costs (these are difficult to include in a life cycle analysis, but financially benefit the owners of a building nevertheless). 6.3.4. Our analysis shows a payback period for a high-efficiency facility at approximately 16 years. Over the 30-year life cycle, a total savings of approximately $1.17 M could be realized from a facility designed to a high level of energy efficiency. 6
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 19 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
Standard construction
$20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $-
Initial Cost Year 2 Year 4 Year 6 Year 8 Year 10 Year 12 Year 14 Year 16 Year 18 Year 20 Year 22 Year 24 Year 26 Year 28 Year 30
High-Efficiency Construction
CUMULATIVE COST
PAYBACK FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT FACILITY
- SUMMARY 7.1. Advantages of a Shared Facility: 7.1.1. A shared facility has both reduced site area and building area. Total Site Area for 3 Separate Sites: Shared Facility Site Area: % Savings:
9.85 Ac 5.12 Ac 48 %
Total Building Area for 3 Separate Sites: Shared Facility Building Area: % Savings:
30,357 ft2 26,367 ft2 13 %
7.1.2. Reduced capital cost due to reduced land cost and reduced construction cost. 7.1.3. Elimination of duplication in common site and building services (e.g. water, electrical, sanitary), and associated further cost savings. 7.1.4. Elimination of duplication in shareable site and building spaces (e.g. parking, meeting rooms, reception, mail room, copy room, IT services, lunch room, locker rooms), and associated further cost savings. 7.1.5. Reduced Construction cost /ft2 to build one larger facility than 3 smaller facilities. 7.1.6. Reduced overall operating costs. 7.1.7. Significant reduction in inactive time of meeting rooms and associated washrooms and parking spaces. If all three groups were to construct separate buildings, there would be a total of 4,950 ft2 of meeting space, with a calculated total occupancy of 613 persons, along with all the associated washrooms and parking spaces required by this quantity. In the joint facility, with meeting rooms that satisfy the minimum stated needs of all users, there is a total of 2,903 ft2 of meeting space, with a total calculated occupancy of only 359 persons. These rooms themselves would cost LESS to construct, and the reduced requirements for washrooms and parking would further reduce construction and operating costs. 7
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 20 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
7.1.8. Housing these three sites in a common facility would allow for cooperation, collaboration, and team-building between these various governmental bodies with separate but overlapping areas of authority, governance, and expertise. 7.1.9. Buildings have environmental impact two different ways – they create waste and greenhouse gases when the building is constructed, and they create waste and greenhouse gases when they are being operated and occupied. The design and use of one shared facility versus three individual facilities will reduce the environmental impact of all three user groups in both of these phases. 7.1.10. Additionally, having the user groups in a combined space adds flexibility and efficiency for future expansions. If one user group expands and another shrinks, there will be possibilities for space exchange with the existing building. And any additions or expansions to the building will similarly be able to be shared between user groups in a more efficient manner. 7.1.11. Lastly, having these three user groups located in one community hub will allow all groups to provide on-site integrated service delivery, and to develop each group’s image with the public. Any member of the public using the services of one group will automatically be made aware of the presence and location of the other two groups, and community members will be able to efficiently get the information they need from any or all groups at one location and with one visit. 7.2. Disadvantages of a Shared Facility: 7.2.1. Locating all three user groups on one site forces each group to compromise on their ideal location. For instance, the CRCA is currently housed at the Little Cataraqui Conservation Area. A joint facility would likely be located some distance from any of the CRCA properties. Similarly, either of the other groups may end up having to locate somewhere distant from what they would consider their ideal location. Fortunately, all three user groups do have overlapping jurisdictions. The Township of South Frontenac is within Frontenac County, which is mostly within the Cataraqui Region Conservation Authority. Ideally, a location for a joint facility will be able to be positioned reasonably central to all three regions. 7.2.2. Having all three user groups in one building may present some challenges regarding the branding and identity of each group, as the groups may blur in the mind of users that are only going to one building for all services. With good architectural design, distinct branding between user groups housed within a common building can be maintained and even enhanced. CKA has done this on previous projects. Additionally, the incidental exposure to the other two groups when a user visits one group means that public awareness of all three groups increases, which can only improve the delivery of services.
8
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 21 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
- RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1. Based on the projected capital cost savings, operating cost savings, life cycle cost savings, reduced environmental impact, and operational synergies, it is our recommendation that development of a joint facility be pursued. 8.2. Furthermore, due to its central location within the user groups’ boundaries, and the fact that it is the only community within Frontenac County with municipal water service, we recommend that users acquire a roughly 5.0 Acre site somewhere in or adjacent to the water-serviced area of Sydenham, Ontario. 8.3. Lastly, CKA would recommend that an energy-efficiency certification be pursued for the project, ideally the ‘Zero Carbon Building Initiative’ recognition discussed above. Government projects act as a role model and standard for private construction projects of all sizes – the only way to encourage Canadians to build responsibly is for governments to take the lead, and the construction of high-profile carbon neutral project such as this would be a great opportunity to demonstrate Leadership. 8.4. CKA would be pleased to assist in defining required site parameters and assisting in a site options analysis and property acquisition process.
9
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 22 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
Appendix A Hypothetical Floor Plans
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 23 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
HYPOTHETICAL SEPTIC FIELD
SITE AREA STANDARD PARKING SPACES BARRIER-FREE PARKING SPACES
156,600 FT2 (3.6 ACRES) 151 3
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS REQUIRED ON ONE SIDE ONLY. PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
CRCA STAND-ALONE SITE
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
1 :N.T.S. 750
CLIENT
DATE 1.29.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
DWG. No.
REVISED
Page 24 of 44
SK-1
AGENDA ITEM #b)
MECH 300 ft²
CRCA DEDICATED 4,805 ft2
IT/SERVER 300 ft² SM MEET 120 ft²
SHOWERS/ LOCKERS 247 ft²
BF W/R 97 ft²
KITCHEN / LUNCH 450 ft²
MED MEETING 200 ft²
RECEP 100 ft²
MENS W/R 198 ft²
SM MEET 130 ft²
LARGE MEETING 1500 ft²
WOMENS W/R 252 ft²
BUILDING AREA = 10,418 ft2
PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
CRCA STAND-ALONE BUILDING
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
- 1N.T.S
- 300
CLIENT
DATE 1.29.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
DWG. No.
REVISED
Page 25 of 44
SK-2
AGENDA ITEM #b)
HYPOTHETICAL SEPTIC FIELD
SITE AREA STANDARD PARKING SPACES BARRIER-FREE PARKING SPACES
116,000 FT2 (2.7 ACRES) 106 3
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS REQUIRED ON ONE SIDE ONLY.
PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
FRONTENAC COUNTY STAND-ALONE SITE
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
1 :N.T.S. 750
CLIENT
DATE 01.29.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
DWG. No.
REVISED
Page 26 of 44
SK-3
AGENDA ITEM #b)
FC DEDICATED 4,374 ft2 MECH 150 ft²
IT/SERVER 200 ft² SM MEET 150 ft²
WOMENS W/R 202 ft² MENS W/R 172 ft²
MED MEETING 300 ft²
LARGE MEETING 800 ft²
LUNCH/ KITCHEN 400 ft² RECPT/ LOBBY 252 ft²
BF W/R 88 ft²
BUILDING AREA = 8,335 ft2
PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
FRONTENAC COUNTY STAND-ALONE BUILDING
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
- 1N.T.S
- 300
CLIENT
DATE 01.29.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
DWG. No.
REVISED
Page 27 of 44
SK-4
AGENDA ITEM #b)
HYPOTHETICAL SEPTIC FIELD
SITE AREA STANDARD PARKING SPACES BARRIER-FREE PARKING SPACES
156,400 FT2 (3.6 ACRES) 148 3
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS REQUIRED ON ONE SIDE ONLY. PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
SOUTH FRONTENAC STAND-ALONE SITE
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
- 1 N.T.S.
- 750
CLIENT
DATE 1.29.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
DWG. No.
REVISED
Page 28 of 44
SK-5
AGENDA ITEM #b)
MECH 321 ft²
SF DEDICATED 5,997 ft2
IT / SERVER 230 ft²
SM MEET 170 ft²
BF W/R 86 ft²
SHOWERS
SM MEET 190 ft² MED MEETING & SERVERY 408 ft²
KITCHEN / LUNCH 600 ft²
WAIT 143 ft²
LARGE MEETING 980 ft²
MALE W/R FEMALE W/R 210 ft² 262 ft² RECEPT 100 ft²
BUILDING AREA = 11,604 ft2
PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
SOUTH FRONTENAC STAND-ALONE BUILDING
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
- 1N.T.S
- 300
CLIENT
DATE 1.29.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
DWG. No.
REVISED
Page 29 of 44
SK-6
AGENDA ITEM #b)
HYPOTHETICAL SEPTIC FIELD
SITE AREA STANDARD PARKING SPACES BARRIER-FREE PARKING SPACES
223,200 FT2 (5.1 ACRES) 274 4
FIRE TRUCK ACCESS REQUIRED ON THREE SIDES. PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
SHARED SITE
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
- 1N.T.S.
- 800
CLIENT
DATE 01.22.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
DWG. No.
REVISED
Page 30 of 44
SK-7
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA SOUTH FRONTENAC FRONTENAC TOTAL = SHARED BUILDING AREA = DIFFERENCE =
STAND-ALONE BUILDING AREA 10,418 ft2 11,604 ft2 8,335 ft2 30,357 ft2 26,367 ft2 3,990 ft2
CRCA DEDICATED 4,805 ft2
MECH 475 ft²
SHOWERS/ LOCKERS 476 ft² STAFF W/R’s 173 ft²
IT 400 ft²
KITCHEN / LUNCH 750 ft²
BF W/R 104 ft²
SM MEET 168 ft² SM MEETSM MEET 168 ft² 169 ft² JAN.
MAIL / COPY 400 ft²
FEMALE W/R 240 ft²
FC DEDICATED 4,374 ft2
MALE W/R 132 ft²
MED. MEET 408 ft²
LARGE MEET. RM. 1500 ft²
RECEPT. 252 ft²
SERVICE COUNTER
SF DEDICATED 5,997 ft2
MED. MEET. 490 ft²
BUILDING AREA = 26,367 ft2
PROJECT
No.
18091
DRAWING
CRCA / FRONTENAC / SOUTH FRONTENAC ANALYSIS
SHARED BUILDING
LOCATION
SCALE
Project Address:
- 1N.T.S
- 300
CLIENT
DATE 01.22.2019
CRCA/FC/SF
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
DWG. No.
REVISED
Page 31 of 44
SK-8
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
Appendix B Cost Estimates & Life Cycle Cost Analysis
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 32 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Feasibility Study for Shared Building - CRCA, Frontenac County, South Frontenac Township Class D Cost Estimate Area CRCA Concept Building Site Purchase Building Site Construction Development Costs Consultant Costs Total Cost Including upcharge for LEED certification
Cost/unit
Cost
3.6 acres 10,418 ft²
$ 50,000 $ 240
180,000 2,500,320 400,000 50,000 250,000 3,380,320 4,056,384
2.7 acres 8,335 ft²
$ 50,000 $ 250
135,000 2,083,750 350,000 50,000 225,000 2,843,750 3,412,500
3.6 acres 11,604 ft²
$ 50,000 $ 240
$ $ $ $ $ $ 20% $
180,000 2,784,960 400,000 50,000 250,000 3,664,960 4,397,952
$ 20% $
9,889,030 11,866,836
County of Frontenace Concept Building Site Purchase Building Site Construction Development Costs Consultant Costs Total Cost Including upcharge for LEED certification Township of South Frontenac Concept Building Site Purchase Building Site Construction Development Costs Consultant Costs Total Cost Including upcharge for LEED certification
Unit
Sum of Total Cost for 3 separate bldgs (excl. LEED) Sum of Total Cost for 3 separate bldgs (incl. LEED) Shared Facility Concept Building Site Purchase 5.1 acres Building 26,367 ft² Site Construction Development Costs Consultant Costs Total Cost Including upcharge for LEED certification Approx. capital savings for shared facility excl. LEED Approx. capital savings for shared facility incl. LEED
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
$ $ $ $ $ $ 20% $
$ $ $ $ $ $ 20% $
$ 50,000 $ 220
$ $ $ $ $ $ 20% $ $ $
255,000 5,800,740 600,000 50,000 450,000 7,155,740 8,586,888 2,733,290 3,279,948
28% 28%
Page 33 of 44
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
ANNUAL OPERATING COST ESTIMATES
LIFE CYCLE COSTING ANALYSIS
Annual O&M Cost
Estimated Annual Savings if Operating LEED Cost (LEED)
13 $ 135,434 $ 20,000 $ 155,434
25% $ 116,576
30 $ 4,663,020 $ 3,497,265 $ 1,165,755 $
3,380,320 $ 4,056,384 $ 8,043,340 $ 7,553,649 $
489,691
13 $ 108,355 $ 20,000 $ 128,355
25% $ 96,266
30 $ 3,850,650 $ 2,887,988 $
962,663 $
2,843,750 $ 3,412,500 $ 6,694,400 $ 6,300,488 $
393,913
13 $ 150,852 $ 20,000 $ 170,852
25% $ 128,139
30 $ 5,125,560 $ 3,844,170 $ 1,281,390 $
3,664,960 $ 4,397,952 $ 8,790,520 $ 8,242,122 $
548,398
$ 454,641
$ 340,981
$
12 $ 316,404 $ 30,000 $ 346,404 Approx. operating cost savings for shared facility $ 108,237
25% $ 259,803 $ 81,178
Area CRCA Concept Building Building Site
Cost/ft²
10,418 $
County of Frontenace Concept Building Building 8,335 $ Site
Township of South Frontenac Concept Building Building 11,604 $ Site
Three separate buildings: Total
Period (Years)
Lifecycle Lifecycle Operating Operating Cost Cost (LEED)
Lifecycle Savings (LEED)
Initial Cost
Initial Cost (LEED)
Lifecycle Cost Lifecycle Cost (LEED)
Lifecycle Cost Savings if LEED
9,889,030 $ 11,866,836 $ 23,528,260 $ 22,096,259 $ 1,432,002
Shared Facility Concept Building Building 26,367 $ Site
30 $ 10,392,120 $ 7,794,090 $ 2,598,030 $ 7,155,740 $ 8,586,888 $ 17,547,860 $ 16,380,978 $ 1,166,882 Approx. Lifecycle cost savings for shared facility $ 5,980,400 $ 5,715,281
Note: This life cycle analysis is a simple annualized operating cost projection, and doesn’t include projected capital costs (e.g. Roof replacements), financing costs, residual values or discount rates to compensate for inflation. This is simply a linear comparison of LEED (or other high-efficiency benchmark) and non-LEED construction and operating costs.
AGENDA ITEM #b)
Page 34 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA/Frontenac/South Frontenac Shared Facility Analysis
Feb 4, 2019
Appendix C Shared Facilities Concept Planning Session
12
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 35 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 1 of 9
Shared Facilities Concept Planning Session: August 13th, 2018 Noon, Mon. August 13
Location: Frontenac County Offices - Frontenac Room
Facilitator: Rob Wood
Discussion Guide: Our goal for this session will be to confirm whether or not the CRCA and County of Frontenac (and/or South Frontenac Township) wish to pursue next steps to validate the potential for a partnership and co-location of administrative offices at a shared site. Informal Mixing Time / Lunch Provided
Noon 12:30 pm
Welcome and Overview of the Session
12:40 pm
Decision Point: Validate the Case for Shared Facilities, or Not? ▪
Review identified space requirements and potential efficiencies (pg 5).
▪
Review “downstream” issues to be set aside for now (shared services, site).
▪
Determine whether to further validate the initial concept in a next step, or not, and if so, to confirm what work-up might be required for partners to make their final, individual “in/out” decisions on a project — for example: — — — — — —
architectural/engineering analysis of the initial needs assessment, preliminary conceptual/schematic floor plan based on partner needs, potential configurations of common space for best efficiencies, requirements for parking, water & similar services, building code etc, potential options to preserve brand identities on shared site, and initial budget-level estimates for comparison with stand-alone options.
▪
Confirm specific partnerships & sharing options for further analysis (pg 2).
▪
Confirm general search area/boundaries for any potential shared sites (pg 3).
▪
Review/confirm the timelines applicable to any potential shared options.
2:10 pm
Break
2:30 pm
Time Reserved for Further Discussion (as required)
3:15 pm
▪
Determine immediate next steps and timelines for decisions
▪
Communications and process tasks
Wrap-up/Next Steps & Takeaways
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 36 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 2 of 9
Highlights from Partner Meetings Since June 27th, 2018: Following the joint meeting held June 27th, the partners each held their own planning sessions to consider their positions on the shared administrative office option. These notes highlight some of the more significant outcomes.
Clarification of the Decision Framework: •
Each partner plans to compare the costs and benefits for a shared option against their own stand-alone options, which vary from partner to partner.
•
A significant potential (and credible) benefit will be needed to justify the trade-offs involved in sharing. For example, one suggested criteria was that a shared option should offer savings of 15% or more vs. going alone.
•
Non-financial concerns and brand/identity desires emerged more strongly as factors in any final decision.
•
The Township of South Frontenac has since indicated its potential interest in a shared facility and has engaged in the process. Some see the two municipalities as having a natural functional and brand fit on a shared site. Township participation is predicated on a location in South Frontenac.
•
Critical timelines for proceeding with either shared or stand-alone options vary from partner to partner. The process may require joint agreement on a “fish or cut bait” deadline, perhaps shortly after year end, for commitment decisions on whether to proceed together or not.
Process concerns: •
One concern was expressed about the potential risk of a partner bailing on a sharing deal part-way through the process, and how to manage that risk.
•
Resolutions will be needed from councils.
Current shortlist of options to be explored: •
County and CRCA
•
Three-way (CRCA, County and South Frontenac)
•
CRCA alone and County with South Frontenac
•
All three go on their own.
Even if the idea of a shared option goes no further, the current process needs to demonstrate due diligence and be able to explain a “no-go” for a joint project.
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 37 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 3 of 9
Functional space and other site/building requirements: •
Partners expressed desire for closer scrutiny of how much space (and cost) would really be saved by sharing a facility.
•
Further analysis of site requirements will also be needed, related to — parking lot and service/amenity needs, — impact on site services if a three-way/90-staff building is pursued, and — implications for “customer” or “user” traffic.
A shared site is not critical to opportunities for shared services: •
Consensus seemed to emerge that options for sharing services (such as backoffice functions) are not that dependent on sharing a site/facility. Some services are shared now and others could be in future, either way.
•
Some expressed scepticism about hard cost savings on services (although there may be potential for service quality improvements, ease of staffing, and/or better management of risk and future growth in costs).
•
It is probably premature and would complicate matters at this stage to enter into discussions with community agencies or other potential tenants who would not be full partners in developing the project.
Area of search / parameters for potential location of a shared site: The question of how many and which partners are willing to pursue a shared option must be resolved before more specific criteria for a site search can be determined. Location preferences, site size, building size and service requirements, brand implications and other strategic considerations will all depend on the priorities of the particular partners involved. In discussions with all parties to date, however, the boundaries of a potential area of search have been narrowed to: •
North of 401, south of Rutledge Road, east of Hwy 38 and west of Hwy10
•
South Frontenac (Harrowsmith, Inverary, Sydenham)
•
North part of Kingston close to the 401
Proximity to natural or other assets, services and infrastructure will no doubt be factors in selection of any final site. Information from studies currently under way, such as the Frontenac Communal Services Study expected later this year, may also inform or influence site selection options.
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 38 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 4 of 9
Budget estimates / options for capital and lifecycle costs:
•
There is continuing interest in design/build/lease options (if possible/available).
•
Partner options must take into account the costs of renovation and/or disposition of current assets. There may also be financial opportunity costs (e.g. other projects need investment).
•
Different financing options and costs depend on the partners involved.
•
A timeline for proposed building/financing etc should be 20 years (leases <21).
•
A growth factor of 2.5% per year has been built into estimates.
Timelines/milestones: •
Proposed timelines seem acceptable: — 2018: work through agreement in principle (“pre-nuptial”) by early fall — 2019: sort out the financing arrangements / budget issues — 2020: complete the design work — 2021: start the construction build, for completion perhaps in 2022
•
Any delays in moving forward will probably mean increased construction costs.
•
It will be necessary to accommodate the municipal election cycle in October and new councils taking office thereafter.
Next Step: Proposal for Decision/Direction THAT, on the basis of the partners’ initial discussions and high-level assessment of the potential for savings and other benefits by sharing administrative offices on a common site, IT IS RECOMMENDED that a budget of $12,000 be allocated to engage appropriate architectural and engineering expertise to confirm these assessments and provide a report by the end of October enabling the partners to make a final decision on pursuing a shared development project, or not. Costs of this assignment are to be shared equally among the partners. Scope of the assignment is to include: — — — — — —
architectural/engineering analysis of the initial needs assessment, preliminary conceptual/schematic floor plans to meet partner needs, options for potential configuration of common spaces for best efficiencies, implications for parking, water & similar services, building code etc, potential options to preserve brand identities on shared site, and initial budget-level estimates for comparison with stand-alone options.
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 39 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 5 of 9
Comparison of Space Needs and Potential for Sharing A follow-up task assigned at the June 27th joint meeting was to confirm initial estimates of space requirements for each partner (figures below now include South Frontenac), and to identify spaces that could be shared and might be further explored for potential space savings in a shared facility. The summary below provides highlights. (Note: Areas are estimated in square feet, with a 35% gross up to cover full space requirements beyond core functional needs.)
Frontenac County
CRCA
South Frontenac
DEDICATED SPACE
DEDICATED SPACE
DEDICATED SPACE
AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR SHARING IN WHOLE OR PART
Estimates of Sq. Ft. Required
FC
CRCA
SF
Total
Dedicated: Potential Shareable:
4,374 3,842
6,830 3,729
6,495 5,391 .
17,699 12,962
TOTAL REQ’T:
8,216
10,559
11,886
30,661
[58%] [42%]
Spaces identified for potential sharing include reception, storage and IT/server areas and meeting spaces. The major functional uses for potential sharing include: •
Council Chambers/Large Meeting Room (4,833 sq. feet total used by three)
•
Lunchrooms and Kitchens (2,103 sq. feet total currently for 3 partners)
•
Public & Staff Washrooms (2,160 sq. feet total currently for 3 partners)
Note: The potential for space reductions would vary upon levels of shared use.
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 40 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 6 of 9
Frontenac County Space Allocation Estimate Gross Up Pct:
Position
Space Need (sq. ft.)
35% Space Need Gross Up (sq.ft.)
Functional Group
Open/ Private
Comments
Communications Officer Exec Assistant Receptionist Foyer/Reception Area Finance Clerk A/P Finance Clerk A/P Payroll Clerk - 1 Payroll Clerk - 2 Financial Analyst Flex Workspace (4) GIS Specialist Service Desk Analyst Desk Top Space for I.S. Community Planner Comm Dev. Officer Director of Corp Srv/Treasurer Mgr of Leg Srv/Clerk Chief Administrative Officer Storage Space Deputy Treasurer Occ Health Nurse Mgr of HR HR Generalist Network Administrator Mgr of I.S.
96 96 96 150 96 96 96 96 96 384 120 96 96 96 96 200 120 200 144 120 120 144 96 120 120
130 130 130 203 130 130 130 130 130 518 162 130 130 130 130 270 162 270 194 162 162 194 130 162 162
C.S. C.S. C.S. C.S. Finance Finance Finance Finance Finance Flex I.S. I.S. I.S. Pl & Ec Dev Pl & Ec Dev C.S. C.S. C.S. C.S. Finance HR/Occ H HR/Occ H HR/Occ H I.S. I.S.
Open Open Open Open Open Open Private Private Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private
Access to public required Confidentiality concerns - secure area/Adj. to CAO Needs to be near foyer - security concerns Seating for 4 to 6 Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Students, Interns, mobile office, quiet lounge Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Workbench area Access to public required Access to public required Confidentiality concerns - secure area Ideally close to Lg Meeting Room Ideally close to Lg Meeting Room Maybe two spaces Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - easy access for staff Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area Confidentiality concerns - secure area
Server Room Mechanical Meeting Room Sm Meeting Room Med Meeting Room Lg/Council Ch Mgr of Ec Dev Dir of Pl & Ec Dev Accessible Washrooms Copy Room Kitchen Lunch Room Total
200 150 150 300 800 96 200 400 200 200 200 6086
270 203 203 405 1080 130 270 540 270 270 270 8216
I.S. Mech Meeting Meeting Meeting Pl & Ec Dev Pl & Ec Dev Washroom I.S. Staff Staff
Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private Private
Maybe two spaces Secure area Generally staff use Access to public required Access to public required Access to public required Access to public required Assumes same as Fairmount Auditorium Noisy space Ideally close to Lg Meeting Room
Potential Sharable
2846
3842
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 41 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 7 of 9
South Frontenac Space Allocation Estimate Gross Up Pct: Space Need (sq. ft.)
Position CAO Executive Assistant Clerk Mayor VAULT storage
35% Space Need Gross Up (sq.ft.) Room Type
Public
150 100 120 120 120 120
203 135 162 162 162 162
OFFICE PRIVATE OFFICE OFFICE STORAGE STORAGE
a a
980
1323
MEETING
public
300 108
405 146
MEETING KITCHEN
public public
Treasurer Deputy Treasurer Accounting Clerk Payroll Clerk Treasury Clerk Treasury Clerk HR Officer Student IT specialist IT WORKSPACE Roll Files Front Counter storage
120 120 100 100 100 100 120 100 100 100 144 200 144
162 162 135 135 135 135 162 135 135 135 194 270 194
OFFICE OFFICE OPEN PRIVATE OPEN OPEN OFFICE OPEN OPEN OPEN STORAGE OPEN STORAGE
Director of Development Services Planner Planning Assistant GIS Specialist Building Admin Assistant Chief building Official Building Inpsector Building Inspector Student Roll Files Counter service
120 120 100 100 100 120 100 100 100 144 200
162 162 135 135 135 162 135 135 135 194 270
OFFICE OFFICE PRIVATE OPEN OPEN OFFICE OPEN OPEN OPEN STORAGE OPEN
Intake room / meeting for 8 Intake room / meeting for 8 Reception / waiting area for 6 Receptionist Washrooms for public mail/copier/office supplies
168 168 144 100 600 144
227 227 194 135 810 194
MEETING MEETING OPEN OPEN WASH OPEN
Kitchen and lunch room Washrooms for staff lockers and showers
600 600 225
810 810 304
KITCHEN WASH WASH
IT Server Room
225
304
IT
Growth: 3 offices Growth: 5 staff
360 500 8804
486 675 11885
Council Chamber / meeting room for (9 council, 5 staff, 40 public) Council Recess Room for ( 9 council and 5 staff) Servery
Total Potential Sharable
3993
b b
a
b
public public public public
b
5391
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 42 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 8 of 9
Admin, ODC, Maint Subtotal
CRCA Basic Space Needs
Admin, ODC, Maint Subtotal
Admin, Maint
Office Dimensions
Open/C losed Area (Ft2)
10x15
C
150
203
150
150
Assistant, Chair & General Manager
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
Receptionist/Clerk
10x10
O
100
135
100
100
General Manager
Grossed up - 35% Area (Ft2) Area (Ft2)
Admin
350 Manager, Corporate Services
473
Area (Ft2)
350
350
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
GIS Analyst
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Applicaton Support Analyst
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Student
6x6
O
36
49
36
36
Supervisor, Finance
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
Financial Analyst
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Student
6x6
O
36
49
36
36
Supervisor, Communication & Education
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
Coordinator, Communications
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Coordinator, Strategic Partnerships
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Senior Conservation Educator
8x9
O
72
97
Conservation Educator
8x9
O
72
97
Conservation Educator
8x9
O
72
97
Student
6x6
O
36
Supervisor, Information Technology
1084 Manager, Conservation Lands
49 1463
36 868
10x10
C
100
135
100
10x10
C
100
135
100
Coordinator, Forestry
8x9
O
72
97
72
Coordinator, Operations & Enforcement
8x9
O
72
97
72
Conservation Operations
6x6
O
36
49
36
Conservation Operations
6x6
O
36
49
36
Coordinator, Operations Planning
8x9
O
72
97
72
Coordinator, Mac Johnson Wildlife Area
8x9
O
72
97
72
Coordinator, Little Cataraqui Creek
8x9
O
72
97
Student
6x6
O
36
Supervisor, Operations & Maintenance
668
49 902
36 868
36 596
100
72
36 208
Manager, Watershed Planning & Engineering
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
Supervisor, Development Review
10x10
C
100
135
100
100
Resource Planner
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Resource Planner
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Development Officer
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Coordinator, Lands Stewardship
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Engineer, Water Resources
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Technologist, Water Resources
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Coordinator, Watershed Planning
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Coordinator, Source Protection
8x9
O
72
97
72
72
Student
6x6
O
36
49
36
812
1096
812
36 812
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 43 of 44
AGENDA ITEM #b)
CRCA – County of Frontenac Facility Planning Page 9 of 9
Admin, ODC, Maint Subtotal Open/C losed Area (Ft2)
CRCA Basic Space Needs
Admin, ODC, Maint Subtotal
Admin, Maint
Grossed up - 35% Area (Ft2) Area (Ft2)
Admin Potential to Share Grossed up
Area (Ft2)
Meeting Rooms Small (4 - 6 people)
10x12
C
120
162
120
120
162
Small (4 - 6 people)
10x12
C
120
162
120
120
162
Medium (10 people)
10x20
C
200
270
200
200
270
Large (30 people)
30x50
C
1500
2025
1500
1500
2025
1940
2619
1940
1940
2619
Meeting, Lunch, Storage Rooms Storage - Filing, Library & Office Supplies
15x20
C
300
405
300
300
Storage - Monitoring Equipment
10x12
C
120
162
120
120
Storage Building Maintenance
8x9
C
72
97
72
72
Locker Room(s) and Showers
30x40
C
1200
1620
1200
1200
Lunchroom/Kitchen
15x30
C
450 2142
608 2892
450
300 72
450
2142
2142
450 1110
Laboratory Space Electronics - rain gauges, telemetry, batteries
15x15
C
225
304
225
225
Wet - water quality, biology
15x20
C
300
405
300
300
Computer - desktop setup, servers, switches
15x20
C
300
405
300
Total Staff Space Requirements
300
825
1114
825
825
7,821
10,558
7,533
7,145
3,729
For Use of CRCA/County of Frontenac ONLY 2018, 8020Info Rights reserved. help@8020info.com – www.8020info.com
2019-029 Shared Facility Analysis – Colbourne & Kembel, Architects
Page 44 of 44
