Next step for firehouse plans discussed

Next step for firehouse plans discussed

The inflated price tag, cost-cutting measures and what they could, and could not live with in a scaled back station house were the topics on the table when the commissioners in the Spencerport Fire District gathered on August 2 as they discussed their options with the rebuilding of Spencerport Fire District’s Station 1.

At first glance, if cuts were made to the square footage on all three floors, close to $800,000 could be shaved off — the cuts would include reducing the basement square footage by 2,900; the first floor by 1,800 and the second floor by 1,400.

Commissioners have to go back to the plans because when they opened the bids on July 19 for the rebuilding of the station house which burned last August, the construction price tag came back over $1 million higher than anticipated. District officials had anticipated the cost to rebuild would be $5.2 million, a cost approved by district taxpayers. The cost per square foot was estimated at $190 but bids came in at close to $228 a square foot.

“Where would we like to go? What do we want to do and what changes should we look at?” Chairman of the Board of Commissioners Tom Friedo asked the other commissioners.

Andrew Petrosky, business segment leader for Bergmann Associates, came prepared with scaled back drawings to indicate where cuts could be made and what savings would be realized because of those cuts.

Gary Barton said of some of the proposed cuts, “I don’t like it.” He said he didn’t think they needed to cut the outside and move it in. “We need to look at the scope, look at where we want to go and then go back to the drawing board.”

Rich McQuilkin said he wasn’t in favor of reducing the office spaces. “We had presented a plan to the public and we have already made reductions,” he said. “The only thing that seems possible is to cut the basement area and maybe shorten the apparatus bays on the north and south ends.”

Saying he needed to wait to make any decisions on office space until he received answers to the shortfalls in other areas, Dave Spencer said he was against any reduction in the truck bays. “I’m sure the guys who designed the other fire house in the 1960s thought they’d be fine (but became tight fits). In 20 years, who knows what fire service will be and what equipment we’ll need to use. I don’t want to sell ourselves short on space.”

Dave Goddard thought they were “at a good starting point” with looking at the redesign proposals. “I think we have a good perspective on where to negotiate back and forth,” he said.

Friedo said that to go back to the voters, the district had to give a little. “If I was just a voter (and not involved in the district) and was being asked for more money, I’d want to see that the group had cut some costs,” he said.

Jack Osborn, construction manager with Watchdog, reminded the group that as they go through the reductions they are losing construction time as well. “You might want to think about bidding out certain items such as removal of contaminated soils or asbestos abatement,” he said. “You could potentially go out to bid as soon as possible and get some of that completed before the end of the construction season – completing those items could minimize the unknowns when construction begins – you’d be starting with a clean site.”

A small amount of asbestos is contained in the building purchased from the Firemen’s Association, according to Friedo.

Spencer said that if taking care of the unknowns would make the construction process more favorable and if they could spend less on abatement by completing it now, it might make sense.

“Removing the variables (asbestos abatement and soil removal) should help get a better price with the above grade construction price,” Petrosky said.

McQuilkin said, “We’ve been given permission by the voters to spend money for the project and the community would probably like to see some progress over there (at the Lyell Avenue site). If it could save us money in the long run, we should look into it.”

When it came to the nitty gritty of the design cuts, compromises and reductions, decisions had to be made on the size of the meeting room. “We didn’t want to go below 100 people capacity in there,” Friedo said. “We aren’t just looking at this building for today, we are looking toward the future needs of fire personnel. We are looking to build a 60-year facility.”

The meeting room in the former fire house was 990 square feet, the size of the meeting room in the proposed building ranged from 1,250 to 1,700 square feet.

When it came to the reductions proposed by Petrosky for the second floor, Barton said, “I don’t agree with the second floor design. It’s unacceptable. The building needs to fit the décor of the area and we have to do the best we can with the design of the building to make it fit.” Some of the design reductions included some that would alter the building’s façade.

Reductions in basement size, dayroom size, office size for officers and commissioners, turnout gear rooms and space between and around the trucks in the bays were discussed. The number and amount of shower and bathroom facilities and storage areas were also discussed.

“We talked about a lot of design concessions and tossed around a lot of ideas,” Friedo said after the meeting. “No dollar figures were attached to any of the changes we discussed. We’ll find that out next week (August 8) when we meet again.”