HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS-32-93THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
Meeting: COUNCIL MEETING File #
Date: DECEMBER 13, 1993 Res. #
Report #: CS -32 -93 File #:
Subject: FIRE DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the Council recommend the following:
1. THAT Report No. CS -32 -93 be received;
2. THAT the verbal presentation of the Director of Community Services be received;
3. THAT Council endorse in principle the proposed critical path and that the Building
Committee be authorized to take the necessary action to adhere to the critical path schedule,
excluding awarding of the tender;
4. THAT Council endorse the selection of Site "C" (north of Highway #2 west of the existing
access to the Bowmanville Recreation Complex) as the site of the new Clarington Fire
Department Headquarters;
5. THAT Council authorize staff to proceed with the geotechnical requirements as it pertains
to Site "C ";
6. THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into an agreement with Thomas E.
Brown Architect Inc. in accordance with the proposal listed as Attachment # 6 to Report
CS- 32 -93;
7. THAT Council authorize staff to undertake a pre - qualification procedure for all potential
bidders as it pertains to the design build process; and
8. THAT Council approve in principle the preliminary budget (Attachment #8) to Report CS-
32-93.
1.0 BACKGROUND:
1.1 On October 25, 1993, Council approved Report ADMIN -09 -93 which dealt with ongoing
negotiations with Ontario Hydro and a subsequent agreement which in part approved the
../2
i.�� � rr�rcrreo a. aECVC�eo rnaen
REPORT NO. CS -32 -93 "2, DECEMBER 13, 1993
construction of a new Fire Headquarters on Municipal property located at the north west
corner of Regional Road 57 and Highway 2.
1.2 The agreement included a clause stipulating the Municipality must provide 24 hour fire
protection coverage to the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station commencing January 1,
1995, therefore, because of this stringent time frame a building committee was immediately
formed to initiate the project process.
1.3 The composition of the committee is intended to reflect the level of involvement of three key
departments, Fire Department, Community Services and the Treasury Department
notwithstanding all departments are integral to the success of the project.
2.0 CRITICAL PATH:
2.1 The Committee quickly identified a process to be established in identifying the various tasks
at hand, assessing a time frame to meet interim goals which would guide the project to a
completion date in accordance with the agreement with Ontario Hydro.
2.2 The project's "critical path" attachment #1 is provided as a reference to the Building
Committee's schedule for this project identifying critical dates within the process. Although
the dates seem optimistic, this schedule has undergone thorough scrutiny and Committee
Members are confident it is realistic and has taken into consideration normal project delays.
2.3 The first priority identified was to determine which of the three potential sites would be
recommended to construct the building.
3.0 SITE SELECTION:
3.1 The agreement with Hydro was specific in establishing the northwest corner of Regional
Road 57 and Highway #2 as the location of the site and further is supported by the
Municipal Fire Protection Survey conducted by the Ontario Fire Marshall's Office.
3.2 A review of the property presented three potential host sites for the structure and they are
identified in Attachment #2 (drawing #SK -L2). Each of the three sites were reviewed and
assessed based on the following criteria.
3.2.1 Location General Review of each site to determine feasibility.
Primary Location Detailed review of specific site identifying site related issues.
Considerations
../3
REPORT NO. CS -32 -93 - 3 - DECEMBER 13, 1993
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.0
4.1
Site Topography Review of topographical features of the sites.
Site Access How is access perceived for each site? Considerations to existing use
of the property as a Recreation Complex.
Cost to Service What are the comparative costs to service each site?
Soil Utilizing existing documentation, review sites to highlight perceived
complications.
Urban Design Do each of the sites offer the opportunity for a high level of visibility
Impact within the Community.
Building Layout General review of each site with respect to significant positive and
negative aspects of the sites and how they could accommodate the
building layout.
Scheduling Each site to be reviewed keeping in mind the extremely tight
Implications schedule. Items that may have an impact on the schedule must be
considered.
A copy of the completed site evaluation is provided as Attachment #2. Utilizing the criteria
previously outlined, Site "C" is recommended as the location for the construction of the new
Fire Department Headquarters.
Although this site is endorsed by the Building Committee, concerns with respect to a joint
access for the Fire Department and users of the Recreation Complex were identified.
Subsequently, building orientation is anticipated to provide a separate access immediately
to the west of the existing access to the Complex (Attachment #3). This however, does
require Ministry of Transportation approval to create the new access and discussion in this
area is ongoing.
Notwithstanding, the Committee with the concurrence of Council will proceed in this
direction utilizing a common access with the Recreation Complex as our "fall back" position
only.
CONSTRUCTION METHOD:
The project schedule has predetermined the Committee's focus with respect to meeting the
terms of the agreement with Ontario Hydro. With this in mind, the Committee is confident
that the design build method of construction will provide the most opportunity for fast
tracking the project.
../4
REPORT NO. CS -32 -93 "4, DECEMBER 13, 1993
4.2 The design build concept provides for one firm to handle the entire project, from design to
construction completion. The design build contractor would be responsible to engage their
own team of architects and engineers, unlike the traditional method where the Municipality
would directly hire the architect and /or engineers.
4.3 The contractor submits a fixed fee based on preliminary floor plans, elevations and outline
specifications provided by the Municipality. Advantages to this method is that there is a co-
ordinated approach from the design concept to the finished building. Most importantly,
schedules and costs are identified up front with all parties understanding and achieving
project goals.
4.4 It should also be noted that should the scope or details of the project change after awarding
the tender, change orders can be costly.
4.5 To ensure that the Municipality's interests are protected, and to add technical expertise to
the project team, the Committee is recommending that council approve engaging the firm
of Thomas E. Brown Architects Inc. to act as the Municipality's agent for this project in
accordance with the proposal call (Attachment #4) and Mr. Brown's submission (Attachment
#6).
5.0 PRE - QUALIFICATION:
5.1 As in any Municipal initiative, cost implications are always deserving of the attention
received. Notwithstanding the importance of cost control, this project's schedule and timing
restrictions have assumed a very high priority in all discussions as it relates to the fire hall
construction.
5.2 These restrictions require Council to consider the Committee's recommendation that in
accordance with Section 6:01 of the Municipality's Purchasing By -Law (Attachment #7) that
staff be authorized to initiate a Pre - Qualification process for all bidders prior to the actual
tender call.
5.3 This process offers advantages to the Municipality in that it eliminates the possibility of a low
bidder being awarded the contract when they may not be qualified to do the job. Further,
pre - qualification ensures the respective contractor's financial stability and credibility.
6.0 PRELIMINARY BUDGET:
6.1 The total cost of constructing and equipping the new Fire Headquarters is estimated to be
$1,500,000. The Ontario Hydro contribution of approximately $1.2 million dollars as referred
to in the Municipal/Hydro agreement of October 1993 will finance a significant portion of
the cost of a 12,000 square foot facility. „15
REPORT NO. CS -32 -93 - 5 - DECEMBER 13, 1993
6.2
6.3
6.4
The Development Charges Policy Report also recognized the cost of constructing and
equipping a new Headquarters to the extent of approximately forty four percent (44 %) of
the cost in excess of the anticipated Ontario Hydro contribution. Based on an anticipated
excess cost of $257,500 ($1,500,000 total less $1,200,000 contribution, and $42,500 moving
expenses), the Development Charges Reserve Fund would contribute approximately
$113,300. At December 1, 1993 the balance in this fund is approximately $52,000, and it is
therefore suggested that the balance of $61,300 be interim financed from the consolidated
reserve funds and as funds accumulate the repayment would be made with interest at the
rate that the Municipal Bank Account - General Fund accumulates.
It is suggested that the cost attributed to moving expenses be financed from the existing Lot
Levy Reserve Fund for Fire Protection. The cost attributed to this expense are estimated
at this point, and any unexpended funds would remain in the Reserve Funds.
The proposed financing for this capital project, as outlined on Attachment #8, would place
no additional tax impact on the ratepayers for the Municipality of Clarington. It is further
recommended that any vehicle considerations for this station be considered by Council
during the 1994 Budget deliberations.
7.0 COMMENTS:
7.1
7.2
JPC:sa
The Building Committee is committed to the goals of this project and specifically to the
conditions agreed to by the Municipality in its agreement with Ontario Hydro.
Co- operation and team work are critical and must be considered a given as it relates to this
project. Specifically, a co- ordinated and unified effort between Council and the various
departments is paramount in realizing our project goal.
submitted,
P. Caruana, Director
unity Services Department
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee,
Mati�eMarano,
Acting Chief Administrative Officer
' V , I 11 •
•�a'w':'A 0 ki • •. •
Nbv. 22/93 Hire Consultant for Site Determination
Dec. 13/93 Report to Council - Council Approval
Budget
Building Site Selection
Consultant Selection (If using as project manager)
Prequalification Process Initiated
Jan. 14/94 Tender specifications approved
Jan. 17/94 Report to G.P.A. - Tender Call approval and list of bidders
Jan. 19/94 Tender Call
Feb. 9/94 Tender Opening
Feb. 21/94 Award Tender - Council Approval (Special Council or Council
approval Feb. 28/94)
Mar. 14/94 Architectural Drawings approved
Mar. 18/94 Sod Turning
Mar. 18/94- Construction - Council Updates
Sept. 30/94
Oct. 1 -14/94 Occupancy /Change Over
ATTACHMENT #2 TO
REPORT NO. CS -32 -93
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
SITE EVALUATION STUDY
BOWMANVILLE FIRE STATION #1
DECEMBER 7, 1993
totten sims hubicki associates
engineers architects and planners TSH PROJECT NO. 22 -13244
Mr. Joseph P. Caruana
Director, Community Services Department
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
RE: Proposed Bowmanville Fire Station #1
Site Evaluation Study
TSH Project No. 22 -13244
Dear Sir:
300 WATER STREET, WHITBY, ONTARIO
CANADA L-IN 9J2
(905) 668 -9363 FAX (905) 668 -0221
December 7th, 1993
We are pleased to submit our site evaluation report to assist you in finalizing your decision
as to where to locate the proposed new Bowmanville Fire Station #1 on the Bowmanville
Recreation Complex property.
Totten Sims Hubicki Associates was requested by the Community Services Department of
the Municipality of Clarington to evaluate three potential sites at the Bowmanville
Recreation Complex property for suitability as locations for the proposed Bowmanville Fire
Station #1. We understand that this station will serve as the Headquarters Station for the
Municipality of Clarington and as such, will include administration functions as well as the
functional requirements of a full service, manned fire station.
It has been assumed that current zoning and Region Official Plan designation of the site is
satisfactory for development of a Fire Station.
TSH were not involved in the selection of the Bowmanville Recreation Complex property as
the ideal location for the Fire Department Headquarters. We understand that this proposed
site has been reviewed by the Ontario Fire Marshall's Office to ensure that it meets all
their established criteria for firehall location.
TSH was provided with an overall building floor area requirement of 10,000 SF to
12,000 SF. The major functional components that will be included in the facility are listed
following:
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS
-2-
® 3 Double Apparatus Bays
• 6 Offices
• Kitchen
® Eating Area
• Training Room
• Locker Rooms /Showers
• Training Equipment Room
• Equipment Maintenance
• Electrical /Mechanical Rooms
• Hose Tower
• Washrooms
• Circulation Space
• Compressor Area
From the information provided, TSH developed a generalized building footprint for use in
the evaluation of the alternative sites. This footprint assumed that there would be a
second floor component to the project. The split of the functional areas between first and
second floors has not yet been established. It is, however, normal to place functions such
as Locker Rooms, Training Room, Kitchen and Eating Areas on the second floor level. It
goes without saying that if a single storey building is preferred, a larger site planning
footprint would result. This would not be critical on Sites A and C; it would, however, be
critical on the very limited area of Site B.
TSH was advised that the fire station would be staffed by eight (8) firemen on each of
three shifts. An additional allowance of six (6) personnel for the administration component
has been made. Total parking for approximately 25 staff and visitor parking is to be
provided. It is to be noted for the rare occurrence when the total staff complement may
be in attendance at a meeting, overflow parking is available on site using the Recreation
Complex parking lot.
The three sites located on the Bowmanville Recreation Complex property are listed
following (refer to SK -L2):
Site A Located to the east of the existing arena building adjacent to Regional Road 57
and the North Service Road for the recreation complex. This site will consider
the expansion of the existing recreation complex to accommodate an additional
ice pad.
Site B Located to the north -east of the existing eastern ball diamond, also to.the west
of the existing Durham Regional Police building. This property is adjacent to a
proposed east -west road which is being planned in conjunction with
development north and west of the existing municipal property.
Site C Located at the far west end of the recreation complex property to the north of
Highway 2 and west of the existing primary access into the recreation
complex.
-3-
Refer to attached Site Evaluation Chart for a comparative review and analysis of the sites.
Each of the sites were listed and compared in terms of the following:
1. Location: A description of the location of each of the potential sites on the
Bowmanville Recreation Complex property. The location of Site B is impacted by the
consideration of the future severing of a parcel of land in the south -west corner of
the lot in exchange for a parcel in the north -west corner. If this is not to be a
consideration, there are many more available options for development of the fire
station in this general area including the possibility for its own dedicated access to
Highway 2 rather than having to share access with the recreation complex.
2. Primary Location Considerations: This point of comparison is a description of the
main points to be considered in the location of the firehall on a particular site.
3. Existing Topography: A general description of the topographic features of each of
the sites. Detailed elevations are available for Sites A and B. No topographic survey
data is available at this time for Site C. From visual observations however, Site C
slopes gently to the south and will not be detrimental to site development.
4. Site Access: A description of how each of the sites will be accessed. In all cases, it
is proposed to maintain existing access driveways to Highway 2 and Regional Road
57. A further traffic impact study may suggest the installation of Fire Department
emergency controlled traffic signals. Improvements will be required at the finally
selected driveway to improve safety and to facilitate easier access.
5. Site Servicing Availability: Servicing availability and feasibility was investigated for
each site. Water and natural gas are readily available for each site. The existing
sanitary sewer terminates north of Highway 2 and west of the existing driveway into
the recreation complex. To service Sites A and B with sanitary sewers it will be
necessary to run a service from the above manhole, east along Highway 2 and north
into the sites. Refer to Drawing SK -L2.
Consideration would have to be given by the Region and Public Works Department to
run this service within the street right -of -way, rendering it a public service rather
than a private service on the recreation complex property.
6. Site Servicing Estimated Development Costs: Estimated costs for each site have
been calculated.
7. Soils: A Soils Report prepared by V.A. Wood Associates Limited, December 1986
was provided to TSH for reference. The soils investigations pick up areas adjacent
to Sites A and B and indicate reasonable soil bearing pressures.
Soils data in close proximity to Site C is not available.
Additional soils investigations will have to be undertaken on the finally selected site.
-5-
8. Urban Design Impact: This point of comparison discusses issues such as setbacks,
visibility, and aesthetics of site development.
It is felt that a Headquarters Fire Department building should be given predominant
visibility within the community. Given the administrative functions, it will be
frequented by out -of -town visitors. Fire Department staff are normally quite involved
in civic functions, fund raising, food drives and should be given a visual presence
within the community.
9. General Comments on Layout: These comments list in general terms some of the
more significant positive and negative aspects of each of the proposed sites.
10. Scheduling Implications: Because of the tight time constraints in developing this
project, items which could impact on the schedule have been identified. The finally
selected site will require detailed geotechnical investigations as well as topographical
surveys and in the case of Site C, confirmation of legal property boundaries.
Approvals will be required from MTO if another access driveway is made onto
Highway 2.
The following drawings accompany and form an integral component of this Site Evaluation
Study:
r..
SK-L1 Original Site Concept - A drawing of the original recreation complex
landscaping and future expansion plan.
SK -1-2 Site Locations and Site Servicing - The requirements for servicing each of
the sites with water and sanitary sewers has been indicated.
SK -A1 Location A - Scheme No. 1
SK -A2 Location A - Scheme No. 2
SK -A3 Location B
SK -A4 Location C
The layouts for each of the locations are schematic only for the purposes of the Site
Evaluation Study. Detailed site investigations will have to be undertaken for the finally
selected site. Site development will be based upon on an integrated analysis of building
function with the established parameters for the selected site. The final site development
must taken into consideration the following:
• Vehicular circulation.
• Pedestrian circulation.
• Street setbacks.
• Handicapped accessibility.
• Site drainage.
• Landscaping.
• Future expansion.
• Public accessibility.
• Solar orientation.
• Pavement material selected.
• Topographic features.
• Budget constraints.
Summary of Recommendations
Based upon our evaluation of the three potential sites at the Bowmanville Recreation
Centre, our recommendations are summarized as follows:
1. Site C offers the most ideal site for the development of the Bowmanville Fire
Department Headquarters in terms of all the comparative points of analysis.
2. A decision must be made regarding the parcel of land that has been subject to
consideration for severing. If it is not to be severed, then detailed site development
alternatives should be developed taking this into account.
3. Although the sharing of a driveway with the recreation complex is not ideal, the
driveway and access to Highway 2 can be designed to maximize safety concerns.
4. Consideration should be given to development of a Fire Station access driveway
and /or recreation complex driveway that will be in alignment with a proposed new
street to the south. Both may benefit from this alignment and a signalized
intersection.
5. Detailed geotechnical investigations and topographic survey work should be
undertaken for the selected site.
Questions regarding the contents of the report can be referred to the undersigned.
Respectfully Submitted,
gArch�, Knoll, O.A.A.
Manager, Architecture
z..
BWK /an
totten sims hubicki associates
Hw��.� •nHy�H3r� arc saw.
t
Xh1EME F�EGravF� t3Y
u+- �ueN /G lat<esati
to.�ort..pE .�ctt r�r5
C#�•TED ! -, PT. i-Y11.
HIGHWAY No 2
E U
l
t-
in
O
Z
Ci
a
Z
0
W
0
z
a
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON DRAWING N°
_ a+A"H+ PROPOSED BOWMANVILLE FIRE
CHECKED DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS. K- i
F&E 42 13244 SITE EVALUATION • aqi tt.fA� SITE CCn4 r 11 I
Nn fJATF G P
��1y
SITE s =1
Kim a .8
IV I 4
totten sims hubicki associates
SITE 'B'
DUF+iAM REGIONAL �POLICE
- -- - -- - -- - --
---------------------------
DRWN
CHECKED
:LE -2-Z
® .1
in , I ; - .
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
PROPOSED BOWMANVILLE FIRE
DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS.
SITE EVALUATION SITE LOCATIONS Ek
01'r C�Wfllw�
V)
O
i 111
SK- L2
-25
F-
I_
totten sims hubicki associates
NWOCW � Al.C*4rr0=W ^w MALP �
", ---------------
r
m
I unjer-
DES"ED 5r/E's MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
DRWN as PROPOSED BOWMANVILLE FIRE
Z; �D& DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS.
ME 22 -1
SITE EVALUATION • LOCATION
No. OATE v REVISIONS SME HTS
i
Z
6
cr
—i
Z
2
IW9
X
a
w
Z
ir
SK-Al
7
L.-,.
totten sims hubicki associates
--------------
=IZF I
L HIGHWAY N °• 2
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
PROPOSED BOWMANVILLE FIRE
�we.e-� MUNICIPALITY
HEADQUARTERS.
SITE
SITE EVALUA71ON • LOCATION
z
0
z
m
I I
totten sims hubicki associates
IN IN MDMWA� A.o..r.nr. w.a rt e
��IIIIIG
I
�
i QQKIpA A I
{11GHWAY
NO 2
OF CLARINGTON
WMANVILLE FIR
ti
K)
0
2
6
M
Q
Z
O
W
0
Z
F-
ir
a
_
SK-A3___ _ F�r2 -13248 __.�.....�.........,...�..
No M*F NTS
SITE EVALUATION • LOCATION B
Cz
� i I
totten sims hubicki associates
�� A�fT�T� AFO iLANi.�
.............
I�
- -- J a
-= ---------- cisrl�,c
�b CPI'lOJS
zAv7DiTioN - L_s-- ---s -N
111 rv�...-- .,- -.1 �
l
1
L_CANf��Xicpr Ii�1C.,.
/4g71T0�1)
HIGHWAY N• 2
'SGr+mS"5 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
DPAWN t>5 PROPOSED BOWMANVILLE FIRE
CHECKED file DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS.
- - -
?t -15244 SITE EVALUATION • LOCATION
"� n.,r w. o��.v.� -- ��.�� HITS
z
0
ir
J
Q
Z
O
W
Ir
O
Z
H
X
Q
SITE EVALUATION STUDY
MUNICIPALITY OF
PROPOSED BOWMANVILLE
FIRESTATION ## 1
totten Sims hubicki associates
ENGINEERS AR- -1ECTS AN. PLANNERS
SITE A (SCHEMES 1 and 2)
SITE B
SITE C
1. LOCATION
• Bowmanville Recreation Complex
•
_
Bowmanville Recreation Complex
•
Bowmanville Recreation Complex
• East of existing Arena Building
•
North -East of existing Eastern Ball Diamond West of
•
West of Primary Access Driveway into Complex
Existing Reg. of Durham Police Building
and North of Highway # 2
2. PRIMARY LOCATION
• Consideration to be given to future arena
expansion either to the southwest or west
•
Future road to the north will become firehall's future
•
Southwest corner of property could be severed
CONSIDERATIONS
• Maintain existing arena service access
primary access
for private sector commercial development
•
Desirability to not move existing ball diamond
•
Future development to south will alter character
•
Region's property to east may possibly be
encroached with Region agreement
•
Communications Tower could be relocated
3. EXISTING
• Property slopes approximately 5 m from arena
•
Generally flat, slight fall from north towards south
•
Property slopes gently towards south to ditch along
TOPOGRAPHY
building to property line
and east
Highway No. 2
• Will impact on firehall design and site development
•
Arena storm drainage system could be impacted.
•
Topography not detrimental to site development and
but will not be detrimental to project development
New storm. line may be required for firehall
will not impact on building design
• Drainage towards ditch along Regional Rd.
development directing water towards Reg. Rd. 57
4. SITE ACCESS
• Access from existing arena northerly service road
•
Access will initially be along arena's north service
•
Access will be to shared entrance driveway of
connecting to Reg. Rd. 57
road connecting to Reg. Rd. 57. Access driveway to
Recreational Complex connecting to Highway # 2
• Access Rd. up to firehall drive would be paved
be paved
•
Possibly Fire Department controlled signalized
• Possibly Fire Department controlled signalized
•
Future access could be to future east -west road
developed to north connecting road to Reg. Rd. 57 to
intersection
intersection
east and future developments to west. Not feasible to
Possibly separate and distinct driveway access to
• Access to Reg. Rd. 57 is far enough north of
develop road at this time due to timing and bridge
wa Hi h 2 with MTO royal
Highway approval
Highway # 2 to not cause any complications
structure requirement.
•
5. SITE SERVICING
• WATER - Available From Reg. Rd. 57
•
WATER - Available from Reg. Rd. 57 service will be
•
WATER - Available frorn line along north side of
AVAILABILITY
• SANITARY SEWERS - Arena's septic stem will have
P Y
able to be pick at 150 mm line north of Arena
SANITARY SEWERS - Connection available at
to be removed - Shared sanitary sewer for Firehall
•
SANITARY SEWERS - Site not large enough to
manhole adjacent to Site, north side of Highway 2.
and Arena, sewer will have to be extended from
manhole noted for Site 'C'
accommodate septic system sanitary sewer will have
to be extended from manhole noted for Site 'C'.
•
GAS - Line along north side of Highway 2.
g g Y
• GAS - Extended from Highway 2 and Reg. Rd. 57
•
GAS - Extended from Highway 2 and Reg. Rd. 57
intersection
intersection
6. SITE SERVICING
ESTIMATED
• Remove Arena's Septic System $ 160,000.00
•
Sanitary and Water $ 76,000.00
•
Sanitary and Water $ 7,000.00
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
• WATER $ 4,000.00
• SANITARY SEWERS $ 92,000.00
totten Sims hubicki associates
ENGINEERS AR- -1ECTS AN. PLANNERS
SITE EVALUATION STUDY
MUNICIPALITY OF
PROPOSED BOWMANVILLE
FIRESTATION # 1
totten Sims hublcki associates
ENGINEERS ARCHrrECTS AND PLANNERS
SITE A (SCHEMES 1 and 2)
SITE B
SITE C
7. GEOTECHNICAL
• Detailed Soils Investigation will have to be
•
Detailed Soils Investigation will have to be
•
Deiailed Soils Investigation will have to be
undertaken
undertaken
undertaken
• Soils for arena were reasonable at 300 KN. /M'
•
Soils for arena were reasonable at 300 KN /M`
•
Soils for arena were reasonable at 300 KN /M
8. URBAN DESIGN
• Good visibility from Region Road 57
•
No street visibility until future road to north is
•
Good visibility from Highway 2
IMPACT
• Setback along Reg. Rd. 57 will be well forward of
developed
•
Site appears to be a distinct and well defined
existing development in immediate area
•
When Future road is developed site will appear
development
• Firehall development may tend to visually crowd
crowded
•
Setbacks respect reasonable community design
Recreation Complex
•
Fire department headquarters building will lack
standards
• Landscaping enhancements will contribute positively
presence and identity within the community
•
Development will have a significant visual presence
to streetscape
•
Conflict between Fire Department vehicles and
and identity within the community.
Recreation Complex users
9. GENERAL COMMENTS
• Scheme 1 will negate any possibility of future arena
•
No impact on future arena expansion
•
No impact on future arena expansion
ON LAYOUTS
expansion to the east. Future arena expansion
possible only towards west
•
Building will abut property line shared with Region of
g P P Y S
•
Future expansion potential for Fire Hall
• Scheme 2 will permit future arena development to
Durham. Variance will required for setback.
•
Variety of site and building configurations are
y
the south -east and west of existing arena
•
t
Existing communications tower can remain, however
possible
• Drive through apparatus bay is possible in both
•
it is visually quite obtrusive
Drive through apparatus bay not feasible
•
Even more potential if future property reverence is
schemes
not a consideration
• Topography will impact on design of building and on
•
Firehall driveway will abut fence of softball field
•
There will be minor traffic conflict between
site development
•
No room for future expansion
Recreation Complex users and Fire Department
• Minimal future expansion potential for Fire Hall
• Architectural Design of building will be required to
•
Less than satisfactory setback from future road to
north
•
vehicles
Architectural design does not have to respect Arena
respect Arena design in a significant way
•
Tight turning radius for fire trucks
design as significantly as other sites. Firestation can
have its own distinctive character
•
Minimal landscaping possibilities
•
Building configuration possibilities limited
10. SCHEDULING
IMPLICATIONS
• Prior to commencement of construction, sanitary
sewer service will have to be designed, tendered and
•
Minor variance will have to be obtained prior to
construction
•
No obstacles delaying construction start
constructed; existing septic system will have to be
removed and filled
totten Sims hublcki associates
ENGINEERS ARCHrrECTS AND PLANNERS
Fi
-� r--
I r r-
- -----------
1:b CPO.
VA I G H V4 AN N! 2
z
b
ir
-j
z
0
Z
F-
0
,431 C)
01
M w
Iv 0
10
w
totten sims hubicki associates
N.,
DAZE
UY
DESIGNMSrVr-
IMUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
PROPOSED BOWMANVILLE FIRE
DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS.
DRAWING
SK-A6
DRAWN 0,55
RECISIONS
CHUXED bK
ME Vr•151144
E EVALUATION - LOCATION C
SITE
scALE NT$,
ATTACHMENT #4 TO
REPORT NO. CS -32 -93
PROPOSAL CALL FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
FOR
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
BOWMANVILLE FIRE STATION # 1
Sealed proposals, clearly marked as to contents, for the requirements specified herein,
submitted to the Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, Purchasing Office, 40
Temperance Street, Bowmanville, Ontario, L1C 3A6, will be received until 2:00 p.m. (local
time) Friday, December 3, 1993.
Enquiries for additional information may be directed to Lou Ann Birkett, Purchasing and
Supply Agent, or Fred Horvath, Facilities Superintendent at (905) 623 -3379.
SCOPE OF WORK
The Municipality of Clarington has ownership of a 22 acre site on the north west corner of
Regional Road 57 and Kings Highway #2, Bowmanville, Ontario. This site as well houses
a Recreational Complex and will be used for the construction of the new Fire Department
Headquarters. This facility will accommodate the main headquarters of the Fire
Department administration and fire fighting functions.
While the actual design and construction of the proposed building will be tendered by the
Municipality using the "Design Build" method, the purpose of this proposal is to retain
engineering/consultingservices of a firm to act on behalf of the Municipality as an "Owner's
Agent".
CONTRACT
By acceptance of this contract, neither the "Owner's Agent" nor any person, firm or
corporation associated or affiliated with or subsidiary to same, shall tender for the
subsequent tender for the design/build of the Fire Station, or have an interest either directly
or indirectly in the design/construction of the project.
TIME
Time is of the essence in this contract. The final tender documents must be submitted to
the Municipality of Clarington for approval no later than January 14, 1994, with final copies
available for tender issuance on January 19, 1994. Occupancy of the constructed building
is to take place October 1, 1994.
-2-
FEES
The fees for this service are to be provided on a total lump sum basis. A separate total fee
is to be provided for Part I and Part H. The Municipality may award ,Part I only or Part
I and II, whichever is in their best interest.
The criteria for Parts I and II are as follows.
PART I
1. Prepare, in consultation with staff, for tendering purposes, preliminary site plan and
floor plans.
2. Preparation of preliminary cost estimate.
3. Pre- qualification (for subsequent Council approval) of potential bidders on
design/build tender.
4. Preparation of tender documents for issuance to selected design builders.
5. Answer questions from bidders during tendering period.
6. Assistance to the Owner in the evaluation of submitted proposals
7. Review of work*,ng drawings prepared by the design -build contractor.
8. Preparation and distribution of minutes of project meetings.
9. Provide advisory services and to co- ordinate any additional studies as required.
PART II
1. The review, modification, and approval of the Contractor's construction schedule, the
processing of progress 'and final payment certificates for the work, and the
preparation and submission of work progress reports to the Municipality at such time
and in such form and detail as the Municipality may require.
2. Review and recommendation in respect to alternatives of construction methods or
material proposed, by the Contractor, and preparation of change orders.
3. On -site inspections during the construction of the work to verify acceptability
according to the specifications.
-3-
4. Investigating, reporting and recommending on unusual circumstances which may arise
during construction.
5. Carrying out final inspection and deficiency list at the conclusion of the construction
contract.
6. Ensure that all warranties and all operating manuals are received.
7. Monitoring during warranty period.
EVALUATION OF SUBMISSIONS
Bidders are advised that only complete submissions will be reviewed and evaluated.
Proponents may be requested to provide additional information during the review period.
The evaluation criteria will include but not be limited to the following:
1. Architectural and Engineering firm's relevant experience as well as project team's
experience.
2. Compliance with proposal call submission requirements.
3. Total consulting fee.
4. Project schedule.
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
Proponents are requested to submit 8 bound copies of the following information. Failure
to do so may result in the rejection of the submission.
1. A brief history of the firm and list of specific related projects indicating:
a) name and brief description of project;
b) location of project:
c) client's name, address and telephone number of contact person;
d) date construction completed; and
e) total construction cost.
2. List of firm's principals.
3. Specific cost control methods proposed.
4. Three client references for recently completed projects.
e
Thomas Brown
394 Ring St.
Toronto, Onto
M5A 1K9
613 - 379 -2755
416- 364 -5710
Fax:
Architect
E.
Trio
(home)
.(office)
J.R. Freethy Architect
5 Silver Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
MC 3C2
905 - 623 -7476
Fax:905- 623 -7476
Totten Sims Hubicki
lA icing St. E., Box 398
Cobourg, Ontario
K9A 4L1
1 -800- 463 -8046
Fax: 905 - 372 -3621
Lenis Trotter Architect
168 Centre Street South
Oshawa, Ontario
L1H 4A6
905 - 576 -6869
Fax: 905 - 576 -6907
Greer Galloway.Group Inc.
Engineers and Planners
1415 Highway 2
Courtice, Ontario
ME 2J6
905 - 434 -7467
Fax: 434 -8531
Carruthers Shaw and Partners Limited Architects
2345 Yonge St., Ste. 200
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 2E5
416 - 482 -5002
Fax: 482 -5040
OCA Architect
221 Dufferin St., Ste. 100
Toronto, Ontario
M6K 1Y9
416- 538 -9810
Fax: 538 -9941
BID EVALUATION
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL — CONSULTING SERVICES
BOWMANVILLE FTRR STATTOM 41
Bidder
Total Price
Extra's to Contract
Comments
(Part I &III
Printing Travel Long Distance
Thomas E. Brown
Architect
$25,000.00
*
�/
�/
- Substantial experience with
Toronto, Ont.
fire stations /no experience
in design build
- Sub contracting
mechanical /structural/
electrical engineers
- Price includes minimum
standard specifications
Jonker Graca
Architects
$27,900.00
�/
�/
�/
- Substantial experience
Toronto, Ont.
with design build /no
experience in fire stations
- Sub contracting
mechanical /structural/
-
electrical engineers
- Additional cost of $2000
to provide minimum standard
specifications
J.R. Freethy
Architect
$36,260.00
*
�/
*
- No direct experience with
P
Bowmanville, Ont.
fire stations
- Sub contracting design
builder to assist with
tender - charged at cost
+ 5%
- Sub contracting
mechanical /electrical/
engineers
Lennis Trotten
Architect
$38,500.00
*
*
*
- No experience with fire
Bowmanville, Ont.
stations
- Did not submit proposal in
accordance with request
- Sub contracting
mechanical /structural/
electrical engineers
Totten, Sims
Hubicki Assoc.
$52,000.00
*
*
*
- Has experience with fire
Whitby, Ont.
stations
- Can offer full in house
service
- Has mechanical/
structural /electrical
engineers on staff
Included * Not Included
M y
H
O
H
n _.:
M(-n
w H
N O
w
THOMAS E. BROWN
ARCHITECT INC.
December 2, 1993
Thomas E. Brown Architect Inc.
The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Dear Sirs:
394 King Street East
Toronto, Ontario
M5A 1K9
416.364.5710
ATTACMENT #6 TO
REPORT NO. CS -32 -93
In response to your Proposal Call for Consulting Services for the Corporation of the Municipality of
Clarington Bowmanville Fire Station No. 1, we propose the following:
a) We will comply with the stated criteria for Parts I and H.
b) We will complete the preparation of the proposal documents by the 14th. of January 1994 and
comply with the project schedule where applicable to our work.
c) We will complete the work of Part I for a total fee of $10,000.00 plus G.S.T.
d) We will complete the work of Part II for a total fee of $16,000.00 plus G.S.T.
e) Miscellaneous costs for Printing and Couriers will be billed at cost in addition to the above - stated
fees.
E
Trusting the above to be satisfactory.
Yours very truly,
Thomas E. Brown
Am
Item 1 - 1 -
HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION
The firm of Thomas E. Brown Architect was originally founded
in Mississauga in 1964. In 1967 it was expanded and after an
eleven year association as Allen, Brown and Sherriff
Architects, was re- established as THOMAS E. BROWN ARCHITECT
INC. in 1978.
Over the past twenty eight years, the firm has successfully
carried out the Design and Field Review of over 30 projects
for Municipalities in Ontario. At the same time, a wide
variety of projects for the Private Sector have been carried
out; ranging from a small classroom addition to a village
church, to very large industrial buildings throughout South -
Western Ontario.
Thomas E. Brown's design philosophy is to provide functionally
efficient buildings that are a pleasant work environment,
appropriate to their settings, and within budget requirements.
Our success we measure by our repeat Clientel. We like to meet
new Clients because we expect to maintain a long and
satisfactory relationship with each and every one of them. We
understand that our reputation rests in their hands.
Thomas E. Brown Architect Inc. works very hard for its
Clients. We listen and we learn on each and every project. We
also like to think that our Clients learn from their
association with us. We ask a lot of questions and we persist
until we are satisfied that both we and our Client have a full
understanding of the Project. We are careful with our Client's
funds and our record for successfully completing projects
within allocated budgets is near perfect. Over the past ten
years, some 20 Municipal Building Projects for Fire Fighting
Facilities and Animal Control Facilities have met their budget
requirements on the initial Tendering Process.
The Firm also has expertise in the field of energy
conservation and has incorporated Passive Solar Heating
systems in 3 Fire Stations- 2 in Scarborough and 1 in North
York - over the past 10 years. In these projects, building
operating costs were reduced by a full 30 %.
Thomas E. Brown Architect Inc. is a small and highly efficient
professional practice which produces results with a minimum of
bureaucracy. Tom Brown is personally involved in each project
and directs it's development from start to finish. The Firm's
reputation for integrity and hard work is second to none.
..........2
- 1 -
Item 2
PROJECT TEAM DESCRIPTION
PERSONNEL:
Thomas E. Brown B.Arch.(1962) OAA, MRAIC
Sole Practitioner 1964 - 1966 and Partner in Allen Brown and
Sherriff Architects 1966 - 1978. Re- established as Sole
Practitioner in THOMAS E. BROWN ARCHITECT INC., 1978. Practice
incorporated in 1986.
Senior Architect responsible for the development of the Design
and Supervision of all projects.
Paul E. McIntosh BArch. (1965)
Sole Practitioner 1969 - 1972 and Partner in McIntosh & Clark
Architects 1972 - 1985. Resident Partner responsible for
Middle -East office in the United Arab Emirates 1975 - 1986.
Joined THOMAS E. BROWN ARCHITECT INC. in 1987.
Project Architect for: Scarborough Animal Centre,
City of York Fire Department
Headquarters /Metro Ambulance Station,
Whitby Fire Dept. Headquarters,
Pickering /Ajax /Whitby Animal Centre,
East York Fire Station #2
G. Laurence Cudlip BArch. (1989)
Graduated from the University of Waterloo in 1989. Co -op work
term experience in various offices since 1983, including the
office of Arthur Erikson Architects, Toronto (King Abdul Aziz
University Masterplan). Employed at THOMAS E. BROWN ARCHITECT
INC. from January - December 1988 and since Fall of 1989.
Project Architect for:
Oakville Fire Station No. 6,
Churchill Road Fire Station, Acton
Hippo Exhibit Renovations, Metro Zoo
Snow Leopard Exhibit Renovations and
Japanese Macaque Holding Facility
Expansion, Metro Zoo
..........2
- 2 -
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS:
John Stephenson Consultants Ltd.
Consulting Structural Engineers
Toronto, Ontario
Partner -in- Charge, Graham Eaton, C.E.T. Founding partner
(1969) in John Stephenson Consultants Ltd, responsible for
over 70 schools, 30 Fire Fighting Facilities in conjunction
with Thomas E. Brown Architect Inc. From 1975 to 1978, was
Partner -in- Charge of offices in Abu Dhabi, providing
Structural Engineering Services throughout the Middle East.
Able Engineering Inc.
Mechanical /Electrical Engineers
Toronto Ontario
Mechanical Engineering, Partner -in- Charge, Bernie Little,
graduated 1965, operating a design -build mechanical
contracting firm since 1965.
Electrical Engineering, Partner -in- Charge, Gene Abe, graduated
1957, managing partner for John Garay Engineering for 15
years, three years with Able Engineering.
Item 3
Cost Control Methods
During the development of the proposal call package and the
preparation of the site plan and floor plans, we propose to advise
you, based on our extensive and extremely current knowledge of
construction costs as related to Fire Fighting Facilities, as to
the suitability of items and materials being considered for
inclusion in the project. We will provide current cost estimates
which will indicate budgetary effects resulting from potential
decisions.
As part of the material prepared for the Design -Build proposal call
which we will prepare for you, we will request a list of separate
prices be completed by each submission. These separate prices will
indicate the cost for specific items or materials or for material
substitutions which can either be added to or removed from the
contract amount depending on whether that sum is more than or less
than the budget amount before a contract is signed with the
Builder.
To provide a "control device" within the contract documents which
will apply to items such as extra excavation or other changes to
the contract after it has been executed, we will require each
submission to complete a list of unit prices ( for specific work and
materials) which will apply to both credits and extras for changes
to the work, subsequently.
.
Item 4
References
1. Mr. Michael Davy, Deputy Clerk
Town of Whitby
575 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
(905) 668 -5803
Project - Pickering, Ajax, Whitby Animal Centre Expansion,
Phase 1
2. Mr. Heinz Michelback, Managing Director
Canadian Agra Corporation
221 Josephine Street
P.O. Box 1300
Wingham, Ontario
(519) 357 -3330
Projects - Office Buildings, Kincardine, Ontario
3. Mr. Paul Harpley, Project Manager
Metro Toronto Zoo
P.O. Box 280
West Hill, Ontario
(416) 392 -5983
Projects - Hippopotamus Display Renovation
Snow Leopard Display Expansion
Japanese Macaque House Expansion
COMPLETE LIST OF PROJECTS - 2 -
Fire Fighting Facilities
1993 * New Fire Station #2, East York
* Scarborough District Fire Station - Feasibility Study
1992 * Fire Station #6, Oakville
* Alterations to Communications Centre,
City of York Fire Department
* Georgina Island Fire Station #1- Feasibility Study
1991 * Churchill Road Fire Station, Halton Hills
* Town of Milton - Fire Station Proposal
1990 * Town of Whitby Fire Department Headquarters
* Town of Kincardine Fire Department Headquarters Study
* Scarborough Fire Department Headquarters -
Feasibility Study II
1989 * Markham Fire Training Centre
* Fire Station #15, Mississauga
1988 * City of York Fire Department Headquarters/
Metro Ambulance Station
* Fire Station #14, Mississauga
* Fire Station #5, Oakville
* Scarborough Fire Department Headquarters -
Feasibility Study I
1987 * West Oakville Fire Station #1
* East Oakville Fire Station #2
1985 * Smoke Training Structure, North York
1984 * Metro Ambulance Station, Addition to
Fire Station #15, Scarborough
* Fire Station #18, North York
* Fire Training Centre, Scarborough
* Fire Station #3, Mississauga
1982 * Parkway Forest Drive Fire Station #15, North York
* Fire Training Station #7, Addition, North York
* Meadowvale Road Fire Station #2, Scarborough
1981 * Hurontario Street Fire Station #10, Mississauga
* Meadowvale Road Fire Station #2, Scarborough
1980 * Tapscot Road Fire Station #15, Scarborough
1979 * Dixie Road Fire Station #6, Addition, Mississauga
From 1967 -1978 Fire Fighting Facilities for Richmond Hill and
Mississauga while partner in ALLEN,BROWN and SHERRIFF
- 3 -
CURRENT FIRE FIGHTING PROJECTS
1. Town of Whitby Fire Department Headquarters
a) 25,000 sq. ft. project consisting of
3 double -depth Vehicle Bays,
Headquarters Offices and Disaster Centre,
Education and Training Facilities,
Decontamination Facility,
Operational Fire Station Facilities.
b) Taunton Road, Whitby.
C) Corporation of The Town of Whitby,
Fire Chief Tony VanDoleweerd, 201 Brock Street, Whitby,
(905) 668 -3312.
d) Tender Documents are completed for Tendering purposes.
e) Estimated Construction Cost - $2,400,000.
2. Borough of East York Fire Department Headquarters
a) 9500 sq. ft. project consisting of 3 Vehicle Bays,
Headquarters Offices and operational Fire Station
Facilities.
b) 256 Cosburn Avenue, East York.
C) Corporation of The Borough of East York,
Fire Chief John Miller, 231 McRae Drive, East York,
(416) 396 -3750.
d) Project is under construction for completion March 1994.
e) Construction Cost - $960,000.
..........4
- 4 -
RECENTLY COMPLETED FIRE FIGHTING PROJECTS
1. Fire Station No. 6, Oakville
a) 7000 sq. ft., 2 Bay operational Fire Station and
crewquarters including 2000 sq. ft. training facility.
b) 1510 Postmaster Drive, Oakville, Ontario.
c) Corporation of the Town of Oakville,
Fire Chief Wayne Gould, 125 Randall Street, Oakville,
(905) 845 -7114.
d) Project completed November 1993.
e) Construction Cost - $660,000.
2. City of York Fire Department Headquarters & Ambulance Station
a) 25000 sq. ft. Fire Station of 2 double depth Vehicle
Bays, one repair Bay, Ambulance Bay for 3 vehicles,
Fire Training Tower, Operational Ambulance and Fire
Station Facilities and Headquarters Offices for Fire
Department.
b) 2015 Lawrence Avenue West, City of York.
c) Corporation of the City of York,
Ajax Fire Chief Tony Mintoff, 62 Sherwood Road East
(905) 427 -9111. (Formerly Deputy Chief, City
of York Fire Department).
d) Project completed June 1991.
e) Construction Cost - $3,077,500.
..........5
- 5 -
RECENTLY COMPLETED FIRE FIGHTING PROJECTS (CONT'D)
3. Churchill Road Fire Station, Halton Hills
a) 10,000 sq. ft., 3 double depth Vehicle Bays, operational
Fire Station plus volunteer crew facilities.
b) 21 Churchill road, Acton, Ontario
c) Corporation of The Town of Halton Hills,
Fire Chief Wm. Cunningham, 53 Maple Avenue, Georgetown,
(416) 798 -4730.
d) Project completed July 1992.
e) Construction Cost - $1,018.000.
4. Fire Station 15, Mississauga
a) 6500 sq. ft. District Fire Station, 2 Vehicle Bays and
Living Quarters.
b) 4595 Glen Erin Drive, Mississauga.
C) Corporation of The City of Mississauga,
Deputy Fire Chief Wayne Cunningham, 15 Fairview Drive,
Mississauga, (905) 615 -3753.
d) Project completed May 1991.
e) Construction Cost - $632,000.
ATTACMENT # 7 TO
REPORT NO. CS -32 -93
5.09 Corporation Employees or any elected official, shall not
divulge prices received for any goods except the total bid
amount in the case of "public tenders" and "sealed bid requests ".
All prices recorded during the opening of tenders, that are
Part of the Corporation's permanent record and maintained
in the Clerk's Department, shall be made available to the
public, upon request, pursuant to the provisions of the
Municipal Act, R.S.O., 1980. Total bid amounts for
"sealed bid requests" will be revealed upon request.
5.10 Notwithstanding the provisions of this By -law, emergency
purchase of goods may be made by the Purchasing Agent in
circumstances which could result in costly departmental
downtime, danger to life and /or property damage. In all
such cases, a Report shall be filed jointly by the
Designated Official and the Purchasing Agent to Committee
and /or Council, should the value of the purchase exceed the
guidelines established within this By -law. In the absence
of the Purchasing Agent, emergency purchases may be made by
a Designated Official and such purchases confirmed by a `
purchase order issued by the Purchasing Agent, as soon as
practicable.
6. TENDERING PROCEDURES
The following procedures shall apply to the purchase of all
goods estimated to be in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars
($15,000).
6.01 Advertising
All tenders shall be called by Public Advertisement,
unless otherwise directed by Council and /or Committee.
6.02 Tender Closing Time
All tender closing times shall be established by the
Corporation.
6.03 Release of Information to Bidders
The Corporation shall supply the following materials to all
Prospective bidders:
a) Two copies of the official tender form relating to the
tender called; ,
b) One standard tender envelope apprbpriately imprinted;
c) Tendering information, i.e. plans, specifications,
profiles, etc.;
d) Where a deposit is required for tender documents, such
fee shall be paid to the Corporation by cash, money
order, bank draft or certified cheque. Refunds shall
only be made when all required tender documents are
returned to the Corporation in good condition. > A