Lowville Shared Transportation Facility Feasibility Study

Lowville Shared TraLowville Shared TraFeasibilit

Martin Weber, AIA / John

February

nsportation Facility nsportation Facility ty Study

Onderdonk, AIA, LEED AP

y 24, 2010

Feasibility Stud

Lowville Academy anyTown of LowvilleVillage of LowvilleVillage of LowvilleLewis County

New York State DepartmenParticipated as a resource a

dy Participants

nd Central School

t of Transportationand not a direct applicant.

Feasibility St

GoalsSite AnalysisExisting Facility

iProgrammingAreas for Pote

j iProject FundinNext Steps

udy Outline

Analysisgential Savingsng

Goals o

Determine the feasTransportation FacipReview of Existing FExamine Shared FaProgram New FaciliIdentify Areas of PoyDetermine Funding

of Study

sibility of a Shared lityyacilitiescility Modelyity

otential Cost Savingsg Opportunities

Sites

Site Evaaluation

Existing F

Town of Lowville

Village of Lowville

Facilities

Lewis County

Lowville ACS

Facility Prog

Work/Repair Bays (Lifts for Multiple VeLifts for Multiple VePaint BayWelding BayWelding BayVehicle Wash BayDiagnostic EquipmDiagnostic EquipmIndividual and CenMain Office, DispatMain Office, Dispat

gram Needs

(12)hicle Typeshicle Types

mentmentntral Part Storagetch & Training Roomtch & Training Room

Staffing

No immediate savings wAll municipalities using mAll municipalities using mMany staff performing mCould be future benefitCould be future benefitstaff, dispatch, partsAfter shared facility is in ybe reviewed for future c

Analysis

were identified in staffingminimal staffminimal staffmultiple rolest through central office t through central office

use, staffing needs will , gconsiderations

Environmen

Improve energy pImprove environmReduce building Reduce resourceComply with all c

ntal Benefits

performancement qualitymaintenance

e consumptioncurrent regulations

Conceptuaal Site Plan

Conceptuaal Floor Plan

Conceptuaal Rendering

Project Coost Analysis

Cost Sa

Reduce maintenancQuantity purchasingQuantity purchasingImproved maintenanEliminate need for paEliminate need for paReduce energy consReduce building maReduce building maCost avoidance of bIncrease vehicle lifeIncrease vehicle life

avings

ce outsourcing & central storage & central storagence servicesaid storageaid storagesumption intenanceintenance

building improvements

Municipal Ve

Lewis CountyTown of LowvilleTown of LowvilleVillage of Lowville Lo ille ACSLowville ACS

T t l V hi l V lTotal Vehicle ValuSignificant savings resthe life of the vehiclesthe life of the vehicles

ehicle Fleets

$4,591,252 $1 280 376$1,280,376

$945,000$2 825 000$2,825,000

$9 641 628 ue = $9,641,628 ide in extending ss

Cost Savinngs Matrix

What Wil

Facility ConstructionLewis County Lewis County Town of Lowville Village of Lowville Village of Lowville Lowville ACS

*Construction Cost amoryears

*All operating and maintnew facility would be tLACS

l It Cost?

Costs$0 $0 $0$0$03%*

rtized over 15 to 30

tenance costs of the the responsibility of the

Fund

Preliminary estimate of the total project cost inAft t t id f 97% $After state aid of 97%, $paid by the Lowville Sctaxpayers. Over 15-30 yp y y$16,000 - $32,000 per ye

The other participatingcontribute towards thethrough shared service

LACS cannot profit throusage, it can only char

ding

probable cost shows n the range of $16M. $480 000 ld b $480,000 would be

chool District years, this represents y pear to the District.

g municipalities would eir use of the facility es agreements.

ough any service or rge for actual costs.

Going Forwa

1. Do nothing. Keep runagreements the way

2 ild f ili 2. Build a new facility owDistrict that provides tthe needs of the partithe needs of the parti

3. A hybrid approach, inis built and the both thbuildings of the grouptogether and becomstorage, equipment, estorage, equipment, e

ard - Options

ning the facilities and they currently exist.

d b h S h l wned by the School the ability to service all icipating entities.icipating entities.n which the new facility he new and existing

ps are examined e a shared resource for etc etc.

Next S

Municipalities agree toSelect sites to be investSelect sites to be investSEQRA process begins Impact StudyImplementation grant apWork towards Referend

Steps

o participatetigatedtigatedwith Environmental

pplications fileddum

Project T

Site SelectionsImplementation GrImplementation GrEnvironmental ImpProject ReferendumProject ReferendumConstruction DocuSED ReviewSED ReviewConstructionCompletion EstimaCompletion Estima

Timeline

rant Applicationsrant Applicationsact Studymmuments

ate – 2013ate 2013

Recomme

The LACS facility is inadequate for texpanded or developed on the cu

The existing building remains valuabneed for additional District storage.

Given that the State Education DepGiven that the State Education Depthe best interest of LACS to move fothe future needs of the school distric

With additional municipalities involvcost savings will be found through clocal maintenance service and veh

The reciprocal shared services agreparticipating parties to mutually be

endations

heir needs and cannot be rrent site.

ble to LACS who has an ongoing

partment will fund up to 97% it is in partment will fund up to 97%, it is in orward with the project to ensure ct and servicing its vehicle fleet.

vement in the project, additional cooperative purchasing, expanded hicle wash.

eements would allow for all nefit from each others resources.

Ques

Thank you for your timeaddress any questions have with our presentahave with our presentaA copy of the full reporDistrict Office. District Office.

stions

e, please allow us to or concerns you may

ationation.rt is available at the