Topic

LFP Fire Station - New Cost

Started by takeastand on Feb 27, 2008 7:29 AM

Original post
takeastand Frequent Poster
At a Fire Board Construction Committee last night, Mark Reenders proposed a new cost for the Fire Station. The cost has been brought down from $2.7 Million to just over $1,960,000. There will be no homes built and a few cut backs on the building. Basically, it's $700,000 less than the original proposed amount. 3 homes are NOT included.

If you break this down, not building 3 homes at a cost of $150,000 each (we've all heard different prices), that's $450,000 total. The Fire Board has only cut back $250,000 on the station. Please remember these are only estimates and supposedly maximum amounts.

However, the style, square footage and material used has NOT changed on the fire station.

Do you feel these is acceptable or do you feel the price of the station needs to be cut further ?
0 likes
Replies 141 responses
Showing 1-15 of 141 replies
TR transplant Active Poster Feb 27, 2008 12:40 PM
i think the cuts are a token amount of what is possible. The board is going to try and slide this by everyone again, just based on lowering the price by 700K. I still think there is more to look at cutting.

I agree with the local builder (forgot his name) that states the office area in the new station is larger than the entire current station. If you look at that station, thats alot of offices.

And what about the proposal of building a new station on the current property was bad? I haven't heard any specifics and wasn't at the meeting. Anyone who can expound on the virtues or downfalls of that proposal?
0 likes
Mattie Active Poster Feb 27, 2008 2:54 PM
Great story in today's commercial about this. Brief recap.

1. New cost of 1,928,644.00 total. could be less if the department sells both the land on which the current station and houses sit and also sell 10 acres of the 35 acres they purchased.

2. Some board members still think this cost is way to much for a new station and not enough was cut out the cost.

3. LFP needs this new station at Broadway because it was chosen in a study that the location is a midpoint location that is central to most fire calls received by LFP. (sorry park township people)..

4. The new amount still includes a full exercise room needed to help firefighters meet "state fitness requirements." (huh)..

5. Sill includes a mezzanine to allow a central location of the stations mechanical equipment. (huh)...

6. A meeting room for the fire board to meet as well as allow for state required training.

7. Some people in attendance questioned the current station and adding on, to which the answer were the current station is not large enough to allow for storm water retention, the septic system is not suitable, turning radius requirements for truck is not meet and the current station would not meet MDOT "curb cut" criteria. (huh)...

8. Also not included in the cost is the amount needed for engineering and architectural cost, excavating, septic system, (are they thinking about hooking up to city services?) and landscaping. Also talk about how a soil boring, topological and utility surveys are still needed and need to be paid, Marty thinks all three townships should cover this cost.

lots of other tidbits in the paper also.
0 likes
TR transplant Active Poster Feb 27, 2008 2:59 PM
see, plenty of stuff to cut out....

well, lets at least look at it. Doesn't seem much more than a token has been cut from the actual station.
0 likes
Boo42 Member Feb 27, 2008 8:31 PM
Mattie, please reread the column in today's Commerical. If you are going to recap, please do it correctly. The second to the last paragraph starts "Reenders said his cost INCLUDED
0 likes
Boo42 Member Feb 27, 2008 8:34 PM
(OOPS) a number of expenses that are not normally included ... such as engineering, architectual costs, excavating, septic etc...It reads that those items ARE included in the cost.
0 likes
taxpayer Active Poster Feb 28, 2008 8:58 AM
Well, as far as more things to cut, it is my understanding that one of the three houses that they currently have is VACANT and has been for some time. I was also told by a fireman that the last person to live in that house was NOT even a firefighter!
If they only have firefighters living in 2 of the 3 houses, why not tear down one of them and add space for the fire department on that space, with the empty lot between two of the houses, you would even have space for parking...sounds like that wold be ALLOT cheaper to accomplish.
0 likes
ybagainstit Newbie Feb 28, 2008 9:58 AM
Taxpayer,

your information is incorrect. The houses are being occupied by firemen and firemen only. All houses have been occupied for some time now and have never been occupied by non-firefighter personnel.
0 likes
Mattie Active Poster Feb 28, 2008 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Boo42

(OOPS) a number of expenses that are not normally included ... such as engineering, architectual costs, excavating, septic etc...It reads that those items ARE included in the cost.


I reread, and what a posted is correct.(my interpretation anyway) Reendres said "if these surveys were done first, he could get a better, or accurate final cost for the new station." Marty said these cost, of all the surveys, could be paid by all of the townships. If the price is including the cost of the surveys why does he need to wait, for the surveys to get a final cost? I hope the cost of the surveys comes out to be a dollar for dollar decrease in the total cost.
0 likes
TR111 Newbie Feb 29, 2008 1:18 AM
Taxpayer, I wonder what firefighter your talking to, are you sure that the fire fighter is on LFP?
Edited by TR111 on Feb 29, 2008 1:23 AM
0 likes
takeastand Frequent Poster Feb 29, 2008 9:27 AM
Let's do some math today. At the beginning, we've all heard different amounts that the houses would cost. Anywhere from $130,000 to $180,000 each. So, let's take $150,000 per house. 3 homes at $150,000 each equal a total of $450,000.

If Reenders managed to reduce the price of the station by $700,000, take $450,000 from that and we have $250,000 that SUPPOSEDLY was reduced from the station.

CONTIGENCY FEE - the Contigency Fee is 10% of the cost. 10% of $2.7 million is $270,000. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM !!!! Can ya say PLAYING WITH NUMBERS ?????? Do ya think we're stupid ??????? This will NOT pass until the New Construction Fire Board/Mark Reenders decide to REALLY cut costs....NOT play with the numbers !!!

Go ahead, tell me i'm wrong....because i'll ask ya this question before you do. Can ya tell me what they cut that equals approx. $250,000 ???? Topo and Soil Boring is only $3,000 each. And, i won't bother going into the rest. Perhaps in the future, someone will give the taxpayers a breakdown on how much money was saved and where when they explain where the cuts were made.
0 likes
Mattie Active Poster Mar 1, 2008 12:48 AM
Originally posted by takeastand

Let's do some math today. At the beginning, we've all heard different amounts that the houses would cost. Anywhere from $130,000 to $180,000 each. So, let's take $150,000 per house. 3 homes at $150,000 each equal a total of $450,000.

If Reenders managed to reduce the price of the station by $700,000, take $450,000 from that and we have $250,000 that SUPPOSEDLY was reduced from the station.

CONTIGENCY FEE - the Contigency Fee is 10% of the cost. 10% of $2.7 million is $270,000. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM !!!! Can ya say PLAYING WITH NUMBERS ?????? Do ya think we're stupid ??????? This will NOT pass until the New Construction Fire Board/Mark Reenders decide to REALLY cut costs....NOT play with the numbers !!!

Go ahead, tell me i'm wrong....because i'll ask ya this question before you do. Can ya tell me what they cut that equals approx. $250,000 ???? Topo and Soil Boring is only $3,000 each. And, i won't bother going into the rest. Perhaps in the future, someone will give the taxpayers a breakdown on how much money was saved and where when they explain where the cuts were made.


Very interesting thought...
0 likes
taxpayer Active Poster Mar 3, 2008 6:01 AM
Originally posted by ybagainstit

Taxpayer,

your information is incorrect. The houses are being occupied by firemen and firemen only. All houses have been occupied for some time now and have never been occupied by non-firefighter personnel.


I beg to differ, I was at the open house last year and the house that is farthest away from the fire station was empty then. I was told by an LFP firefighter that none of the current firefighters were wanting to live there and they were considering renting it out so that it would not remain empty.
0 likes
ybagainstit Newbie Mar 3, 2008 9:10 AM
Originally posted by taxpayer

Well, as far as more things to cut, it is my understanding that one of the three houses that they currently have is VACANT and has been for some time. I was also told by a fireman that the last person to live in that house was NOT even a firefighter!
If they only have firefighters living in 2 of the 3 houses, why not tear down one of them and add space for the fire department on that space, with the empty lot between two of the houses, you would even have space for parking...sounds like that wold be ALLOT cheaper to accomplish.


Taxpayer, please re-read what you wrote. There has never been a time when a non-member/firefighter has lived in the house. I cannot speak to what some other firefighter has said..but the FACT is, that it has not happened. All of the homes are currently being utilized by firefighter personnel at this time.
Edited by ybagainstit on Mar 3, 2008 9:19 AM
0 likes
takeastand Frequent Poster Mar 4, 2008 8:28 PM
Nice letters to the Editor in todays Commercial News. I think it said it all.
0 likes
Walkinboots Member Mar 5, 2008 8:41 AM
FYI!
The LFP Fire Board is meeting tonight at 6 p.m. at the Fire Station. I understand there was a very interesting meeting at the Chamber office yesterday morning. Will somebody who was there please recap what happened? [:D]
0 likes