In recent years, budget challenges have forced all of us to be more creative when developing new fire facilities. While construction costs have fallen somewhat, primarily as the result of greater competition for fewer available opportunities, they have done so in unison with falling tax revenues. Further, neither costs nor revenues have been stable or predictable, which has resulted in heightened public scrutiny when it comes to funding new constructions.

In these uncertain times, collocation has emerged as a salient solution that offers civic managers and elected officials a responsible and effective alternative to developing multiple new facilities. Collocation is the placement of multiple entities in a single location or within a single shared facility, in order to improve operations, services and/or reduce costs.

Often, when multiple agencies are combined within one primary facility, floor area savings and reduced site development costs will result, perhaps as much as 25% in some cases. The sharing of services, utilities, and maintenance costs also can yield savings in annual operational expenses.

In addition to cost savings, a multitude of other benefits can be achieved through collocation, including information- and resource-sharing, as well as the development of relationships across agencies for improved delivery of public services (i.e., a “one-stop-shop”).

However, every situation is unique, and it is important to note that despite all of the potential advantages, there may be issues and challenges with which to contend. First and foremost, consideration must be given to the identification of compatible facility partners, and in many cases legal and/or regulatory barriers prevent full integration of some agencies. There also may be circumstances in which “turf war” and protectionism issues surface between partnering agencies that are reluctant to share funds and resources.

Nevertheless, there are many reasons for considering collocation, as follows.

• Only one site needs to be acquired and developed
• Reduced administrative costs
• Reduced construction costs
• Reduced annual operational costs
• Reduced annual maintenance costs
• Shorter engineering and construction timelines
• Improved facility management
• More efficient use of resources
• Improved service to public
• Enhanced identity and community presence

In April of this year, as part of FIRE CHIEF’s annual Station Style Conference, two of my colleagues and I spoke about the growing trend of fire departments collocating with other agencies in a single facility or complex. In our presentation, we pointed out benefits and issues associated with collocating agencies based upon experience and research in the design of joint-use facilities. Some of the potential combinations that were discussed included: fire/law enforcement; fire/law enforcement/court; fire/law enforcement/communications; and fire/government administration. We considered both urban and rural settings, as well as career and volunteer departments.

DOWNLOAD: "Co-Location of Agencies" Presentation

In this afternoon break-out session, we were very fortunate to have a lively group of participants from a variety of agencies that were in the early stages of considering collocation strategies. With eight distinct project case studies serving as the foundation, the presentation evolved into a forum of very productive discussions pertaining to individual circumstances and preliminary concepts.

With time growing short in the session we realized that the final, and most significant, example would need to be covered in more detail at a later date. As promised to the group, the remainder of this article will explore this highly relevant project that encompasses an array of the benefits and issues associated with the collocation of several entities into a single large contiguous complex, including the fire department.

Project type: Multifunctional government center

Completion date: August 2011.

Construction type: Concrete (post-tensioned, cast-in-place and pre-cast); structural-steel deck and framing; and stainless-steel tubing.

Materials used: Architectural concrete; weathered steel plate skin; smooth Portland cement plaster (i.e., stucco); storefront and curtain-wall glazing/entry systems; concrete pavers; membrane roofs; traditional sandstone fire places; polished concrete floors; maple hardwood; and stainless-steel accessories.

Building area: 112,000 gross square feet.

Background: Established more than seven centuries ago, the Isleta Pueblo tribe maintains strong ties to traditional values. Its Tribal Services Complex is located in the foothills between the Rio Grande Bosque and Manzano mountains, approximately 13 miles south of Albuquerque, N.M., and is strategically placed in a natural depression, flanked by two preserved promontories. The complex co-locates numerous entities, including fire, police, E-911, courts, council, administration, wellness and fleet. Lower levels house public-safety and tribal leadership, while the upper levels serve public needs.

Design approach: The goal was to acknowledge the long heritage of the Pueblo people and their beliefs while creating a sense of harmony with the natural surroundings. The spirit and intent of the architectural composition was to celebrate the cultural interdependence between work, worship and recreation that imparts rhythm as a mysterious fact of the aesthetic experience.

Collocation objectives: Our mission was to develop a cost-effective strategy for replacing all of the outdated, decaying and scattered Isleta Pueblo government service buildings, in order to enhance departmental operations and improve services to the public.

Communication and decision-making: The missions of each user agency are unique, but understand that both the compatibilities and the conflicts must impact the design if you are to effectively bridge the operational and cultural barriers. It is very important for all stakeholders to recognize and respect one another’s project needs. Be considerate, and try not to merely look out for your own agency’s interests.

Engaging in effective team-building exercises in the beginning of the project will be beneficial to everyone involved. The exercises should establish clear lines of communication among all parties, identify decision-makers, and initiate open dialogue about project goals.

It is essential that you don’t rush to hasty decisions. Be patient — remember that it is a process — be prepared for multiple iterations and allow the concepts time to evolve. Work together and strive to maximize complimentary collocation among the users.

Representation and continuity: This project took nearly six years from initial programming through final occupancy, and during this time the police chief, tribal court judge, several department heads, multiple tribal council members, and the governor all changed. Be aware that it is not uncommon for changes in leadership and decision-makers to occur through the course of a project. Often, previous decisions may draw new scrutiny, and requests for program changes may arise. Some changes may be accommodated easily, but others may be far too late in the process to be cost-effective. Be sure that each user agency is appropriately represented in the process through these transitions, and try to minimize wants that are not need-based.

We were very fortunate that much of the continuity was maintained through these transitions thanks to the efforts of Fire Chief Robert Jojola, Director of Planning and Development Simon Shima and Lt. Governor Frank Lujan, who recently was elected governor.

Land savings: The consolidation of functions significantly reduced the amount of land that needed to be acquired, compared with developing multiple standalone sites, saving considerable money.

Site savings: The complex offers additional cost savings through the sharing of the public plaza, green spaces, public parking, access roads and more. Infrastructure development costs were reduced significantly by establishing a single supply for utilities (water, sewer, electrical, gas, telephone/data, cable TV) and by developing a single system of roadways and traffic signaling.

Facility savings: Improved operations and cost savings were achieved through the shared use of common areas that include the conference center; fitness/locker rooms; building circulation systems; public lobby/toilets training room; mechanical/electrical rooms and systems; multi-purpose community meeting rooms; centralized print shop; centralized information management (data storage servers); shipping and receiving; mail room; facility maintenance area; secure parking structure; and the security office.

Construction savings: A single large project often will lure more competitive bidding than multiple smaller construction projects of the same overall scope and value. In this particular case, the entire complex was constructed by a single general construction contractor who was selected through a thorough vetting process that took into account cost estimates and the contractor’s qualifications. This is a much more effective approach compared with entering into multiple separate contracts, as the latter approach would extend construction time, increase project administration expenses and escalate costs.

Operational savings: Because the complex shares all of the mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems, equipment efficiencies are improved and energy consumption is reduced significantly. Personnel costs also are improved as the result of sharing staff resources across agencies, including public-interface functions, facility management and maintenance, and security. Additionally, both the print shop and information management department serve all agencies in the complex, yielding savings in staff and equipment.

Other savings: Professional architectural and engineering fees typically correspond with project complexity and construction budget. In general, these fees are percent-based and the percentage incrementally decreases as the project scope and budget increase. In this case, the fees were far less than they would have been for multiple smaller individual projects and separate sites. Additionally, because the single collocated complex was designed and developed in a shorter time frame compared with multiple facilities, the owner saved considerable project administrative costs.

In summary, our best advice to multiple agencies considering collocation, is to move forward together and success will take care of itself.

The strategies presented in this article must be adapted to local circumstances and are primarily intended to stimulate discussion, creativity and thoughtful planning among all potential facility collocation partners. Every situation is different, and there is no single prototypical solution that will serve all.

However, experience has shown that development of effective collocation design solutions are more likely to be achieved when staff from each agency are allowed the opportunity to contribute their thoughts, ideas and concerns. It is imperative to understand that involvement and support of all these individuals and groups is crucial to project success. When each group’s interests are coordinated, collocation objectives can be met and innovative superior-quality facilities can be produced.

Don H. May, AIA, is a principal architect at Rohde May Keller McNamara Architecture, PC.

Related Stories:

• Architect Don May Guides Fire Chiefs on Station Design
• How to Strategically Plan Fire, Medical Services through Fire Station Location