HomeMy WebLinkAboutReg 2011-03-07 Item 6G - Discussion - Support Strategy and Principles for Tukwila Village as Recommended by Staff COUNCIL l Ja.G FjNDA SYNOPSIS
oil ITEM IVO.
O 4�+.. Initialr
Meeting Date Prepared by lV ayor r review Conned review
k 4 02/28/11 1 DCS I 1 a,i 1
y 1 1
03/07/11 11 I DCS
INFORMATION
CAS NUMBER: 11-021 I STAFF SPONSOR: !ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: I
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Tukwila Village: Library presentation and developer selection
CATEGORY Discussion Motion Kesolution L I Ordinance Bid Award I i Public Hearing Other
Mtg Date 02/28/11 Mtg Date 3/7/11 Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date
SPONSOR Council Mayor Adm Svc:r DCD Finance n Fire Legal 1 I P&R Police PW/
SPONSOR'S King County Library System would like to present the results of their analysis of sites to
SUMMARY build a stand alone library on Tukwila Village. In addition, staff will summarize a potential
mixed -use, senior housing development concept. Council is being asked to approve a
motion in support of starting a developer selection process.
REVIEWED BY n COW Mtg. CA &P Cmte F &S Cmte Transportation Cmte
Utilities Cmte Arts Comm. Parks Comm. 1 1 Planning Comm.
DA'Z'E: COMMITTEE CHAIR:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SPONSOR /ADMIN. Mayor's Office
COMMI I r E
COST IMPACT FUND SOURCE
EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED
Fund Source:
Comments
MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
02/28/11 Discussion and forward to next Regular Meeting
MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS
02/28/11 Informational Memorandum dated 2/23/11
Memo from Kay Johnson, King County Library System
Memo from Gavin Smith, Perkins Will Architects
Tarragon Site Plan
Comparison Table: Tarragon's Proposal and Senior Housing Concept
I Healthpoint Description 1
03/07/11 Informational memorandum dated 3/3/11 I
?1 I
(Bring the C.U.W. packet from 2 ?B/11 j
22
I C if of ;r Tukwila
a
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
140
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
FROM: Derek Speck, Economic Development Administrator
DATE: March 3, 2011
SUBJECT: Tukwila Village
ISSUE
At this time, there are two main issues for Tukwila Village. First, the King County Library
System would like to build a stand -alone library on a portion of the Tukwila Village site and is
ready to enter into negotiations with the City. Second, city staff has received strong interest
from developers who would like to build a mix of uses with senior apartments as the major
component and who would also like to enter into negotiations with the City.
BACKGROUND
At the City Council meeting on February 28, 2011 staff presented the following four choices for
next steps on Tukwila Village:
(1) Select a master developer: The City could start the process to select a master
developer of the site by issuing a request for qualifications (RFQ).
(2) Start negotiations with KCLS: The City could start negotiations to sell land to the King
County Library System so it could build a stand -alone library. The library had indicated
this is their preferred option and would like to locate on the northeast corner of Tukwila
International Boulevard and South 144 Street. This is "Site B" in the Perkins Will
analysis.
(3) Both #1 and #2: We could start both of the above options but in this case, the
negotiations with the master developer would not include the property planned for the
library.
(4) None of the above
At the Council meeting and in the associated staff report, city staff recommended option #1. The
main reason for that recommendation is the belief that having one developer coordinate the site
will enable a more integrated site that maximizes site efficiency, user experience, and cost
effectiveness. In short, it creates more value (both financial and non financial). City staff also
believes this approach would attract more developers to apply and improve the selected
developer's chances of getting project financing.
23
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
At the Council meeting, the Library System expressed significant concern over option #1. KCLS
has stated they would like to move forward as quickly as possible and sees option 2 as a better
way to do that since it will take the city time to select a developer and even once a developer is
selected, situations could arise that would create delay. In addition, KCLS prefers to have
greater control of their development options and not be subject to control of an outside
developer. KCLS believes they can build a library faster and at less expense than a private
developer and thus get the most library for the cost.
DISCUSSION
City staff believes that if the Council still endorses the Tukwila Village vision that was adopted in
2007, then the library is a key and critical component for that vision. Further, that "Site B
which is the Library's preferred location on the Village property, is a good location for both the
library and the rest of the development.
Following is the Tukwila Village vision adopted by Council on 9/17/2007:
"Tukwila Village will be a welcoming place where all residents can gather and
connect with each other. This mixed -use development will draw upon Tukwila's
strengths and include a library, a neighborhood police resource center, retail,
restaurants, public meeting space, and an outdoor plaza. The Village may also
include office, live /work, and residential space. This active, vibrant place will set
high standards for quality and foster additional neighborhood revitalization and
civic pride.
After last week's Council meeting, both of the developers who have expressed interest in the
project at this time repeated their preference for the entire site and a strong willingness to
include the library with reasonable deal terms. Of the two developers, one stated they would
still apply to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) even if the Library's portion is excluded. The
other developer did not know if they will respond until they see the language in the RFQ.
Although staff would prefer to select a developer for the whole site and have that developer
negotiate with the library, if the city is faced with the choice of selling the land to the library or
not having the library as part of the Village, then it would be better to sell the land to the library.
At least we would keep that key component as part of the Village and get it moving forward.
During additional discussions this week, the Library re- emphasized its desire to move forward
quickly to not be subject to delays and costs that could be associated with having to negotiate
with a master developer. At the same time, the Library expressed that it wants to be a good
partner with the City and recognizes that the City believes it can select a developer in three
months. In addition, City staff has assured the Library that any agreement between the City and
developer would be structured to provide the Library reasonable assurance of timelines and
costs and that if the developer is unable to provide those assurances to the Library's
satisfaction, the City would then sell the land directly to the Library. Based on this discussion,
the Library has agreed to not start looking for other sites for a few months. If the City can select
a developer in three months such that the Library can meet with that developer soon after that,
the Library is willing to wait.
Please note that this week the Library indicated a willingness to lease the property with an
option to purchase and that since they do not have the funds to construct the building at this
24
G \Documents and Settings\derek -s \Desktop \Council 20110307 V1.doc
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 3
time, this may be their preferred option. In this memo all references to "selling the land" to the
library also include other options to provide control of the land to the library including methods
such as a land lease with an option to purchase.
City staff believes that at the same time that we work through the developer selection process,
we can have preliminary negotiations with the Library to agree on some draft deal terms to
protect the Library that would be part of the City's agreement with the developer. These would
be preliminary and draft since it will take having a developer to ensure the deal terms are to all
parties' satisfaction. Also during this time, city staff can start negotiations with the Library on
deal terms to sell land directly to the Library in the event a developer approach does not work
out. In an agreement between the City and Library, the City would require some methods of
ensuring that the Library's development would integrate well with the rest of the development.
Please also note that references in this memo to protecting the Library, City, or developer's
interests and satisfaction assumes an expectation of reasonableness and good faith in the
negotiations on behalf of all parties.
Staff would like to revise some statements in the staff memo dated February 23, 2011. In that
memo, staff stated that one interested developer has a concept that would include "380
apartments...with most, and maybe all, units restricted to seniors earning less than 50% or 60%
of AMI. It's possible that some of the senior units would not be income restricted..." After that
report was written, staff learned that particular developer's current concept includes for half of
the senior units to be "market rate meaning they would have no income restriction. The other
half of the units would be "affordable" meaning they would have an income restriction which
would range between 50% to 80% of area median income (AMI). Following is a table of the
current incomes that would qualify:
80%
$48 $54800 $51 680
60% $36,000 $41,100 $46, 260
50%
$30 $34250 $3850
This table reflects the maximum income for households eligible to rent apartments set aside for households at
80 60% or 50% of the area median income_
AMI area median income
Income limits per Washington State Housing Finance Commission for King County effective 5/14110_
At this stage, city staff now recommends the following strateav:
1. The City would start the developer selection process with the goal of having a developer
selected in three months (June 6, 2011). The RFQ would indicate that the preferred
option is for the developer to get control of the entire site but the City may sell a portion
of the property to the library.
C:1Documents and Settings\ derek -s \Desktop \Counci120110307 V1.doc 25
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 4
2. During the developer selection period, the City and Library would start negotiations on
(a) draft deal terms the City would include in an agreement with the developer related to
protecting the Library's interests and (b) deal terms between the City and Library for
selling the land to the library in the event a developer deal does not meet the Library's
satisfaction.
3. Upon selection of a developer, the City will quickly meet with the developer and Library
to see if a deal can be worked out between the Library and developer.
4. If the Library and developer are unable to work out a satisfactory agreement, then the
City would implement steps to sell the land to the Library.
This strategy makes sense for the City if the Council supports the following principles:
1. The City still holds the vision for Tukwila Village that was adopted in 2007.
2. The Library is still a key component of the vision and the City is committed to reasonable
deal terms to include the Library at the primary corner "Site B
3. Active living, age restricted apartments "senior apartments" for 62 and older) are an
appropriate type of residential space and can be a major portion, or even all, of the
residential space.
4. Some portion of the apartments (senior or non senior) can be "affordable meaning
income restricted to levels of 50 60% and 80% of area median income.
5. If possible, a significant portion of the units should also be "market rate meaning not
income restricted.
6. A heathcare provider, including a non profit providing primary and dental care to people
regardless of income, can be a positive use for the site.
If the Council does not support the above principles, it may not make sense to start a developer
selection process at this time and it also may not make sense to commit to having the library at
the corner since it is such a key location for the future development.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Council adopt a motion in support of the strategy and principles outlined
in this report.
ATTACHMENTS
None
2 6 C:IDocuments and Settings\derek -s \Desktop \Council 20110307 V1.doc
s41LA:{.,
O ems 4 s
o City of Tukwila
a r Jim Haggerton, Mayor
90 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Transportation Committee
B ob Giberson, Public Works Director
FROM
DATE: February 22, 2011
SUBJECT: Southcenter Parkway Extension
Project No. 98410437
Project Update
ISSUE
Present a project update that includes schedule and cost impacts from the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) permit issues.
BACKGROUND
Construction of the Southcenter Parkway Extension project started in July 2010. Some of the
work accomplished to date includes clearing, grading, preload, sanitary sewer (Minkler to
S 180 St), and storm water facilities. Work is currently being performed on the water line
installation (Minkler to S 180 St) and the sanitary sewer lift station.
The roadway project construction includes impact to wetlands, the existing cross valley levee
and one stream; all are regulated by the USACE. The necessary permits for the City fall into two
categories. One permit will cover the necessary filling of streams and wetlands, while the
second permit will deal with impacts to the levee system. Some of these impacts were
addressed in the Segale's Tukwila South original permit applications to USACE. A contingency
plan was prepared to go over the cross valley levee in lieu of Segale's permit. To date, no
permits have been issued by the USACE and the lack of these permits is negatively affecting
the construction schedule and the Contractor's ability to perform certain work.
The two City permits required by USACE are:
Nationwide 14 permit for impacts to Stream E and wetlands (submitted August 2010).
208 permit for construction over the existing cross valley levee (submitted Jan 2011).
Without these two permits, the Southcenter Parkway Extension contractor was notified to stop
all work associated with filling of streams and wetlands on August 20, 2010, but continue with all
other work. The City issued a partial suspension of project work effective December 7, 2010,
and amended that work suspension to include all activities south of South 180 St on February
8, 2011.
ANALYSIS
The lack of the Nationwide 14 permit approval began to impact the road construction project in
late August 2010. Some of the major construction activities originally scheduled to start in the
fall of 2010, but are also pending on the approval of the Nationwide 14 permit, include:
W:\PW Eng\PROJECTS\A- RW RS Projectsl98410437 SC Pkwy Extension( 57th Ave S »Construction Phase \During Construction \Info Memo Proj Update for TC 2 -17 -11 RT -sb gLdoc
27
INFORMATIONAL MEMO
Page 2
Removal of the existing bridge.
Roadway embankment work and sanitary sewer installation south of S 180` Street.
Re -route of Stream E between the existing bridge and the llama farm.
The City has been diligently working with the USACE toward issuing the necessary permits. The
Nationwide 14 permit is anticipated to be issued by March 1, 2011. The issuance of this permit
will be significant in that it will allow the Contractor to perform all work on the project except a
small amount of work near the levee.
The delays encountered to date will have both a schedule and cost impact. The specific
magnitude of these impacts will not be known until all permits have been issued and the
necessary analysis has been completed. The actual cost impact could come from the following
work elements:
Contractor home and field office overhead due to additional contract days.
Standby costs for equipment during partial suspension period.
Revisions to the road crossing and associated utilities at the cross valley levee (F -line
intersection).
The project dependence on federal permits and its overall complexity were two reasons we
have a $2.4 million contingency. We anticipated the additional costs related to the permit delays
and we are still within the project's overall budget.
The approval of USACE permits as soon as possible will limit further exposure to delay costs
and schedule impacts. Project staff will also try to resolve any outstanding cost issues with the
Contractor as soon as possible.
RECOMMENDATION
For information only.
2 8 W.1PW Eng\PROJECTSN RW d RS Projectsl98410437 SC Pkvry Extension( 57th Ave S)1Conseuction Phase \Dunne Constmction\Info Memo Pro( Update for TC 2 -17 -11 RT -s6 gLdoc