HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial 2014-12-15 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET - Facilities Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study Phase IIITUKWILA FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY
MEETING PURPOSE
PHASE 3 COUNCIL WORK SESSION
DECEMBER 15, 2014 1 5:30 PM - 7:30 PM
TUKWILA COUNCIL CHAMBERS
• Overview of the facility alternatives being
considered within the feasibility study, and
the conclusions and recommendations
coming forth from the consultant team and
Steering Committee.
• Discussion regarding communicating the
status and direction of the feasibility study
with the community, and the Council's
concurrence on the strategies.
AGENDA
MEETING MATERIALS
1. Facility Improvement Alternatives, dated 11-
06 -2014, representing Phase 3 of the
consultant's report.
5:30 pm Facility Assessment Overview and Status
Phase 1 and 2 Refresher; Goals for Phase 3
Evaluation Criteria for Facility Alternatives
Delivering city services from multiple facilities — departmental
City Hall Campus
Public Safety Building
Fire Department
Public Works
Communication and Community Engagement Strategies
Council discussion and concurrence
7:30 pm Adjourn
PP'
RICEf ?rguI.SMILLER
A 11 I; 11 I ff It & M' I A M1Ir4
Dave Fergus /
relationships
Dave Fergus
Dawn Couch
Dave Fergus
Dave Fergus
Dave Fergus
Dave Fergus
Dave Fergus
Dave Fergus
Dawn Couch
All
�
p 'I
���'|'tn|0O���C����](�[l�8|���[]�t'veS
. -� Improvement ^' Alternatives
Revised 11-06-2014
1. Criteria in Evaluating Alternatives
ee s��U
�
00ysis
�
00"'e4si Obi itnStu y
R. ice 00"'eril us Mi0000eor
'1'1..111111
Over the course of Phase 1 and 2 of the Feasibility Study, we heard several priorities in
conversations with the Tukwila City Council and our Steering Committee that should be employed
in evaluating which facility improvements best serve the long-term needs of the City. These
priorities were refined during Phase 3, and further confirmed by an Agree/Disagree Worksheet
with the Steering Committee. Community presentations during Phase 3 yielded additional
valuable insights into community opinions and impressions. All of these efforts have culminated
in the foliowing priorities for assessing the various alternatives:
Public Safety
In judging the merits of one alternative over another, public safety has emerged as the top priority
on numerous occasions. Ensuring the safety of the citizens of Tukwila was clearly expressed by
the Tukwila City Council. When it comes to fire and police, having the right people in the right
place at the right time with the right equipment is fundamental. But it also means that when a
flood or other natural disaster occurs that Public Works can get to their equipment to clear the
roads so fire and police are able to respond to the emergency. The location of the City's
Emergency Operation Center is also important to public safety by ensuring its survivability in the
case of a disaster, as well as access to It by those who will staff It.
It was unanimous by the Steering Committee that benefiting Public Safety should be the highest
priority in evaluating alternatives.
Customer Service
The City of Tukwila exists to serve its citizens. So, it is naturaily important that government services
are easily accessible and convenient to those seeking services. This includes not only the facilities
themselves, but also the vehicular access, parking, proximity to bus routes, and pedestrian routes
leading to the building entrances. "Customer Service" also entails facilities that are customer
service friendly, accessible across cultures and languages, and that provide the opportunity for city
staff to provide a high level of customer service.
Customer service was identified by the Steering Committee as the second highest priority in evaluating
alternatives.
Efficient Delivery of City Services
Co'|ocatingdepartnnentsthatinteractvvitheachotheraddsefficiencytotheOty'soperations,
which ultimately means more service for the tax dollars collected. The separation of the current
City Hall and 6300 Building 15 a case in point. Splitting departments between two buildings, or
even simply between two floors, diminishes communication within the department and adds
travel time between the two facilities. This creates inefficiencies and higher costs of doing
business.
IP a
�
ee s��U
�
00ysis
�
00"'e4si 030 itnStu y
R. ice 00"'eril us Mi0000eor
'1'1..111111
The high importance of this priority was confirmed by the Steering Committee in Iight of its close
ussndutinnwithnnunynfthentherprinrities — efficient delivery of emergency services is important to
Public Safety; efficient delivery of city services contributes to better customer service; and efficient
de//veq/nfsen//cesresu/ts/nnnoree/fic/entusenfthec/ty's financial resources.
t Cost
Fundamental to the City of Tukwila's mission is to be good stewards of the financial resources it
collects from the citizens served. The City's intent is to build neither a Ta Mahal, nor a cheap
structure with a short life span. Rather the City of Tukwila desires to own and occupy structures of
good value, that are a good long term investment for the city, and match the expectations of
Tukwila citizens.
In regards to costs in un any of the identifie all vote by the Steering Committee as
to importance ofde ent cost were in agreement, with votes cast equally between "agree" and
"strongly agree." The degree of agreement reflects the importance of being the right cost, as opposed
to simply higher or lower. Ensuring the "value" of the long term investment will be important.
On-going Operating Expenses
The City of Tukwila has a strong preference for spending funds on the delivery of service as
opposed to operating and maintaining City facilities. The existing 6300 Building is a good
example. The low quality mechanical systems, minimal insulation, and inexpensive windows all
contribute to high energy costs and expansive maintenance. The use of high quality and long
lasting materials that take little maintenance upkeep are strongly desired to ensure a quality
investment. Alternatives that promote energy efficiency and cost effective operation are equally
important.
The Steering Committee uniformly agreed in the importance ofon-going operating costs with that
agreement equally split between "agree" and "strongly agree."
Location
When deciding where to locate a business, any business owner will tell you that the three most
important criteria are location, location, and location. The same can be said for locating
government services. The quality and level of service increase when centrally located, easy to find,
and convenient for community members. For facilities that deliver service from a particular
location, such as police and fire facilities, locating these facilities where they can provide swift and
efficient emergency response services is also an important consideration.
Location raised mixed opinions in regards to importance fovtheSteerinz[on/nnittee,nothecouse
location isn't important, but because its importance varies widely amongst d8fferent services provided
by the City of Tukwila. Location has a very high priority for delivering emergency services since response
distances can have a direct bearing on the success rate for those responses. Location has considerably
less importance for city services with Iittle public interaction, such as shops for Public Works.
Flexibility
As a result of the Agree/Disagree Workshop with the Steering Committee it became apparent that
the concept of Fiexibility for any ofthe proposed alternatives would be of high importance.
Fiexibility in the project ject sequence could allow p jects to occur sooner or later depending on
when funding becomes available. Flexibility in project timing cou|d allow a particular project to be
constructed when warranted by growth, as opposed to a date based on growth projections.
IP a
�
ee s��U
�
ysis
�
0 00 tnSt u y
R.icfe Feral us Miller
��
,111111111111,
Flexibility within any of the projects thatsupportsphasinginnpnovennentsincnsnnentaUyovertinne
would be a significant benefit to the City.
2. Essential Government Services — Relationship Diagrams
In the delivery of government services there are certain departments that work very closely
together while there are others that have little or no interaction. Understanding these internal
relationships is important in assessing which departments should be co-located in the same
building and which could be Iocated elsewhere.
During Phase 2 of the study, an informal poll was undertaken to understand the relationship of the
City's individual departments, the interaction amongst them, and how adjacencies could enhance
their overall effectiveness and efficiency. Relationship Diagrams were prepared that graphically
portrays the relative size of each department to one another, and their interdependence. The
thicker the line, the more important the relationship 15.
The importance of the Relationship Diagrams comes in understanding the consequences of
placing government services in more, or less, separate structures. Alternate segregations can be
evaluated simultaneously with alternate property configurations.
Facility Needs Analysis
Essential Government Services
June 6, 2014
70,000 to 79,000 sf
0 1111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111u
000000_000 1111111111111111111111111 01 0000 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
�
�
OOP
tattattrall
Fire lOporationol
___
111111111111111111111111
soil 11,000000000mo
INIIIII1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 -m111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
011110110111 11101010101010101010101010101010101010
38,000 to 46,000 st
53,000 to 57,000 51
Figure 3.1: Relationship Diagram
IP a
44,000 to 53,000 st
RICE -
loves
MIL ER'
City of Tukwila Needs Arialysis arid Feasibilit, y
Rice Fergus MilIer
3. City Hall / Public Safety Campus Alternatives
The current City Hall and 6300 Building are set on three contiguous parcels that total 6.75 acres in
size. There are three vehicular access points - one on the east from 65th Avenue South, one on the
west from 62' Avenue South (via Southcenter Boulevard), and another directly from Southcenter
Boulevard to the south.
The current City Hall building is approximately 25,000 square feet in size on two floors.
The 6300 Building is approximately 33,000 square feet in size on two floors over a 16,000 square
foot parking garage.
The conclusions drawn from Phase 2 were that the 6300 Building is a clear candidate for
replacement, but that City Hall could be evenly argued for either renovation or replacement.
Deficiencies in the current City Hall were equally balanced with the positive attributes of the
building. These conclusions were drawn based upon criteria established by City Council and the
Steering Committee.
In co junctionwiththeAoree/DisagreeexencisewiththeSteehngConnnnitteethensvvasso|id
agreement that if costs were equal in renovating or replacing the current City Hall Building that it
should be retained and renovated.
• .`
•
RICE, ^� ��� _ ~*_ -
. `"'**` �00�
�m���n �,�N0� "��� � Figure 3.2: Existing City Hall Campus
°diak•.
Hall Campus Property
Current Conditions_��
City t "It 00 0 00
�
ee s��U
�
00ysis
�
00"'e4si i itnStu y
R. ice 00"'eril us Mi0000eor
"'111'440111
444441,
With input from the Steering Committee the following strategies were considered, each with a
number of alternatives within the concept of the strategy.
Option 1 - Retain and renovate both the existing City Hall and 6300 Building
This option would entail an extensive reorganization and renovation of both buildings. In the case
of City Hall, the lofty character and iconic nature of the building would be retained, but the
exterior envelope and internal systems substantially upgraded. For the 6300 Building, the entire
building would be gutted down to structure only, including complete removal of the exterior skin
of the building. In rebuilding the 6300 Building, the current parking level would be enclosed and
converted to office use, thereby increasing the usable square footage from 33,000 square feet to
approximately 49,000 square feet.
Both buildings would be brought up to current codes and the equivalent of new construction in
systems and longevity. The combined square footage of the two building with this option would
total approximately 74L000 square feet.
The greatest advantage of this strategy is cost. This would be a result of minimizing the disruption
to the site and the minimal consequential site improvements. All existing parking, landscaping,
and utility infrastructure would remain for the most part as is.
There are, however, several disadvantages to this scheme that should be recognized. The minimal
floor to floor height of the garage level of the 6300 Building would make the mechanical system
ducting more challenging; ceiling heights lower than would be typical for commercial office
space; and replacing parking that has been displaced by building out the lower level of the 6300
Building. Additionally, occupying two separate buildings as the city does now would not increase
the efficiency in delivering city services, nor do much to improve customer service over what
exists today.
-
004111111 1f124rhIng
1111111
1. lop o
oho ooOgoLoobi.o
�
�
Figure 3.2: City Hall Campus Option 1
IP a
ode' OJA,
0;40�
1,11 pus Pro
City of Tukwila Needs Analysis and Feasibilit, y
Rice Fergus Mdler
Option 2 - City Hall Addition in place mf the 6300 Building
Similar to Option 1, this option would retain the current City Hall, but demolish the 6300 Buliding
in its entirety. A significant addition to the City Hall building would be constructed in its place. This
addition would likely be three stories in height with two floor levels matching those of City Hall.
The result would be a single contiguous building housing all of the City's administrative and
public safety functions.
Like Option 1, site improvements would be minimized by concentrating the new construction in
the same general confines as the demolition of the 6300 Building.
On the positive side, this approach could allow this addition to City Hall to be scaled larger or
smaller, affording flexibility in timing, phasing, and funding. Efficiency would be improved being a
single building, and customer service could be improved through better internal reorganization
and a new primary building entrance in the new addition.
A challenge with this option would be replicating the parking lost that is currently beneath the
6300 Building. Additionally, increasing the overall building square footage on the property would
trigger additional required parking. Considering the existing City Hall property is already fully
utilized, this additional parking would have to be accommodated on other property adjacent to,
or within a reasonable vicinity of City Hall.
City Hall
��
�m,"*~".°lerm°°.Th^"`^on°m
0re"=u^.* the existing o* Hall budding,
")n.",. r.`.,.• 25 mw,'.
`
,.°
.
20,,—^7046:'
— BCC, 9.00no mpm*
3.900 sl .-.-- .~. ....
.~.~..~~.^~ ..~, .~���
""r'sum� ��� ��
`~"°" ~°", °°'`,
�~^ 5,000v ,~"
Police
n/mo *.w��
�"� =°^ p^=" n�� ,~�"
",.�"°~ �"=" ^�^* �a*^��
rm*. 76,40o* 873100 •.1
•
-
' -
}
•
Addition ^^�,��A �.�.
^��� Addition
dial replaced by a 48,000 sf,
�_. _� --
- —
"m^..~*,°°." City Hall building.
R|cE
`orilk
ni 1
,�m
50 00010
415).5.1e.5, r(5/5�'
Figure 3.3: City Hall Campus Option 2
Page 3-6
�
ee s��U
�
00ysis
�
00"'e4si b i itnStu y
R. ice 00"'eril us Mi0000eor
111°111111111
.111111111w
Option 3(m)-6300 Building replaced with a New Public Safety Building
Like the previous options, City Hall would receive a m jor reorganization and renovation. The 6300
Building would be demolished, and a new stand-alone Public Safety Building would be
constructed separately on the property. The Public Safety Building would primarily house police
and courts, but could also include Fire Department Administration, the City's EOC, and
lnformation Technology Department.
The new Public Safety Building would be constructed on the upper portion of the property. This
would facilitate a phased construction approach that would minimize disruptions to city
operations during construction. The first step would be constructing the new Public Safety
Building. Public safety services would move into it from City Hall and the 6300 Building. City
services remaining in City Hall would be temporarily moved over to the 6300 Building to facilitate
renovation of the City Hall Building. When renovation is complete, the 6300 Building would be
vacated, the building demolished, and the space replaced with surface parking.
Once complete this option would segregate those individuals visiting City Hall (seeking city
services) from those visiting the Public Safety Building (in response to criminal, judicial, nr|egn|
pursuits). The ability to allow city services to remain on-site and operational throughout
construction would clearly be a benefit, albeit an elongated construction period with unavoidable
compromises in sharing the property with a general contractor and their operations.
Of importance to the Steering Committee was not losing vehicular access from 65th Avenue South
to the east. The committee also expressed concern with height for the new building and the
potential impacts on the adjacent properties. Like Options 1 and 2, the increased building area will
necessitate additional parking, some that could be accommodated below grade below the new
building, but some additional parking would likely have to be accommodated off-site.
111111,11,1
ii01111111111111
Figure 3 4: City Hall Option 3(a)
IP a
City of Tukwila Needs Analysis and Feasibilit, y
Rice Fergus Mdler
Option 3(b)—New Public Safety Building /Mew Property
This option is the same concept as Option 3(a), except that the new Public Safety Building would
be built on property other than the current City Hall property. This could be property the City
owns elsewhere in Tukwila, or the City could acquire a new parcel. Like 3(a), the Public Safety
Building would primarily house police and courts, but could include Fire Department
Administration, the City's EOC, and Information Technology Department.
Like 3(a), this option facilitates a phased construction approach. The first step would be
constructing the new Public Safety Building. Public safety services would move into it from City
Hall and the 6300 Building. City services remaining in City Hall would be temporarily moved over
to the 6300 Building to facilitate renovation of the City Hall Building. When renovation is
complete, the 6300 Building would be vacated, the building demolished, and the space replaced
with surface parking.
Option 3(b) affords significantly less disruption to city operations during construction simply
because of less overall construction on the campus than Option 3(a). This option also minimizes
the issue of needing to add parking in response to the increased building demand. Removal of the
6300 Building reduces parking demand, which in turns creates growth opportunity for the existing
City Hall without the need to add parking when the bullding 15 expanded.
Important to note, this option gives the city hall services enough growth capacity in property area
to accommodate the 40-year needs as identified during Phase 1 of this study. With the removal of
the 6300 Building, a practical approach to expanding the existing City Hall building would be to
the east in its place. This addition could be scaled larger or smaller, affording flexibility in timing,
phasing, and funding. And, like Option 2, deliver of city services would be more efficient with a
single building as opposed to the current City Hall / 6300 Building arrangement.
6...City Hall
ft
�^
- malt—et _�" r
nww10^% m^w m*
-� . �
~ ~ � =~
~°°,'~°"°.^.id
~ov"~"~ III, ."^.~ (Ay Hall s^m~o
, guar, 25m00 ^'
\-f-
,6010 Current Cily Ha-11—"'
"~"3.
' 711 � Wu
----'
U163071),Bvoxmo
,,m"=
City Hall
Addition
� - _~
�Anc —^t
7. ' w1„
�0r4 a
Figure 3 5: City Hall Option 3(b)
�
~~
2040.
,C), I/ 001, ,I .~mo
o,.~" `°m./ 1400 ,I
/^=~,es^~°" 1 -550 5I ,pm
informanon Technology 2°m^ r^*v
w�..wm, 500 5! . xmo��
'=." ^,m* ^x*v'�
^.w,n~"``^*"w �o,' ,"m
....�~~� 4,500 " ~���
r^^ r�" �o�* .�em51+
.��
/ t10■5-1010 +~, ..�...~"��
.+..^*"w",r~pw".,, .°up."11''~�~^`
.°^.,wc*"w
Page 3-8
�
ee s��U
�
�
itnSt u y
R.ice00"'eril us Mi0000eor
Option 4- New City Hall & New Public Safety Building / New Property
Option 4 proposes to replace both the current City Hall and the 6300 Building with two new
structures on property other than the current City Hall campus. Upon completion of these two
new structures, the existing City Hall campus of properties and buildings would be sold.
Many of the advantages and disadvantages of this option are similar to Options 3(a) and (b) that
come with new construction - modern facilities that are more efficient operationally, ease of
maintaining city services during construction, and the opportunity to locate city services where
customer service would be high. However, the public appearance in abandoning and selling of
the current City Hall could receive a negative reaction from some of the city's constituents - those
who see useful life remaining in the building, and those who are accustomed to visiting City Hall
where it currently exists.
While no specific parcels have been proposed or investigated as part of this study, the following
site plan diagram is reflective of this option. A reasonable estimate for property size adequate to
accommodate the city's long-term needs would be 6 to 8 acres of useable land area. This equates
to a parcel of 8 to 10 acres, or larger, depending on setbacks, topography, and the proximity of
environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands or steep slopes.
New Construction & New Property Ac visixvn
Property Size: 8 to 10 Acres
Square Footage: ,,,0mm,o3,o00*
|
iiiiMESPIMO, too,
'ii''''''''''''''''liru,.1,.11:.1:.1:.1:.1:.1:.1:'.1"::.1:::::::::'1:1:':'IFt:1:':':'I:'I:'I:'I'il'llill:11:11111illIllIll'tIIIII'llIllIllil'I'll'!'!'!!I'l'I'l'I'l'I'll'...I..'I'.'I'.'I'.'I'.,1.,1.,1.',1'.',1'\i",jj)II')II'llj)liill4jlilljlli,lijitjto)I,.1,
'.,IEINIIEIIIIIIIHI!!!'"'"'''''' ill11,!.j11),Iiij.1))1jilliii.,,I. j.j1.1)1j ti 1111,11V..,I....,1...111111,1.11I1111,1. ,ii
- j11 :'1':1J':'''. i
I It_ j.
''''''',',./oi:::.,:::,,m....',...'...',.'...':19'6'711,21A
......),)i,)ItTi/ i/i);""'"" '
Hypothetical Site Diagram
miLfER
DCD
Finance
Human Resources
Information Technology
Mayor's Office
Council
Courts
Police
Public Works (/wmw
Fire (^^mm)
Parks ^*=*omi*
EOC
2013: 2040:
9,000 sf
1,300 sf
2,600 sf
5,n00*
4,400 m
,.mwm
a3,,ww
7,`00*
10,300 y
^40nm
1,500 st
z,900m
,.nmm
^wm*
,.nwu
40.wv*
7,600 sf
4,50 * 5,v00*
8,700 s 9,800 u
91,100 st 103,200 91
City Hall Campus Property
opt n4
Figure 3.6: City Hall Option 4
For reference, the current City Hall campus property is approximately 6.75 acres in size.
Option 5- Acquire and Remodel another Facility
There are no graphics depicting this option, but the proposal would be to acquire an existing
building in the central urban core of the city and remodel it into a New City Hall and Public Safety
Center.
IP a
�
ee s��U
�
00ysts
�
00"'e4si 030 0 itnSt u y
R. ce 1111"2eral us Mill111111eor
'n°11.110111
Application of Priorities for City Hall Options
Utilizing the criteria prioritized and confirmed by the Steering Committee, Option 3(b) ranked
highest, closely followed by Option 4.
Option ` -Retain city Hall and o»00Building
Option x' City Hall Addition in plae of 6300 Building
Option 3*) oaoo Building replaced with ^ New Public Safety Building
Option aim' New Public Safety Building / New Property
Option 4 - NeW City Hall & New Public Safety Bwlding / New Property
Option s'Acquire and Remodel another Facility
Key:
Customer Semi(
Operating Expenses
a
m
a
IS
a
o
n
m
3
a
HHHHHHH
*
2w
«
o
5
zo
z
6
*
o
3
3
w
4
H
4
m
o
20
HUH
30
«
zo
s
20
y
m
4
4
*
p;
o
,z
*
u
n
3
o
5 Opportunity for 5 ubsmnfiM/mrrovemem high value; cost effective
4 Likely to be somewhat improved; better; Dower cost than mmprabieprojects
3 Maintains current; status quo; average
2 Likely touesomewhat diminished, m, compromised; b*Dww average; higher cost than c^mp.eb/eprojects
1 Clearly nv*cr than current; ,.nmincanmv below average; expensive
R Raw Scare
W Weighted Scare
Table 3.1: Ranking of City Hall Options
Our recommendations for the City Hall / Public Safety Buildings are:
21
m
24
75
26
85
32
TOO
29
95
22
72
• That the function of City Hall remains on the current City Hall property
• That the current City Hall be retained and renovated if feasible and cost effective, as
opposed to replacing it with new construction
• That Police and Courts be relocated into a new Public Safety Bullding
• That the new Public Safety Building be constructed elsewhere than on the current City Hall
campus
• That the 6300 Building be retained as 'interim' space while a new Public Safety Building is
being built and City Hall being renovated. As noted in Phase 2, the expense of renovating
the 6300 Building in order to retain it 'permanently' is not cost effective.
�
3001 0
6
4
3
1
2
City t "r131 01
4. Fire Department Facility Alternatives
�
ee s��U
�
00ysis
�
U
00"'e4si b i itnStu y
R. ice 00"'eril us Mi0000eor
'110111001
0111lic
Currently, the City of Tukwila and the Kent Regional FireAuthority are actively discussing the
possibilities of merging andior consolidating the Tukwila Fire Department into the Kent
Regional Fire Authority. While all indications are positive, the ultimate outcome of these
discussions will not be known for some time. Therefore, this portion of the study is written
strictly from the perspective ofmstand-alone fire department operated by the City of Tukwila,
and should not be construed as recommendations how and where to deliver fire protection
services from a larger, regional provider.
The Tukwila Fire Department currently operates
out of four stations. Phase 2 ofthe Facility
Assessment concluded that all but Fire Station
53 (northern most station) should be replaced
based on criteria established by City Council
and the Steering Committee.
A number of response time studies have been
undertaken by the Fire Department. Based on
recommendations from those studies, the City
nf Tukwila acquired a parcel on South 180y'
Street with the intent of relocating Fire Station
51 to this Iocation to better serve the growing
south end ofthe city.
Option 1-4JY54;and
Relocate HQ Station 51
Response time analysis clearly points to the
close proximity of Stations 52 and 54 (3
minutes), and close proximity of SeaTac's Fire
Station 47 to Tukwila's Fire Station 54 (3
minutes). Option 1 proposes to partner with
the City of SeaTac to consolidate Stations 47
and 54 into a single new station. Located
northwest of these two fire stations would
provide more even distribution of response
coverage to both cities.
Fire Department - Existing Deployment
0
0 00
c„„.
Cc 10 „„cccc11,cCcc::ccci..cccicccCccCccc1a,;c,,cc,„c.
000
City of Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan
&Zoning Map
103101001110
Option 1 also proposes to relocate Fire Station
51 to the new property on South 1 80th Street, �~ ---
including the Fire Department's administration
division and the City's Emergency Operation
Center, making Fire Station 51 a true
Headquarters for the Department.
The existing Fire Station 51 would be vacated
with the move to South 1 80th Street, and the
property subsequently surplused.
�
0
Figure 3.7: Fire Dept Existing Deployment
CRy. THL11111
Facility Needs Analysis and Feasibility Study
Fire Department - Option 1
otvg„„,
d
ee s
MILLER
d
d
1111"'e4sillIbillIlity Stu y
R.ice 111Peral us Mill111111er
City of Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan
& Zoning Map
1 000
0040
Np„„, ,
PON POIPkptHro, to be
,,op w[p , p p t.144pto .A0 kba
,
000104004 11000 as Tukwila,
01011100 01010000 00000 40
n u
KdrIg Caw, Ihsh.15
[Legend:5
0110 Slation
Floplop T01.110 FP PP
Pep 0000 SIPA 47 Ph,
strappip PAP pl.
serves
0000 pisdPions. (.101;■
CpsidemPo PP P
pipholp PM MP, npuir
APO 0, p.p.° this IA1
Pr"
P.M.. 52
Patimpladonpp prlapd on new Pe 000 00
Ion id400l0110611 040000001000(000
pody voaufd
apPIPIAly 2440000040400l0101000
41100.11y 10 IP phIsPpleip 010
00000(0 erneopPy.01140 004.10,0, POP
ptxt p sop.
Sea.: Mfg NUM 45
,‘1,„
'441P ,,,,,,
WO NrAt 140641qPNAIIIPIPStatlen 00
%\l, consructed (1;1RO0# *000(0,,
,''nY?,"::''''d 04
t CZSt41:11
00. ' 01::::::7::Ii'r7.:4";:',V:::
cV1.10,,,,.., ,I14 1001060100001101040111,110000
■
\
Figure 3.8: Fire Department Option 1
e
City t "It ROO o1111
agW,
ee s PcU
agW,
U
IIII"'e4si 1111) 1111 itnStu y
R. ice 111Peral us Mill111111er
Option 3-4JY54;and HQ at City Hall
This alternative proposes that all four of Tukwila's fire stations be strictly response stations, and
that administrative functions and the City's EOC be incorporated into the City Hall / Public Safety
Campus. Similar to Option 1, Station 51 would be relocated to the new property and Station 54
would be replaced in partnership with the City ofSeaTac.
Option 3- Relocate Stations 52 and 54
This option assumes a partnership 15 unattainable with the City of SeaTac.
With this option, both station 52 and 54 are relocated for a more even distribution of resources
within the boundaries of the City. Fire Station 54 would be relocated to the northwest and Fire
Station 52 would be relocated to the southeast, possibly as far south as the current City Hall
property.
With the southerly relocation of Fire Station 51, strong consideration should be given to relocating
Station 52 south of its current location. This would provide more even distribution of resources
across the city. It would also provide emergency response capabilities on both the north and
south boundaries of the city's commercial core.
City of Tukwila City of Tukwila
Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan
�
Figure 3.9: Fire Department Option 2
�
����
-- \ ��' ~�m
•
•
��-
---
-----
ggg
Figure 3.10: Fire Department Option 3
�
ee s��U
�
�
00"'e4s 030 itnStu y
R. ce 00"'eril us M 00eor
"'P.11110111
Application of Priorities for Fire Department Omtions
Utilizing the criteria prioritized and confirmed by the Steering Committee, Options 1 and 2 ranked
highest, primarily because of the operational and cost saving benefits of a joint fire station with
the City of SeaTac.
Option ,'^//5« and Relocate HQ to 51
Option z'onm and Relocate xnm City Hall
Option 3 - Relocate Stations 52 and 54
Public Safe
Customer Service (x
Efficient Delivery of City Services (x4)
Ongoing Operating Expenses (x2)
Flexibll'lty (xl )
HHHHHHH
s 4 4 ,
iii
,
m
4
4
*
4
«
Key:
5 mpportuvfty for substanga//mprovernent; high value, cost effective
4 Likely tour somewhat /mproved' better; mv,, cost than mmr=meprojects
3 Maintains current: status qum,average
2 Likely mbe somewhat u/m^nuhwt"rcompromised; be/,w average; higher cost than mmpremeprojects
I Clearly lower than current; mowmcmn^nv below average; r^p*n^/ve
A Raw Score
W Weighted Score
Table 3.2: Ranking of Fire Department Options
31
99
31
99
26
83
Our recommendations for the City of Tukwila, without regard to the ongoing discussions and
possibility of the Tukwila Fire Department merging and/or consolidating into the Kent Regional
Fire Authority:
• Construct a replacement Fire Station 51 on the property recently acquired on South 1 80th
Street
• Construct a replacement Fire Station 54 in partnership with a City of SeaTac replacement
oftheir Fire Station 47; surplus the existing Fire Station 54
• Acquire property for replacing Fire Station 52 south of the current Fire Station 52 and
north of City Hall; construct a new Fire Station 52; surplus the existing Fire Station 52
• Renovate and add to the existing Fire Station 53 on its current property
•
�
3-111 4
1
�
5. Public Works Alternatives
ee s��U
�
�
1111"'e4sillIbillIlitnStu y
R ce111Peral us Mill111111er
;Of
■
Phase 2 concluded that the City's public works facilities are in some of the worst physical
condition, cramped, di jointed,andntnhighhskforcoUnpseintheeventofnsignificnnt
earthquake. Additionally, their proximity to the river with the threat of inaccessibility in the event
of a flood further exacerbates their need to be both replaced and relocated.
Phase 2 also concluded that if both the George Long and Minkler Shops were being replaced, that
co'|ocntingthennonaconso|idntedcannpusvvou|dpnovidennopeopenotionn|efficiencies,nndbe
more cost effective in both development costs and on-going operating expenses. Consequently,
the options for Public Works are not about what to build, but rather where to build.
New Facilities /New Property
Based on the metrics developed in Phase 1 of our services, today's needs for city shops, repair, and
maintenance facilities should be approximately 70,000 square feet, and by the year 2040
approximately 80,000 square feet. This 15 roughly 70% more space than currently exists in the
George Long and Minkler shop facilities combined.
In the same way the Public Works facilities are significantly undersized, the property is equally
undersized, and likely by a similar proportion. The George Long and Minkler Shops currently utilize
about 5 acres of 'usable land area' despite both properties being considerably larger than that. It
would be our recommendation that the City pursue property with 8 to 10 acres of 'usable land
area' which could mean a parcel as large as 10 to 15 acres in total depending on topography,
zoning, and proximity to sensitive areas.
New Construction & New Property Acquisition
Property Size: 15 to 20 Acres
Aggregate Building Square Footage: 63,000 to 72,000 sf
����0
, ' ...... . :::x
) u, • : ( 1 .1. ti.111N
" "
, , ~� "N���
�| UU���
� �� ���
������� . �. '' '' '� pllp „iv. 1.11..1111
lava I I/
nypmxet Si e Diagram
„„„ii di.18111111111111111111111„
Replacement of George Long and Minkler
Shops on a single consolidated campus.
Required land area to support new campus
would be approximately 8 to 10 acres of
'buildable' land area. Depending on
topography, zoning, and proximity to
sensitive areas such as wetlands, this facility
may require a parcel as large as 15 to 20
Location Criteria:
- Outside floodplains and floodways
- Outside areas of liquefaction soils
- Centrally located within City
-
Figure 3.11: PubIic Works Site Diagram
•
�
35111 5
City t TUI 00
�
Our recommendations for Public Works are:
ee s��U
�
�
1111"'ek■sillIbillIlitnStu y
R ice111Peral us Mill111111er
• Acquire property for a new Public Works and Shops Campus. In evaluating individual
parcels, the foliowing characteristics should be sought at a minimum:
• Size (minimum 8 to 10 acres of 'usable land area'
• Outside of mapped floodplains and floodways
• Outside of mapped area of soils subject to Iiquefaction
• Property with an industrial zoning designation
• Efficient access to all portions of the City
■
• In addition to evaluating alternative properties for a new City ofTukwila Public Works
[annpus,theCityshou|dinvestigateondconsiderthepossibiUtyofsharingafaciUty,orco-
locating a facility with a neighboring city, municipality or other public entity.
•
�