The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFS 2016-05-03 Item 2C - Review - Facilities Plan Council Questions MatrixCity of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Finance and Safety Committee FROM: Bruce Linton, Deputy Police Chief CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: April 25, 2016 SUBJECT: Facilities Options Council Questions Matrix ISSUE The City Council has requested that staff maintain a matrix of questions raised by Councilmembers during the facilities process. Staff is bringing the most updated version to Finance and Safety for review, discussion and potential additions. It is anticipated that this matrix will continue to be discussed and reviewed throughout the process as additional questions are raised and information becomes available. Some of the questions on the matrix require additional backup materials, and these are included in today's packet. These include additional information requested by Council that covers: • Details on the costs for apparatus and equipment • Details on the construction cost for the facilities RECOMMENDATION The Committee is asked to review, discuss and provide additional questions. ATTACHMENTS Facilities matrix updated April 25, 2016. Tukwila Facilities Cost Estimates Tukwila Fire Apparatus, Vehicle and Capital Equipment Replacement Schedules 41 42 2016 Facilities Plan Review COUNCIL QUESTIONS Date Councilmember Comment /Question Response 3/22/16 Robertson What is included in 21M for equipment and apparatus? 20 year bond. It is the equivalent to $900 a year from the general fund, which is what we would need to spend to fully fund equipment and apparatus if we did it out of the general fund. 3/22/16 Robertson Does Plan B include the administration's recommendation? Yes 3/22/16 Quinn Was there a reassessment of the numbers? Yes, the numbers were slightly adjusted with the addition of Plan B and are not expected to change. 3/22/16 Kruller How long is this proposed bond? 20 years 3/22/16 Kruller Why is a proposed Public Safety building prioritized in this proposal when the shops and fire stations are in such poor condition? This was the recommendation of the steering committee, which prioritized public safety. The Council can make a decision on sequencing. 3/22/16 Robertson Quinn What is the impact to homeowner per year for each scenario? Describe the length of time the City has known of facility deficiencies to the degree they are impacting service delivery. Covered in 4/11 Workshop. The City's facilities have been an issue since annexations caused some of our staff to double in different work groups – such as police. While the City brought on significantly more staff to provide services to the new residents, expanded or new facilities were not included. Since that time, staff levels have only continued to grow to meet the City's service needs and yet, with the exception of acquiring the 6300 building, we have continued to focus our investments in other capital efforts such as TIB transformation, major infrastructure projects, etc. In 2008, a consultant study identified the significant seismic deficiencies in many of our buildings but the subsequent recession did not allow us to do any major investments. Through the 2012 strategic plan process there was a recognition of the importance of city facilities, and council appropriated $350,000 for the facilities study in the 2013/2014 budget to begin addressing the issue. 3/22/16 SCENARIO 1 4/11/16 Hougardy Can land be included in "capital purposes" re: UTGO? Yes More details to follow. Current proposal for 50% of Public Works Shops to be paid for by utility enterprise funds fall within the expected rate increases due to planning for adequate reserves and contingencies. Rates are reviewed every fall and will undergo constant oversight based on actual consumption, usage and billings. 4/11/16 Hougardy Quinn Would like more detail on enterprise program funds, especially to answer to the potential for raising utility taxes 4/11/16 Is there risk in the approach regarding enterprise funds considering the aging system? Minimal risk, the City has turned a corner on the sewer failures and the relining project is funded. 4/11/16 Hougardy Would like something in writing describing the answer given just above. 4/11/16 Kruller Could you describe previous trends regarding debt capacity? Will be provided at 5/17 F &S meeting. 4/11/16 Quinn How does this approach impact our bond rating? For both bonds and 63/20. Debt capacity always impacts bond rating. There isn't a schedule of how particular choices will impact that. Talk to your financial planner and rating agency, look at peer cities. Hitting a threshold of 50% is a concern and should be vetted. 4/11/16 Quinn Kruller I am interested in looking at example you provided – capital investments have to make —full menu of things we have to do as a city and have that be evaluated on bond rating. Should we ask rating agency? UTGO is dependent on voters. If they don't support levy should we go forward with city shops only? What is the scenario? If this is a package, why would we self - eliminate? Rating agency may or may not be helpful. Question to ask is about your overall debt utilization. They may indicate what percentage they look at. 4/11/16 Facilities Steering committee looked at if /then statements, and this is a policy question for Council to decide. There are no assumptions about proceeding. 4/11/16 Kruller Fire Stations weren't considered until we sidelined the annexation. How does the priority end up being Public Safety Building and shops? Fire stations 51, 52, 54 was part of Phase 1 and 2 in Facilities Study. All ranked, along with City shops, very low. This order is the same presented in the RFA analysis, although the schedule is faster. Phasing is a Council decision. Updated 4/27/16 SCENARIO 2 Hougardy Is it correct that if the value of a home goes up, the taxes don't necessarily go up? 4/11/16 Yes. The City would levy the amount required to meet debt payments. Total assessment value divided by 1,000 divided by levy amount determines the levy rate. The levy rate is then applied to each individual parcel. The impact to the individual parcel is entirely dependent on how all other parcels' assessed value changes as well as the impact of growth (new development). 4/11/16 Robertson, Seal Would like to see the details included in 29 million (YOE) for fire apparatus /equipment. 18m for apparatus, annualized, 3 million for equipment. Details to be provided at the May 3 FS meeting. 4/11/16 Robertson, Hougardy What is the cost difference between Shops funding via 63/20 or LTGO This will be provided at 5/17 F &S meeting. 4/11/16 Quinn, Seal Would like data relating to service improvements — should be able to talk to voters about the levels of service improvements resulting from these investments. Ballot measure should be very specific. MRSC has list of criteria for ballot measures and details are important. This will be provided at 5/17 F &S meeting. 4/11/16 McLeod How comfortable should we be with these construction cost estimates? These are planning -level estimates prepared by architects at Rice, Fergus Miller with built in contingencies. 4/11/16 McLeod Can we renovate something and make it work to save costs? The architectural assessment considered that question. Long term, City Hall is a candidate for renovation. 4/11/16 Kruller I would like to see all the options included in building costs and where we land on taxes. Since these are planning -level cost estimates, they include contingencies for unknown specifics for future land acquisition, moving, technology, etc., (similar to how the School District treated the early learning center) and certain details (e.g. furniture, fixtures) which have not been designed yet. See high level cost estimates based on market rate per square foot building costs. 4/11/16 Robertson Would a different approach to fire service impact the number of stations needed? This will be provided at 5/17 F &S meeting. 4/11/16 Seal When do we have to lock in to a scenario? The proposed outreach plan includes a May 23 postcard mailing inviting people to attend open houses. Council direction by mid -May would be ideal. This allows time for additional F &S Committee review. 4/19/16 Robertson Robertson What is the City's capacity to manage concurrent construction of shops and justice center? The cost model factors in project managers for each facility under "other consultant expenses "; however there could be impacts to staff to manage and coordinate land acquisition, design and construction. 4/19/16 How will Council arrive at decision making point regarding the funding scenario? Finance and Safety will lead this effort while public outreach is ongoing. Updated 4/27/16 Tukwila Facilities Cost Estimates Finance and Safety May 2, 2016 /47' Tukwila Facilities Cost Estimates These high -level cost estimates are based on: • today's dollars • average square foot construction costs plus: other consultant expenses (project management, etc.) land acquisition, furnishings, equipment and contingency ti,;Tl C.zs Public Safety Building Cost Estimate Public Safety Building New Construction (square feet): 44,100 Site Improvements (acres): 5.00 Construction Costs New Construction $350 /sf $15,435,000 Site Improvements $100,000 /acre $500,000.00 Total Estimated Construction Costs $15,935,000 Project Expenses Washington State Sales Tax 9.50% $1,513,825 Architect & Engineering Fees 12% $1,912,200 Other Consultant Expenses 10% $1,593,500 Permits / Miscellaneous Fees 3% $478,050.00 Land Acquisition $100,000 /acre $500,000 Furnishing and Equipment 10% $1,577,565 Total Estimated Project Expenses $7,575,140 Total Est. Construction and Project Expenses $23,510,140 Project Contingency 10% $2,351,014.00 Total Estimated Project Budget $25,861,154 N) City Shops Facility Cost Estimate City Shops Facility New Construction (square feet): 70,000 Site Improvements (acres): 15.00 Construction Costs New Construction $200 /sf $14,000,000 Site Improvements $50,000 /acre $750,000.00 Total Estimated Construction Costs $14,750,000 Project Expenses Washington State Sales Tax 9.50% $1,401,250 Architect & Engineering Fees 12% $1,748,795 Other Consultant Expenses 4% $651,973 Permits / Miscellaneous Fees 3% $442,500.00 Land Acquisition $250,000 /acre $3,750,000 Furnishing and Equipment 10% $1,460,250 Total Estimated Project Expenses $9,454,768 Total Est. Construction and Project Expenses $24,204,768 Project Contingency 10% $2,420,476.81 Total Estimated Project Budget $26,625,245 01 CO DTI TFD Fire Station Cost Estimates Tukwila Fire Department Facilities Options / i0 FIRE STATION NUMBER: 51 52 54 New Construction (square feet): 17,950 6,567 8,228 Site Improvements (acres): 2.50 1.50 1.75 Construction Costs New Construction $300 /sf $5,385,000 $1,970,100 $2,468,400 Major Remodel $240 /sf $0 $0 Minor Remodel $125/sf $0 $0 Site Improvements $479,160/acr $1,197,900.00 $718,740.00 $838,530.00 Total Estimated Construction Costs $6,582,900 $2,688,840 $3,306,930 Project Expenses Washington State Sales Tax 9.50% $625,376 $255,440 $314,158 Architect & Engineering Fees 12% $789,948 $322,660.80 $396,831.60 Other Consultant Expenses 10% $658,290 $268,884.00 $330,693.00 Permits / Miscellaneous Fees 3% $197,487.00 $80,665.20 $99,207.90 Land Acquisition $435,600 0 $653,400 $762,300 Furnishing and Equipment 10% $658,290 $268,884 $330,693 Total Estimated Project Expenses $2,929,391 $1,849,934 $2,233,884 Total Est. Construction and Project Expenses $9,512,291 $4,538,774 $5,540,814 Project Contingency 12% $1,141,474.86 $544,652.86 $664,897.66 Total Estimated Project Budget $10,653,765 $5,083,427 $6,205,712 5 DTI 0'; 01 (4, City of Tukwila Fire Apparatus, Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Schedules Finance and Safety May 3, 2016 uri TFD 20 Year Apparatus & Equipment Replacement Schedules 01 CD The Tukwila Fire Department 20 year capital equipment replacement schedule provides a detailed analysis that reflects needed inventory. All charts are in today's dollars. The 20 year bond covers multiple life cycles for the more expensive equipment with multi -year use and annual replacement costs for the more individualized equipment. TFD 20 Year Capital Equipment Replacement Schedule TFD 20 Year Capital Replacement Schedule in thousands) Equipment 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Totals SCBA /SABA $480 $480 $960 SCBA Fill Station $110 $110 $220 Hose $70 $70 Nozzles $50 $50 Defibrillators $40 $40 $40 $120 Thermal Imaging (TIC) $70 $70 $70 $210 Bunker Gear $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $400 Helmets $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $2.5 $50 Extrication Equipment $100 $100 $200 MDC $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $600 Body Armor $1.5 $1.5 $35 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $35 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $35 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $1.5 $35 $1.5 $1.5 $164 Totals $624 $24 $268 $24 $144 $134 $24 $58 $144 $144 $24 $24 $288 $24 $24 $504 $144 $158 $24 $244 $3,044 a, 3 C) N) TFD 20 Year Apparatus and Vehicle Replacement Schedu Fleet Category = . Units 20-Year Fire ApparatLls /Vehidde Replacement (in Thousand $1 2017 2016 2019 2026 2021. 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2026 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Total AMP., VEHICLE 6 5100 S3O $40 255 S5O 5100 537 540 $55 _?_ $550 AERIAL 1 $1,500 $1,606 $3,600 AID CAE 2 5190 :2-5 :- -5 51,015 6C VEHICLE 2 584 $90 __t ;320 EflC ADM Iy VEHICLE 2 510 _:. :o $220 EOCUT1LITY 3 $20 $25 $20 ___ 590 EXPL0 RER REFRESH VEHICLE 1 $65 $55 5130 FIRE MARSHAL VEHICLE i 550 580 $160 HAZMAT 3 $10 560 $36 $60 536 $202 PREVENTION VEHICLE 1 $65 $65 $130 PUMPER 6 51,400 $175 5175 51,750 $1,750 $675 $875 51,750 $10,150 RESCUE 9 $103 570 5275 5103 570 $275 5396 UTILITY 9 580 520 560 512 590 573 $100 '520 560 $12 510 $73 $670 Total 46 $460 $1,450 52,005 $235 5960 51210 5372 51.910 5139 $50 5535 51,600 52,005 $305 $950 $1,210 5372 $1,910 5109 560 516.133 0) W 4