Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PS 2017-06-05 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET
City of Tukwila Public Safety Committee O Thomas McLeod, Chair O Joe Duffie O De'Sean Quinn Please note special start time for this meeting. 4 AGENDA Distribution: T. McLeod J. Duffle D. Quinn D. Robertson Mayor Ekberg D. Cline C. O'Flaherty L. Humphrey MONDAY, JUNE 5, 2017 — 5:00 PM HAZELNUT CONFERENCE ROOM (At east entrance of City Hall) Item Recommended Action Page 1. PRESENTATION(S) 2. BUSINESS AGENDA a. A fireworks permit for the City's July 4 event. a. Forward to 6/19 Consent Pg.1 Jay Wittwer, Fire Chief Agenda. b. Review of draft fire station programming and budget b. Forward to 6/12 C.O.W. Pg.11 implications. for consensus. Justine Kim, Shiels Ob/etz Johnson Bob Giberson, Public Works Director, and Rachel Bianchi, Communications and Government Relations Manager c. An ordinance relating to trespass warnings on City c. Forward to 6/12 C.O.W. Pg.27 property. and 6/19 Regular Mtg. Mike Villa, Police Chief d. Discussion on Public Safety Plan sustainability goals. d. Forward to 6/12 C.O.W. Pg.37 Rachel Bianchi, Communications and Government Relations for consensus. Manager 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. MISCELLANEOUS Next Scheduled Meeting: Monday, June 19, 2017 �. The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at 206 - 433 -1800 (TukwilaCityClerk ©TukwilaWA.gov) for assistance. City of Tukwila INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Public Safety Committee FROM: Jay Wittwer, Fire Chief BY: B/C Don Tomaso, Fire Marshal CC: Mayor Ekberg Allen Ekberg, Mayor DATE: May 24, 2017 SUBJECT: Fireworks Permit for 4th of y at Starfire ISSUE Require City Council approval for the annual fireworks permit for the Tukwila Parks and Recreation Family 4th at Starfire Sports Complex. BACKGROUND The City of Tukwila has been sponsoring a family oriented 4th of July celebration for the last 15 years. This is one of the most successful City sponsored events in terms of public attendance and participation. This event will draw in excess of 5,000 people to the park to view and participate in the festivities scheduled by Parks and Recreation. DISCUSSION Parks and Recreation has retained the same fireworks company, Western Display Fireworks, Ltd., a company with 63 years of experience in public displays. We will use the same location as last year to avoid having to protect the sports turf fields in the northeast corner of the facility. This fireworks discharge location will he in the southwest corner of the facility on the natural grass fields. Additionally, the largest aerial shell will be 3"; this allows for a smaller safety perimeter. Western Display has also proposed several ground displays that the crowd will be able to see when looking south. FINANCIAL IMPACT This event is funded through the Parks and Recreation Department. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the permit at the June 19, 2017 Regular Meeting Consent Agenda. ATTACHMENTS -Fireworks application and Western Display Fireworks, Ltd paper work -Fireworks permit conditions 1 2 To: From: Re: Date: City of Tukwila Fire Marshal's Office Allen Ekberg, Mayor Jay Wittwer, Fire chief FIREWORKS PERMIT CONDITIONS Western Display Fireworks, Ltd. B/C. Tomaso, Fire Marshal July 4th Fireworks display, 14800 Starfire Way, Tukwila, WA 98168 May 24, 2017 Notify Washington State Patrol at 425-649-4658. 2. Notify FAA specialist at 425-227-2536 or 425-227-2500. 3. Establish Safety perimeter a minimum of 30 minutes prior to display start. 4. Have Pyrotechnicians in visible uniform clothing. 5. No Pyrotechnics shall be delivered to site prior to the day of the display. 6. All personnel inside the safety perimeter shall use Personnel Protective equipment as outlined in NFPA 1123. 7. Only Pyrotechnicians, Safety Monitors and Fire Watch personnel will be within the safety perimeter. 8. Portable fire extinguishers shall be in place prior to unloading of pyrotechnics from transport vehicle. (3-A 40 BC Minimum Size) 9. 4 - Tukwila Police officers shall be on site a minimum of 30 minutes prior to the start of the display for crowd control, and shall remain for a minimum of 30 minutes past the end of the display or the crowd disperses. (2 additional Tukwila Police officers shall be available to respond to the site if requested.) Fire Marshal's Office: 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 209 • Tukwda, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-575-4407 • Fax: 206-575-4439 3 City of Tukwila Page 2 10. Tukwila Fire Department shall inspect mortar racks prior to loading of any pyrotechnic shells. 11.Tukwila Fire Department shall inspect all static displays upon completion of set up. 12. Two Tukwila Fire Department apparatus shall be on location prior to the start of the display. (One will be an overtime staffed engine) 13. Two additional overtime firefighters will be the designated fire watch personnel assigned to the Starfire turf practice fields South of Starfire's main building. 14.Any breech of the safety perimeter shall suspend the display until the perimeter is cleared and re—established. 15. Upon completion of the display, the fallout area shall be checked for unexploded shells. Cleaning of debris, if not practical on the night of the event shall be at first light the next day. 16. No combustible materials shall be stored inside the safety perimeter. Fire Marshal's Office: 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 209 • Tukwila, Washington 9 • Phone: 206-575-4407 • Fax: 206-575-4439 4 City of Tukwila Allen Ekberg, Mayor Fire Marshal's Office Jay Wiffiver, Fire Chief Date: May 24, 2017 To: Chief Wittwer From: B/C Tomaso, Fire Marshal Re: Public Fireworks Display Permit I have reviewed the permit application information provided by Western Display Fireworks, Ltd. They have applied for the permit for a public fireworks display at the Starfire Sports Complex, 14800 Starfire Way. Western Display is a licensed Pyrotechnic Company with the State of Washington. The display will be held in conjunction with the City's planned event, on July 4, "Family Fun at the Fort", being organized by the Parks and Recreation Department. This will be a 20 to 30 minute show starting at approximately 2200 hours. The fireworks will be transported to the site in the AM of July 4 and will be under the required supervision until they are discharged. The mortar tubes and support equipment will be brought to the location on July 4. The application was reviewed for adherence to the requirements under WAC 212-17 and accepted industry standards; we find everything is within these guidelines. The display will be held again in the Southwest corner of the facility. We will however, have a small portion of the 6720 Fort Dent Way Office building within the South edge of the fallout zone. Crowd control can be a potential issue, as the crowd that assembles to watch the fireworks show has increased every year. Last year the traffic leaving the site was managed with the available Tukwila Police on site and available patrol units. To mitigate these issues, I believe the following measures should be done: • Stage two fire apparatus at the site: one apparatus on each side of the river in order to cover the 6720 Fort Dent Office building. One unit will be the overtime apparatus staffing the event and then one on duty apparatus. Apparatus shall be out of service during the display and for 30 minutes following the display. Fire .arsht °s Office: 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Suite 209 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-575-4407 • Fax: 206-575-4439 5 City of Tukwila Page 2 Have Tukwila Police provide crowd control during the public display. A minimum of 4 officers will be required. Provide traffic control to the Fort Dent Way and Interurban Ave intersection to expedite traffic flow. (2 additional Tukwila Police shall be available to respond to the site if requested.) Comply with Fire Works Permit Conditions attached. Fire M 6 ll's Office: 6300 'outhcenter Blvd. Suite 209 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-575-4407 • Fax: 06-575-4439 7 8 y p • ~`Z •!A I' i • i tot ,,, 1 ,r r Iv ea. _ r f *Y '��. J A S r28'O3 . °:, - 1412'1:5'06.95" W dot Ae. - i 1. ' Tukwila, WA vl #t 1.3G Fireworks s. *, * Western Display Fireworks (4/2017) 10 TO: City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Public Safety Committee FROM: Jay Wittwer, Fire Chief Peggy McCarthy, Finance Director Rachel Bianchi, Communications and Government Relations Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: May 31, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Safety Plan Fire Station Programming and Budget Implications ISSUE The City of Tukwila has committed to rebuild three fire stations through funding included in the voter-approved Public Safety Bond that was a component of the overall Public Safety Plan. Two consultants have been hired to assist with this endeavor; Shiels Obletz Johnsen (SOJ) Consultants and Weinstein Architects + Urban Designers (WAU). With assistance from these two groups and a committee formed with members from the Tukwila Fire Department the programing phase has taken place. The programming phase of any major capital projects effort is where specific assumptions of the preliminary planning efforts are tested, particularly as it relates to budget implications for a building or overall program. As has been experienced with other City projects, and by our neighboring jurisdictions, cost escalation in the region — particularly in construction costs — is affecting the implementation of Tukwila's Public Safety Plan. BACKGROUND Programming Phase The programing phase is a process to understand the need the community has for a group of fire stations that will service the community for many years. A very comprehensive process has been used to better understand these needs and include the following points: • Engagement with fire fighters and other personnel that will use these fire stations • Evaluation of how current stations are used and identified ways to improve processes in new stations • Tours of a number of newer fire stations in the region and soliciting pros and cons from crews working at those stations • Identified all wants and needs • Future projections, including staffing • These efforts have created the following plans (by year). o 2040 — provides for the square footage outlined in the Public Safety Plan passed by Council in 2016 and facilities to meet Tukwila's needs through 2040 o 2060 — facility needs projected out to serve the community through 2060 o 2080 facility needs projected out to serve the community through 2080 11 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 Programming Update At the end of the Programming phase, there were a few changes: 1) Overall square footage of the stations stayed similar (net increase of 158 sq ft) 2) The Headquarters station is planned to be at the new Station 52, since it will be more centrally located than Station 51. 3) The average size of the smaller stations increased to better meet the needs of a fully functioning station and the headquarters stations slightly decreased. 4) Station 52 and 54 are now planned to be built at the same time, opening in 2020. In previous plans (RFA), Station 54 had been planned to open as late as 2024. S uare Footage Estimates Budget Phase In the preliminary planning for the Public Safety Plan, which began in 2013, reasonable assumptions were made regarding various budget-related factors, of which construction cost escalation is a good example. While a 3% escalator was included in the overall plan for construction costs, the realities of the past 18-months have actually shown a 6% - 15% per-year increase due to market conditions. Our proximity to the fastest growing big city in the United States has significantly driven up construction costs in the area. The City assumed $375 per square foot costs, including construction and site work, based on the facilities study effort but significantly informed by the Kent RFA during the Regional Fire Authority Annexation Review process. An analysis provided by WAU illuminates the realities of cost increases specifically associated with fire station construction: Year 2015 Burien HQ - #28 2016 Kent/SeaTac - #45 2017 Shoreline #63 - in design Square Ft $/Square Foot Annual Increase 24,330 $373 7,579 423 12% 16,249 553 24% The City of Tukwila is not alone in this experience. A review of recent bid openings in the Daily Journal of Commerce show low-bids coming in more than 20% over the estimates for projects. The Tukwila School District recently had the same experience when opening bids for facilities in their bond projects, and staff are hearing similar experiences from colleagues throughout the area. As construction costs go up, other project costs increase as many of them are a formula based on total construction costs. At this point, we estimate that there is a difference of $8.4 million between the funding associated with the Public Safety Plan for fire stations w \2017 Tlfo MemosCreStationProgramming doc 12 Station 51 Station 52 Station 54 Total Bond Assumptions - 2016 17,950 6,567 8,228 32,745 Programmingl1Oate - 2017 9,426 4,190 9,287 32,903 Budget Phase In the preliminary planning for the Public Safety Plan, which began in 2013, reasonable assumptions were made regarding various budget-related factors, of which construction cost escalation is a good example. While a 3% escalator was included in the overall plan for construction costs, the realities of the past 18-months have actually shown a 6% - 15% per-year increase due to market conditions. Our proximity to the fastest growing big city in the United States has significantly driven up construction costs in the area. The City assumed $375 per square foot costs, including construction and site work, based on the facilities study effort but significantly informed by the Kent RFA during the Regional Fire Authority Annexation Review process. An analysis provided by WAU illuminates the realities of cost increases specifically associated with fire station construction: Year 2015 Burien HQ - #28 2016 Kent/SeaTac - #45 2017 Shoreline #63 - in design Square Ft $/Square Foot Annual Increase 24,330 $373 7,579 423 12% 16,249 553 24% The City of Tukwila is not alone in this experience. A review of recent bid openings in the Daily Journal of Commerce show low-bids coming in more than 20% over the estimates for projects. The Tukwila School District recently had the same experience when opening bids for facilities in their bond projects, and staff are hearing similar experiences from colleagues throughout the area. As construction costs go up, other project costs increase as many of them are a formula based on total construction costs. At this point, we estimate that there is a difference of $8.4 million between the funding associated with the Public Safety Plan for fire stations w \2017 Tlfo MemosCreStationProgramming doc 12 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 and what it would take for us to build the three fire stations as outlined in the Plan. $6.7 million of this total represents construction costs alone. This $8.4 million needed to complete the fire stations program can be achieved by using existing City resources and our commitment to Tukwila voters can be retained. In order to do this the City would utilize a two-pronged approach that would include: • Fire Impact Fees — Fire Impact fees have not been reviewed or increased since 2012. During the year-long investigation regarding joining the Kent Regional Fire Authority, it was made clear that Tukwila's Fire Impact fees need to be adjusted to keep up with continued growth. It is anticipated that the City can raise $4 million over 15 years through revised impact fees, charged only to new development. • Cash flow management The City has the opportunity to address the remaining difference through careful cash-flow management associated with fire equipment and apparatus funding that is a part of the Public Safety Plan. Because the $29 million fund for fire equipment and apparatus is required over a 20-year period, and not immediately, the City can front-load the additional $4.4 million needed for the fire stations from this fund. Staff analysis shows that the City would then need to reimburse the apparatus and equipment fund $295,000 per year for 17 years. This can be achieved by using specific revenue opportunities not currently budgeted, which include: o Land sales and/or long-term leases of the old fire station 53, and existing 51, 52 and 54 properties. Even if the City wanted to use one of the old stations for a city use, other funds (such as REET) could be used to reimburse the apparatus and equipment fund. o Additional REET funding dedicated to reimbursing the equipment and apparatus fund above what is budgeted. Since the economic recovery the City has seen significant increases in REET funds, which have come in between 25% and 600% above budget since 2010. O Dedication of revenues above budget to backfill the apparatus and equipment fund. This would include fund balances of general fund dollars not spent in a calendar year. It is reasonable to assume that the funds highlighted above will be more than adequate to make the apparatus and equipment fund whole over the next 15 years. RECOMMENDATION Weinstein A+U requires direction as to final programming so that they can work with sub-consultants and cost estimators to achieve the final program and begin schematic design. Staff recommends that they be directed to fulfill the 2040 program outlined in the attachment and that the City address the funding gap through revision of impact fees and careful cash flow management as described above. The Council is being asked to provide consensus on the above approach at the June 12, 2017 Committee of the Whole meeting. ATTACHMENTS Tukwila Fire Stations: Program Comparison Public Safety Plan Conceptual Budget Summary V\I 2017 Info MemosTireStationProgramming.doc 13 14 FS51 - 2040 PROGRAM TOTAL BLDG = 9,426 SQ FT (INC. 20% CIRCULATION) ON -DUTY STAFF: 6 APPARATUS: 2 LOBBY 250sq ft TOILET 60 sq STATION OFFICE 300 sq ft SUPPLIES — 10sgft CAPTAINS OFF. 140 sq ft COMM 100 sq ft MECHANICAL ELEC 225sgft 125sgft APP BAY SUPPORT INCLUDES HOSE STORAGE, TOILET, BATTERY CHARGING, CLEANING ALCOVE, AND SCBA e BUNK INCLUDES LOCKER ALCOVE FS51 - 2060 PROGRAM FS51 - 2080 PROGRAM TOTAL BLDG = 13,212 SQ FT (INC. 20% CIRCULATION) ON -DUTY STAFF: 6 (+ 4) APPARATUS: 3 LOBBY 300 sq ft STOR TOILET 120 sq ft 60 sq EXPLORERS TOILET 120 sq ft 60 sq TRAINING RM 1,000 sq ft SUPPLIES STATION OFFICE 10sgft 400 sq ft CAPTAIN'S OFF. 140 sq ft COMM 100 sq ft MECHANICAL ELEC 225sgft 125 sq ft FS51 TOTAL BLDG = 14,112 SQ FT (INC. 20% CIRCULATION) ON -DUTY STAFF: 10 APPARATUS: 3 LOBBY 300 sq ft STOR TOILET 120 sq ft 60 sq EXPLORERS TOILET 120 sq ft 60 sq TRAINING RM 1,000 sq ft SUPPLIES STATION OFFICE *— 10sgft 400 sq ft CAPTAIN'S OFF. 140 sq ft COMM 100 sq ft MECHANICAL ELEC 225sgft 125sgft 91UKWILA FIRE STATIONS: PROGRAM COMPARISON MAY 23, 2017 A+ ARCHITECTS + URBAN DESIGNERS 0) FS52 - 2040 PROGRAM TOTAL BLDG = 14,190 SQ FT (INC. 20% CIRCULATION) ON-DUTY STAFF: 8 APPARATUS: 3 LOBBY 300 sq ft LUNCH ROOM 200 sq ft CONF RM 300 sq ft EXPLORERS HAM 120.1ft 120 sq ft TOILET 60 sq ft HQ RECEP 80 sq ft TOILET TOILET 60 sq ft 60 sq SUPPORT 100 sq ft CHIEF 240 sq ft SUPPLIES STATION OFFICE 50 ft 350 sq ft 1871177777777777778! SUPPLIES 60 sq ft ASST. CHIEF 180 sq ft ADMIN 120 sq ft ASST. CHIEF BC 180 sq ft 180 sq ft CAPTAINS OFF. 140 sq ft COMM ELEV EMR 180qq ft 80qqft "ft MECHANICAL ELEC 225 sq ft 125 sq ft YIKESS777777,71777771177717117711177777, KITCHEN/DINING '11111111: y"1"K SEK "1:::pqm 11::::ppqm APP BAY SUPPORT INCLUDES HOSE STORAGE, TOILET, BATTERY CHARGING, CLEANING ALCOVE AND SCBA 2 BUNK INCLUDES LOCKER ALCOVE FS52 - 2060 PROGRAM TOTAL BLDG = 15,768 SQ FT (INC. 20% CIRCULATION) ON-DUTY STAFF: 8 APPARATUS: 3 FIRE PROJECT MGR UNIFORMS Go sq ft RECORDS • ftft ft ASST. FM0 120 sq ft 150 sq ft FMO 240 sq ft DEPUTY FMO ASST. FM0 225 sq ft 200,ft 150 sq ft PLANS REVIEW BACKUP EOC 750 sq ft LOBBY 370 sq ft AID 125 sq ft LUNCH ROOM 200 sq ft CONF RM 300 sq ft TOILET 60 sq ft HQ RECEP 80 sq ft TOILET TOILET SUPPLIES 60 sqft 60 sqft M'qft ASST. CHIEF SUPPORT 180 sq ft 100 sq ft ADMIN 120 sq ft CHIEF ASST. CHIEF BC 240 sq ft 180 sq ft 180 sqft SUPPLIES STATION OFFICE 50 ftft ft 350 sq ft CAPTAINS OFF. 140 sq ft COMM ELEV EMR 180 sqft 60 sqft 40,ft MECHANICAL ELEC 225 sq ft 125 sq ft 18777LAUND/JAN BI 777777777777111 GRAGT111111111111110GRAT11 "Y".111111KYKYK.KK,K1 KKK 111111111, .11111011111ffl 111111111101@ 101011111111 FS52 - 2080 PROGRAM TOTAL BLDG = 17,088 SQ FT (INC. 20% CIRCULATION) ON-DUTY STAFF: 8 APPARATUS: 3 FIRE PROJECT MGR UNIFORMS 150 sq ft RECORDS 10 sq ft ASST. F0.10 l2Osqft 150 sq ft FMO DEPUTY FMO PLANS REVIEW 240 sq ft ASST. FM0 225 sq ft 200 sq ft 150 sq ft BACKUP EOC 750 sqft LOBBY 370 sq ft LUNCH ROOM 300 sq ft CONF RM 450 sq ft TOILET TOILET SUPPLIES 60 sq ft 60 xi ft 60 sq ft SUPPORT ASST. CHIEF 180 sq ft 200 sq ft CHIEF ASST. CHIEF 240 sq ft 180 sq ft TOILET SUPPLIES 60 sq ft STATION OFFICE 50.1 ft 350 sq ft CAPTAIN'S OFF. 140 sq ft AID 125 sq ft HQ RECEP 80 sq ft Y1111BUN "„sammaqqammaammaamma """"'q KammaKamaq FS52 ADMIN 120 sq ft BC 180 sq ft COMM ELEV EMR 180 sq ft 60 sq ft 40 $q, MECHANICAL ELEC 225 sq ft 125 sq ft NK iUKWILA FIRE STATIONS: PROGRAM COMPARISON MAY 23, 2017 NST IN A+Li ARCHITECTS + URBAN DESIGNERS w FS54 - 2040 PROGRAM TOTAL BLDG = 9,287 SQ FT (INC. 20% CIRCULATION) ON -DUTY STAFF: 6 APPARATUS:2 LOBBY 250 sgft TOILET 60 sq ft SUPPLIES STATION OFFICE X10 sq ft 300 sqft CAPTAIN'S OFF. 140 sqft COMM 100 sq ft MECHANICAL ELEC 225 sq ft 125 sq ft APP BAY SUPPORT INCLUDES HOSE STORAGE. TOILET. BATTERY CHARGING. CLEANING ALCOVE. AND SCEA 'BUNK INCLUDES LOCKER ALCOVE FS54 - 2060 PROGRAM FS54 - 2080 PROGRAM TOTAL BLDG = 9,491 SQ FT (INC. 20% CIRCULATION) ON -DUTY STAFF: 6 APPARATUS:2 LOBBY 250 sq ft TOILET TOILET TOILET 60sgft 60sgft 60sgft HAM STOR 120 sq ft 140sgft LARGE COMMUNITY ROOM 1,500 sq ft SUPPLIES STATION OFFICE X10 sgft 300sgft CAPTAIN'S OFF. 140 sqft COMM 100 sq ft MECHANICAL ELEC 225sgft 125 sq ft TOTAL BLDG = 14,777 SQ FT (INC. 20% CIRCULATION) ON -DUTY STAFF: 10 APPARATUS: 3 LOBBY 300sgft TOILET TOILET TOILET 60sq It 60sq It 60sq It HAM STOR 120 sq ft 140 sq ft LARGE COMMUNITY ROOM 1.500 sq ft SUPPLIES STATION OFFICE 10 sq ft 400 sqft CAPTAIN'S OFF. 140 sqft COMM 100 sq ft MECHANICAL ELEC 225 sq ft 125 sq ft 'UKWILA FIRE STATIONS: PROGRAM COMPARISON MAY 23; 2017 !TECTS -4- URBAN DES _ N O City of Tukwila - Public Safety Plan Conceptual Budget Summary YOE $ (in thousands) PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FUNDING Project YEAR OF EXPENDITURE (YOE) SUMMARY UTGO Impact Fees General Fund Enterprise Funds Total Fadirties Pubtic Safety Building Fire Stations (51, 52, 54) Pubhc Works Shops 18.824 18.824 4.750 S FACILITIES TOTAL 47,453 4,750 $ 858 14,747 i 15,605 $ $ 14,746 28,629 24,432 29,493 14,746 $ 82,554 Appara1us'Eqi.aprnent S 29,932 I -Is 29,932 PLAN TOTAL $ 77,385 $ 4,750 S 15,605 14.746 $ 112,486 PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN - FACILITIES Pre-Weinstein Program Option Review Project Budgets (in YOE 5) Cateocry AlE Services I both de - Pernictsifees Construction* (pre-con, const & tax) Constniction Related Costs (Ind Bond) PM Services (incl Other Professional Svcs) Contingency final Construction & Project) TOTAL 285.29 $ re S P5.51 FS 52 Current Projected Budget (2040 Program) Project Budgets on YOE 5) Category loSs (bOth dee9n & CA) Land Aoauisitien PerrnitsfFees stuction (pre-con, cons & tax) ostnidlon Related Costs (Ind Bond) PM Services (Irw,1 Other Professional Sircs) Contingency ((net Construction & Project) TOTAL 255 7,809 1,047 460 1.145 11,446 356 $ $ 653 59$ 3,278 $ 438 297 $ 546 $ 5,657 P5.54 TOTAL 464 $ 1,551 862 1,516 116 4,273 551 397 655 7,329 15,350 2036 1,153 2, 24,432 Fee Stati FS 52 FS 51 $ 1.0525 635 5 S 653'S $ 3015 166i$ $ 9,547 S 6,324 5 6,233 $ 1,184'S 657 S 7 $ 576 300 S 305 $ 1,094 $ 740 S 7 13,755 $ 9,486 $ 9,655 TOTAL 2 314 1,516 531 22,105 2,550 1,181 2.508 2, costs For Ratim F'roierT, ineydt cvld S.-kv Fax tot* seam. ffieve skffira", Car,ro-act.... *353271 • $_48.8.32 $5,467.037,. $191349.110; as of May 29, 2017 1)13,2017 22 CITY OF TUKWILA Public Safety Plan Fire Stations - 51, 52, 54 Conceptual Budget Summary YOE $ (in thousands) FUNDING SOURCE - Based on Initial Project Costs YEAR OF EXPENDITURE (YOE) SUMMARY Project UTGO (voter- General Impact Fees approved) Fund Enterprise TOTAL Funds Fire Stations Justice Center Public Works Shop Facilities Total Fire Apparatus/Equipment Public Safety Plan Total PROJECT COSTS 18,824 4,750 858 24,432 28,629 28,629 Project Category 14,747 47,453 4,750 15,605 29,9321 77,385 $ 4,750 S 15,605 14,746 14,746 29,49 82,554 29,932 Fire Statiort Program - INITIAL BUDGET ESTIMATE 14,746 112,486 FS51 FS 52 FS 54 TOTAL 17,950 sf 6,567 sf 8,228 sf 32,745 sf A/E Services (both design & CA) 731 356 464 1,551 Land Acquisition 653 862 1,515 Permits/Fees 255 89 116 460 Construction (pre-con, const, tax) 7,809 3,278 4,273 15,360 Construction Related Costs (incl bond) 1,047 438 551 2,036 PM Services (incl other prof svcs) 460 297 397 1,154 Contingency (incl Construction & Proj) 1,145 546 665 2,356 TOTAL 11,446 5,657 7,329 24,432 Project Category Fire Static:4n Program - REVISED BUDGET ESTIMATE (as of 5/23/17) FS 9,426 sf FS 52 14,190 sf A/E Services (both design & CA) 635 1,052 FS 54 9,287 sf 626 Land Acquisition Permits/Fees 653 166 301 862 164 Construction (pre-con, const, tax) 6,324 9,547 6,233 Construction Related Costs (incl bond) 657 1,184 709 PM Services (incl other prof svcs) 300 576 305 Contingency (incl Construction & Proj) 749 1,094 765 TOTAL 32,903 sf 2,314 1,516 631 FUNDING GAP 763 172 22,105 6,744 2,550 514 1,181 28 2,608 252 TOTAL 9,486 13,755 ZACouncii Agenda Items \Cornrnunications\PSP Funding and Costs - Fire Stations.xisx 9,665 32,906 8,474 5/31/2017 23 24 FUNDING SOURCE CITY OF TUKWILA Public Safety Plan Fire Stations - 51152,54 Conceptual Budget Summary YOE $ (in thousands) / vl G /7 4 �i � ; ;p ?- we ice, Fire Stations ustice Center Public Works Shop Facilities Total Fire Apparatus/Equipment Public Safety Plan Total 18,824 28,629 Ssk 4,750 858 Atied 24,432 28,629 47,453 4,750 29,932 77,385 $ 4,750 14,747 14,746 29,493 15,605 14,746 82,554 29,932 15,605 $ 14,746 $ 112,486 25 26 TO: City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Public Safety Committee FROM: Mike Villa, Chief of Police Rick Mitchell, A/Deputy Chief of Police BY: Kraig Boyd, Sergeant Community Police Team CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: June 5, 2017 SUBJECT: Criminal Trespass Ordinance for City Property. ISSUE The Council is being asked to consider and approve a Trespass Ordinance for City Property. BACKGROUND The Tukwila Police Department has received several complaints regarding criminal behavior in the city parks and on city property. Currently the Trespass ordinance for city property is enforceable by civil infraction only. Surrounding agencies have trespass ordinances on city property that include a means for appeal and are enforceable as a misdemeanor after a warning is given, and violated. DISCUSSION The result of reduced penalties for constant criminal trespass violations is constant violation of park rules due to reduced enforcement options. Neighbors, citizens, and patron of our city parks and property have expressed safety and health concerns, as well as the exposure to criminal, or dangerous behavior. The ability to appropriately address persons not abiding by the rules of the parks as well as other city property, backed by criminal enforcement would reduce criminal behavior and on city property, and increase safe usage of the parks by citizens. Concerns have been raised that this ordinance would unfairly target the homeless. The intent of the ordinance is to ensure that city property is clean and safe for all users. The intent is to create greater enforcement tools to guarantee the rights of all citizens to use city property as intended by design. Use of the property is open to all if the rules of the property are observed and followed. It is not the intent of this ordinance to deny access to any individual or group. The ordinance has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION The Council is being asked to forward the Trespass Ordinance to the June 12, 2017 Committee of the Whole meeting and subsequent, June 19, 2017 Regular meeting. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance 27 28 rif FT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON', ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO TRESPASS WARNINGS ON CITY PROPERTY, TO BE CODIFIED AS TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 8.23; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City recognizes that members of the public have legitimate interests and rights regarding the use and enjoyment of City owned or operated property, as well as certain rights protected by the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution and laws, including, but not limited to, the right to petition the government, the right to assembly, and the right to access sources of information; and WHEREAS, there is a demonstrated need for the City to adopt a legally sound process for being able to exclude from City property individuals whose behavior is dangerous, unsafe, illegal, or unreasonably disruptive to other users; and WHEREAS, the City desires to provide a specific method for the issuance of trespass warnings to such individuals, including placing limitations on trespass warnings and providing procedures for such individuals to promptly appeal the issuance of trespass warnings; and WHEREAS, this ordinance is enacted as an exercise of the City's authority to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare, while recognizing the rights of individuals to engage in legitimate activities that may occur on City property; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 8.23 of the Tukwila Municipal Code Established. A chapter of the Tukwila Municipal Code entitled "Trespass Warnings on City Property," to be codified as Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 8.23, is hereby established to read as follows: W: Word Proce singlOrdinances\Trespass warnings on City property 4-11-17 RBrbis Page 1 of 7 29 CHAPTER 8.23 TRESPASS WARNINGS ON CITY PROPERTY Sections: 8.23.010 Purpose, Authority, and Applicability 8.23.020 Definitions 8.23.030 Trespass Warnings on City Property Section 2. Regulations Established. TMC Section 8.23.010, "Purpose, Authority, and Applicability," is hereby established to read as follows: 8.23.010 Purpose, Authority, and Applicability A. The purpose of this chapter is to adopt a legally sound process for being able to exclude from City owned or operated property individuals whose behavior is dangerous, unsafe, illegal, or unreasonably disruptive to other users. It is further the purpose of this chapter to provide for a specific method to allow for the issuance of trespass warnings to such individuals, including placing limitations on trespass warnings and providing procedures for such individuals to promptly appeal the issuance of trespass warnings in order to protect their right to engage in legitimate activities protected by the state and federal constitutions. B. This chapter is enacted as an exercise of the City's authority to protect and preserve the public health, safety and welfare. C. This chapter shall apply to all City property in the City of Tukwila, which for the purposes of this chapter shall include, but not be limited to: City buildings and other facilities, outdoor areas, parks, unimproved property, open spaces, property that is under lease to or otherwise operated and/or controlled by the City, and property that City owns in common with another property owner. This chapter shall not apply to public streets and sidewalks. Enforcement action shall only be taken for conduct violating rules adopted by the City for the location in which the conduct occurs, including any location covered by rules of conduct incorporated into any relevant City rule. Provided, that officers of the Tukwila Police Department may take enforcement action consistent with TMC Section 8.23.030.A, based on violations of other City codes, state statutes, and government rules or regulations. Section 3. Regulations Established. TMC Section 8.23.020, "Definitions," is hereby established to read as follows: 8.23.020 Definitions A. Behavior that is "dangerous" is behavior that creates an imminent and unreasonable risk of injury or harm to either persons or property of another or the actor. B. Behavior that is "illegal" is behavior that is prohibited by the laws of the United States, Washington State, King County, or the City of Tukwila and that includes, but is not limited to, any of the following types of behavior: W Word Processing\Ordinances \Trespass warnings on City property 4-11-17 RBT:bjs 30 Page 2 of 7 1. Threatening another person by communicating either directly or indirectly to another person the intent to cause bodily injury in the future to the person threatened or to any other person; or 2. Selling or using alcohol or drugs; or 3. Threatening or harassing behavior (e.g., fighting or threatening to fight, brandishing a weapon, stalking, verbally threatening to harm others or their property); or 4. Assaulting staff or other patrons; or 5. Sexual misconduct or harassment (e.g., indecent exposure, offensive touching, sexual acts). C. Behavior that is "unreasonably disruptive to other users" is behavior that is not constitutionally protected and that, in consideration of the nature, scope, use and purpose of the property in question, unreasonably interferes with others' use and enjoyment of said property. Examples of behavior that may unreasonably interfere with others' use and enjoyment of City property include, but are not limited to, any of the following: 1. Use of unreasonably hostile or aggressive language or gestures; or 2. Unreasonably loud vocal expression or unreasonably boisterous physical behavior; or 3. Using electronic or other communication devices in a manner that is unreasonably disruptive to others; or 4. Unreasonably interfering with the free passage of staff or patrons in or on City property; or 5. Behavior that is unreasonably inconsistent with the use for which the City property was designed and intended to be used (e.g., bathing, shaving, or washing clothes in a public bathroom or skateboarding in a public parking area or plaza). D. Any constitutionally protected action or speech is excluded from the prohibited behavior listed in this section. Section 4. Regulations Established. TMC Section 8.23.030, "Trespass Warnings on City Property," is hereby established to read as follows: 8.23.030 Trespass Warnings on City Property A. Officers of the Tukwila Police Department shall be empowered to issue a trespass warning to any individual who the officer has probable cause to believe has violated any City ordinance, state statute, or government rule or regulation relating to or prohibiting conduct that is dangerous, illegal, or unreasonably disruptive to other users of City property, as defined in TMC Section 8.23.020, while such individual is on or within any City property, as more specifically set forth in TMC Section 8.23.010.C. W Word ProcessinglOrdinances1Trespass warnings on City property 4-11-17 RBT:bjs Page 3 of 7 31 B. Trespass warnings may be delivered in person to the offender or by first class mail to the offender at the offender's last known address. C. The offender need not be charged, tried, or convicted of any crime or infraction in order for the trespass warning to be issued or be effective. The warning may be based upon observation by a police officer or a City or other government employee or may be based upon a civilian report that would ordinarily be relied upon by police officers in the determination of probable cause. D. If the offender: 1. Has not been excluded from City property by a trespass warning issued within one year prior to the violation, then the warning may exclude the offender for a period not exceeding 7 days from the date of the warning, 2. Has been the subject of only one prior trespass warning issued within one year prior to the current violation, then the warning may exclude the offender for a period of more than 7 days but not more than 90 days from the date of the current warning. 3. Has been the subject of two or more prior trespass warnings issued within one year prior to the current violation, then the warning may exclude the offender for a period of more than 90 days but not more than one year from the date of the current warning. 4. Has been excluded from City property by a trespass warning, and a published rule or regulation applicable to such property establishes a different period of time for an offender to be excluded, the time period under such rule or regulation shall apply notwithstanding the provisions of TMC Section 8.23.030,D., subsections 1, 2 or 3. E. The trespass warning shall be in writing, shall contain the date of issuance, shall describe the behavior that is the basis for the trespass warning, shall specify the length and place(s) of exclusion, shall be signed by the issuing police officer, and shall state the consequences for failure to comply. A trespass warning for a place or places shall not prohibit access to another place or places that is unrelated to or not a part of the place where the conduct that is the subject of the trespass warning occurred. F. Administrative Appeal. 1. A person receiving a trespass warning for an expulsion of 7 days, or longer, may file an appeal to have the trespass warning rescinded or the duration of the expulsion shortened. 2. The appeal must be in writing, provide the appellant's current address, and shall be accompanied by a copy of the trespass warning that is being appealed. 3. The written notice of appeal must be sent to the City Administrator and postmarked no later than 7 calendar days after the issuance of the trespass warning. W: Word ProcessinglOrdinances■Trespass warnings on City property 4-11-17 RBT:bjs 32 Page 4 of 7 4. The trespass warning shall remain in effect during the pendency of any administrative or judicial proceeding. G. Hearing on Appeal. 1. The City Administrator or his or her designee (hereinafter "Hearing Official") shall: a. Notify the appellant of the hearing date, time, and location; b. Conduct a hearing within 30 calendar days of receipt of the notice of appeal; and c. Issue a ruling upholding, rescinding, or shortening the duration of the expulsion set forth in the trespass warning no later than 5 business days after the hearing. 2. The Hearing Official may consider a sworn report or a declaration under penalty of perjury as authorized by RCW 9A.72.085, written by the officer who issued the trespass warning or by the person upon whose observation the trespass warning was based, without further evidentiary foundation, as prima facie evidence that the offender committed the violation as described. This evidence creates a rebuttable presumption that the violation occurred and the burden thereafter rests with the appellant to overcome the presumption. Such sworn reports or declarations may be considered either in addition to or in lieu of the live testimony of the officer who issued the trespass warning or by the person upon whose observation the trespass warning was based. 3. The Hearing Official shall consider the trespass warning and may consider any written or oral sworn testimony of the appellant or witnesses, as well as pictorial or demonstrative evidence offered by the appellant that the Hearing Official considers relevant and trustworthy. The Hearing Official may consider information that would not be admissible under the evidence rules in a court of law. 4. The Hearing Official may issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and shall administer individual oaths to witnesses. The Hearing Official shall not issue a subpoena for the attendance of a witness at the request of the appellant unless the request is accompanied by the fee required by RCW 556.010 for a witness in district court. The appellant shall be responsible for serving any subpoena issued at the appellant's request. 5. If, after the hearing, the Hearing Official is persuaded on a "more probable than not" basis that the violation did occur, the trespass warning shall be upheld. For good cause, or upon a satisfactory showing by appellant that he or she understands his or her violation and will not repeat the violation, the Hearing Official may shorten the duration of the expulsion set forth in the trespass warning. If, however, the violation is not proved on a "more probable than not" basis, then the Hearing Official shall rescind the expulsion. If the Hearing Official rescinds a trespass warning, the trespass warning shall not be considered a prior expulsion for purposes of this this chapter. For purposes W; Word ProcessinglOrdinances \Trespass warnings on City property 4-11-1 RBT:bjs Page 5 of 7 33 of this section, "good cause" to rescind, shorten or modify a trespass warning shall be found where: a. The alleged offender demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Hearing Official or his/her designee that his or her conduct was intended to be expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment; or b. The offender was not given prior warning that the conduct in question was subject to a trespass warning; or c. The trespass warning was based solely upon the statement of a third party, was not observed personally by the issuing officer or a city or other government employee, would not ordinarily be relied upon by police officers in the determination of probable cause, and the alleged offender claims that he or she did not commit the action for which he or she was warned; or d. In the judgment of the Hearing Official, the circumstances warrant a modification or rescission of the trespass warning. The Hearing Official shall rescind the trespass warning if, considering all the circumstances, he or she finds that reasonable minds could differ on the question of whether the conduct in question was unreasonably disruptive to others on the same City property at that time. 6. The decision of the Hearing Official is final. 7. No determination of facts made by the Hearing Official under this section shall have any collateral estoppel effect on a subsequent criminal prosecution or civil proceeding and shall not preclude litigation of those same facts in a subsequent criminal prosecution or civil proceeding. 8. In no event will the Hearing Official be a person who is subordinate to the person who issued the trespass warning. H. If the Hearing Official rescinds an exclusion, for good cause or because the violation was not proved, the exclusion shall not be considered a prior trespass warning for purposes of TMC Section 8.23.030.D. I. The trespass warning shall remain in effect during the pendency of any administrative or judicial proceeding. J. No determination of facts made by the Hearing Official shall have any collateral estoppel effect on a subsequent criminal prosecution or civil proceeding and shall not preclude litigation of those same facts in a subsequent criminal prosecution or civil proceeding. K. This section shall be enforced so as to emphasize voluntary compliance with laws and City property rules and so that inadvertent minor violations that would fall under TMC Section 8.23,030 can be corrected without resort to a trespass warning. L. Any person, who is found on city or other publicly owned property in violation of a trespass warning issued in accordance with this chapter for a period longer than 7 W: Word Processing \Ordinances\Trespass warnings on City property 4-11-17 RBT:bjs 34 Page 6 of 7 days and who accordingly has had the right to a hearing regarding the trespass warning may be arrested for trespassing and is guilty of a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment for a term not to exceed 90 days. M. The Chief of Police or his/her designee may upon request authorize an individual who has received a trespass warning in accordance with this chapter to enter City property to exercise his or her First Amendment rights or to conduct government business, if there is no other reasonable alternative location to exercise such rights or conduct such business. Such authorization must be in writing and specify the duration of the authorization and any conditions thereof. N. The decision of the Hearing Official will be the City's final decision. Section 5. Corrections by City Clerk or Code Reviser. Upon approval of the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the code reviser are authorized to make necessary corrections to this ordinance, including the correction of clerical errors; references to other local, state or federal laws, codes, rules, or regulations; or ordinance numbering and section/subsection numbering. Section 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or its application to any person or situation should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance or its application to any other person or situation. Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five days after passage and publication as provided by law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON, a a Regular Meeting thereof this day of 72017. ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Christy O'Flaherty, MMC, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: Rachel B. Turpin, City Attorney Allan Ekberg, Mayor Filed with the City Clerk: Passed by the City Council: Published: Effective Date: Ordinance Number: W: Word Processing \Ordinances1Trespass warnings on City property 4-11-17 RBT:bjs Page 7 of 7 35 36 TO: City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Public Safety Committee FROM: Rachel Bianchi, Communications and Government Relations Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: May 31, 2017 SUBJECT: Sustainability Goals for Fire Station Construction ISSUE With the assistance of Weinstein A+U, the Committee had an initial discussion on May 15, 2017 regarding potential sustainability goals associated with the construction of three new fire station. Staff is seeking direction from the Committee as to next steps. BACKGROUND The Weinstein A+U memo provided a comprehensive look at various routes the City could take regarding sustainability in design and construction of the fire station program. The memo covered potential certification programs such as LEED, examples of projects in neighboring jurisdictions that were certified, and alternatives to certification. The memo also included a recommendation section that indicated that funding will be a driver in the "intensity" of the City's sustainability goals. Per the discussion in committee on May 15, 2017, it was acknowledged that the costs of certification alone can be in the $100,000 range, depending on which certification one is seeking, and that doesn't include the hard costs associated with constructing to that certification. Pursuing certification — such as LEED gold status — is one route for the City to consider to achieve its sustainability goals. However, staff is mindful as to the budget implications associated with this choice. The Pacific Northwest is known for its strong building, energy and other codes that positively affect sustainability-related issues. The City has a "do nothing" option that would still produce buildings that are mindful of energy and water use and have relatively low impacts on the environment. However, the City also has the opportunity to find a more sustainably middle ground that is conscious of cost but also forward-thinking in long-term investments that could save natural and financial resources. For instance, focus on energy efficiency would have a positive impact on the long-term maintenance and operations budget of each building, while also saving environmental impacts associated with operating an inefficient HVAC system. RECOMMENDATION Due to the budget implications associated with certification, and acknowledgement of the City's long-term desire to steward the environment and community, staff recommends the City choose the latter option of a sustainable middle ground. By providing Weinstein A+U with specific direction as to identifying sustainable features that will produce long-term financial and environmental savings, the City can have a 37 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 meaningful impact over the life of these buildings. This direction will require Weinstien A+U and subconsultants to have a sustainability charrette and assess project sustainability elements at Schematic Design, Design Development, Construction Documents and project completion stages. Project fees outside of construction costs associated with this sustainability efforts range from $40,000 - $60,000. The Council is being asked to provide consensus on the above approach at the June 12, 2017 Committee of the Whole meeting. ATTACHMENTS Weinstein A+U Sustainability Memo W:\2017 Info MemoslSustainability Memo 2 FINALdoc 38 EVALUATING THIRD PARTY GREEN BUILDING CERTIFICATION FOR TUKWILA FIRE STATIONS MAY 9,2017 Submitted by Weinstein A+LJ in collaboration with O'Brien and Company Introduction According to the Tukwi/a Comprehensive Plan, published in0l5, the City of Tukwila desires to be a community that prioritizes livability for its residents and responsible environmental stewardship for the benefit of future generations. In the execution of the Public Safety Program, the City now has a unique opportunity to embody those priorities in a set of buildings that will continue to serve Tukwila for the next 50 years or more. The design team for the new Tukwila Fire Stations, led by architecture firm Weinstein A+U, is delighted to assist the City in crafting new buildings that embody the culture of the City, in addition to optimizing the operations of the Tukwila Fire Department. The design team recognizes that the City already has many critical goals directly related to sustainability, such as low building operating costs, the use of materials that will continue to perform and be attractive for the lifespan of the buildings, and promoting the health of the city's waterways. By choosing to fund high-performance buildings, not only will Tukwila support a healthier environment for all and save money over the life of the buildings, but it will also provide resilient, restorative facilities for its first-responders. A building that operates with minimal energy input will have an enhanced ability to function in the event of a natural disaster or fuel shortage, running much longer than a conventional building when forced to use a back-up generator. Buildings that incorporate quality daylighting strategies and high indoor air quality standards have been demonstrated to improve both the physical and mental health of their occupants, increasing worker productivity and reducing the number of sick days taken by employees. Lastly, cities that are growing at a rate such as Tukwila's have an opportunity to influence the quality of that growth by setting a good example with their public facilities. High-performance public buildings can be advertised as saving tax-payers money in the long term, but they can also further educate constituents about the varied benefits of sustainable design, inspiring consumers - and by extension, private developers - to value sustainable strategies in all types of construction. Given the many benefits of choosing to pursue high sustainability goals for new public buildings, the purpose of this memo is to help the Tukwila City Council understand how Green Building Certification could help achieve those goals on their new fire stations, as well as adding further value to these projects. Why consider third party certification? Third party certification of a project's green building features provides three main benefits: accountability, public recognition, and better building performance. Accountability means that an owner can use third party certification to hold the design and construction team to established standards, and receive verification that those standards were met by an impartial outside entity. This leads to a transparency and comparability that allows public owners to communicate to constituents and stakeholders that they are providing a building of a certain standard, which can be compared to projects provided by other public entities using the same certification system. The most direct value for owners from using a third-party certification is driving better building performance. Many certification programs are comprehensive, requiring projects to address multiple environmental issues to a certain level in order to earn certification. This acts as a driver for owners 1 and project teams to identify ways to improve all aspect of environmental sustainability addressed in a certification program. Third party certification also provides an additional, impartial metric for evaluating individual strategies for a project, allowing' teams to determine which strategies will best achieve a given performance threshold within a project budget. Alternatives to third-party certification Third-party certification has an additional cost to the project and can sometimes require projects to implement strategies that are not the best fit. There are other tools an owner can use to achieve the accountability and building performance that third-party certifications provide. These tools can also be used in conjunction with a third-party certification to assure a successful certification; however, they do not provide the same ability to promote a project's achievements, or to understand how the project is performing compared to similar projects. Some examples of these tools are: o Contracting methods: Integrated Project Delivery, Design/Build with performance guarantee • Decision-making tools: Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Energy Benchmarking ~ Verification tools: Monitoring-based commissioning, building envelope commissioning Energy Star Portfolio Manager Regional Precedents 8noethird'partycertificadunsforgeenbui|dingbegantoshowupinthemarketinthelatel99Os many government entities of all sizes have looked to these outside resources to help set consistent, impartial standards for achieving environmental, climate, and performance goals for the assets they build and manage. According to the US Green Building Council's Public Policy Library, there are currently 215 government policies in the US requiring some sort of green building certification for public buildings (searched 05/03/2017). These stretch from the federal level to small and large cities and are in the East, South, Midwest, Southwest, and Western parts of the country. The following section highlights some of those policies relevant to the Pacific Northwest region. Federal, State, and Local Municipal Certification Requirements Federal Executive Order 13423, adopted in 2007, requires federal agencies to meet high-performance and sustainable building goals. Those goals have been translated into federal guidelines by the General Services Administration, who has endorsed both LEED and a version of Green Globes as tools for agencies to prove compliance with the guidelines. Since 2005, Washington State has required that all m jor facility projects of public agencies receiving funding in a state capital budget, or projects financed through a financing contract, be designed, constructed, and certified to at least the LEED Silver standard. RCW 39.35.040 also requires these projects to conduct a life-cycle cost analysis to evaluate energy efficiency options. King County's 2013 update to the Green Building and Sustainable Development Ordinance requires all eligible new construction projects to strive for LEED Platinum certification or, for non LEED-eligible projects, the highest level of certification available on an internal sustainable infrastructure scorecard or other approved third-party certification. Other approved programs include Built Green, Evergreen Sustainable Development Standard, Salmon Safe, and Living Building Challenge. City of Seattle's Sustainable Buildings and Sites Policy for municipal facilities requires new construction and major renovations 5,000 square feet or greater to meet LEED Gold, as well as key 40 performance requirements for energy and water efficiency, waste diversion, and bicycle facilities. Seattle also has several private-sector incentive programs in place that provide fast track permitting, additional FAR, and additional height. The cities of Kirkland, Shoreline, Lynnwood, Bothell, Newcastle, and Redmond all have private-sector incentive programs for green building (fast-track permitting is the most common), but no policy requirements for municipal buildings. lssaquah has Resolution 2004-11, which requires LEED Silver or Built-green 4-star. Non-applicable building types must refer to those systems for applicable green building practices but do not have to pursue certification. Certification Status for Fire Stations Locally and Nationally LEED is by far the most common certification program used by agencies and municipalities for fire stations and related facilities. There are over 300 LEED certified fire facilities internationally and another 300 registered. Seventeen of the certified projects are in Washington, primarily in Seattle. Olympia, Vancouver, and lssaquah also have certified fire stations. Green Globes has a handful of certified fire stations across the US, none in Washington. Overall Green Globes has certified 53 buildings in Washington of all types, many owned by federal agencies. Example projects ° Seattle Fire Station 20, completed in 2014, is the highest rated LEED Platinum Fire Station certified. It is 9,400 sf with space for two apparatus and features a solar PV array, green stormwater infrastructure, durable low-maintenance materials, and high-efficiency glazing for daylight, sound control, and energy efficiency. In 2016 it earned the F.I.E.R.O. Honor and Seattle Design Excellence Awards. ~ City of Eagan Public Safety Center in Minnesota was the first Green Globes certified fire station in 2011. The 38,DO0sf building combined two previous fire stations into one centralized location and also serves as a training center and dorm for volunteer fire fighters. It features a ground source heat pump, daylighting and LED lights, and recycled materials. ° City of Olympia Fire Station 4 was also completed in 2011 and earned LEED Gold. It is 13,370 sL including some administrative space, and features aggressive insulation, heat exchangers, and a highly efficient HVAC system along with functional daylighting design. This project won the National Fire Chief Station Style First Place award. Certification options When evaluating use of a third-party certification program, it is important to consider that there are a variety of options, including the most common system, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) by the US Green Building Council. Some address green building across multiple categories and some focus on one aspect of sustainability that may align best with an owner's goals. Comprehensive Environmental SustainabilityCertifications LEED ° Most widely recognized and accepted program; used by most municipal, county, and state policies for green building, ^ Estimated $D5,8O0to$lZ5,MDO|n administrative costs and certification fees per building. Some efficiencies for projects designed and built at the same time by the same teams, • The lates version, LEED v4, has a number of new credits that can drive better building performance, such as those for integrative process, whole building life-cycle assessment, green stormwater infrastructure, and advanced commissioning. • LEED certification for similar buildings are likely to be one level lower in Version 4 than it would have been in the previous version, e.g. LEED v3 Gold building = LEED v4 Silver building Green Globes • Criteria substantially similar to LEED, except no prerequisites and includes the ability to determine which credit categories are applicable. • Uses surveys and on-site verification to ease documentation requirements. Access to verifier via phone and e-mail during design. • Estimated $60,000 - $80,000 in administration, verification, and certification fees. Living Building Challenge (LBC), LBC Petal, or Net Zero Certification • All features of: the program are required for LBC certification, and the features from three of six categories are required for Petal certification. Net Zero certification is available for buildings that produce 105% of the energy they use on an annual basis. • Requirements are high, e.g. net zero energy or net zero water, which results in a high performing building. • Performance verified after one year of continuous operations. • $l5,O8O-$25'0O0in certification fees. Additional administrative costs could exceed LEED costs. Certifications Specific to an Environmental Attribute Salmon Safe • Unique local program focused on regional issues of storm water management, water quality, habitat, and landscape managernert. • Requires recertification every five years to maintain recognition. Requirements customized in agreement between certifier and organization receiving certification. On-site verification. • Fees variable and grants sometimes available. Less cost than LEED and Green Globes. Energy Star • National, federal benchmarking program for building energy and water efficiency. • Based on one year of performance data, verified by an engineer. • No certification fees. Costs for verification negotiated with verifier. WELL Building Standard New standard focused on health and wellbeing. Developed and run by for-profit "B" corporation with support from the US Green Building Council (also manages LEED) and International Living Future Institute (also manages LBC). • Compatible with LEED and LBC, with a segment of overlapping requirements. • $25,000 in certifications fees. Administrative costs still unknown. 42 ^ Recommendations Since the values of the City of Tukwila and the functional needs of the Tukwila Fire Department are both supported by the construction of high-performance fire stations, the design team strongly suggests that the City incorporate sustainability goals into its Public Safety Program. The inten5ity of those goals and the decision how (or if) to certify those buildings will be largely determined by the available funding'. In order to meet those goals, regardless of whether a third-party certification system is used: ° Set specific measurable objectives for building performance and develop owner's project requirements (OPR) early in the design phase. Establish a fair method of verifying results to hold the projec team accountable for achieving the project goals and requirements. Engage commissioning professionals for both building systems and building envelope commissioning. Consider ongoing, monitoring-based commissioning, Use Energy Star Portfolio Manager to benchmark and track building performance. Consider Energy Star building certification. In considering whether to use a third-party certification system: ° Understand how your project goals and desired sustainability strategies align with what the system measures. Projects that follow the steps above and craft a strong approach to green building often are very easy to certify, requiring limited adjustments or additions to what was already planned. Articulate what makes a certification valuable to this project so it is clear what the process should achieve—addlhona|accountabiUty'too|sfmrpubOcrecngnitiomamdrepnrhng,ahigher|eve|oF building performance, etc. Decide as early as possible tf you will proceed with a certification to allow the project team to integrate the standards in the system into the design from the beginning. This minimizes possible additional costs for redesigning and backtracking to collect information. Timeline While it is most efficient for a design team to have established sustainability goals to work with when going into the programming phase for a new building, we understand that the City ofTukwila's priorities for it's new fire stations are still evolving. Before moving forward into the schematic design phase of the first station in August 2017, the programmatic needs and desires of both the fire department and city will need to be reconciled with the budgets that have been established for all three stations. Given that there is likely to be some modification of either budget or building scope that comes out of that reconciliation process, we recommend adding a desired level of sustainability performance to that deci5ion matrix. In order to facilitate those decisions, the design team will strive to organize our final building programs and subsequent cost analysis into a set of options that will help the City choose which level of spending best aligns with it's highest priorities. For the City's part, it will be crucial to understand and finalize their priorities in the corning weeks so that a final decision on scope and budget can be made efficiently during the budget reconciliation period, which is currently scheduled for July 2017. s 44