Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
WS 2025-05-19 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET
q� 2 Tukwila City ❖ WORK Council Agenda SESSION ❖ 141 A •SJ 4 `o 1906 Thomas McLeod, Mayor Counci/members: ❖ Mohamed Abdi ❖ Armen Papyan Marty Wine, CityAdministrator •3 Jovita McConnell •3 Dennis Martinez Tosh Sharp, Counci/President ❖ Hannah Hedrick •3 Verna Seal N-SITE PRESENCE: TUKWILA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD EMOTE PARTICIPATION FOR THE PUBLIC: 1-253-292-9750, ACCESS CODE: 56095437# Click here to: Join icrosoft Teams Meeting For Technical Support: 1-206-433-7155 Monday, May 19, 2025; 5:30 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Those wishing to provide public comments may verbally address Council both on -site at Tukwila City Hall or via phone or Microsoft Teams to 5 minutes for items both on and not on the meeting agenda. To provide comment via phone or Microsoft Teams, please citycouncil@tukwilawa.gov with your name and topic by 5:00 PM the City for up email on the comment meeting date. Please clearly indicate that your message is for public during the meeting, and you will receive further instructions. 3. BUSINESS ITEMS Public Works Phase 2 Update Brandon Miles, Director of Strategic Initiatives and Government Relations Pg. 1 4. ADJOURNMENT This agenda Remote is available at www.tukwilawa.gov, and in alternate formats with advance notice for those with disabilities. taped, and available at www.tukwilawa.gov) Tukwila Council meetings are audio/video g: _ If you are in need of translation or interpretation services at a Council meeting, Mr. please contact us at 206-433-1800 by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date. City of Tukwila Thomas McLeod, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Tukwila City Council FROM: Brandon Miles, Mayor's Office CC: Thomas McLeod DATE: May 13, 2025 SUBJECT: Public Works Phase 2 Update ISSUE The project team would like to provide an update on the status of the design for Public Works Phase 2. No action is required following the work session. BACKGROUND In 2015 the City Council adopted the Public Safety Plan' that called for the replacement of three fire stations, a new justice center to house Police and the Municipal Court, and a combined public works shops facility. The Public Safety Plan was the result of a 2015 facilities assessment that found that six city facilities were in unsuitable condition. The facilities included Fire Stations 51, 52, 54, Minkler Shops, George Long, and the 6300 building. Since adoption of the Public Safety Plan the City has completed the replacement of two fire stations, built a new justice center, and relocated City staff from the George Long property to a new facility in the north end of the City. Additionally, land was purchased next to the new public works facility to expand and relocate the Minkler Shops (Public Works Phase 2). In 2023 the City Council authorized staff to execute agreements for the full design of Public Works Phase 2. In late 2024 staff presented to the City Council the results of the design and cost estimates, which exceed a total of $80 million in total construction costs. 1 The Public Safety Plan should not be confused with the Public Safety Bond. The Bond was a funding mechanism for the fire stations and the justice center only. Page 1 of 3 1 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 2 Pro'ect S • end; Public Works Consolidated Sho • s Year C ost Site Acquisition 2017 28 709 Preliminary Design and Real Estate Services 201 237.8 and Purchase, Business Assistance, and Legal Costs 2019 704,012 and Purchase, Business Assistance, and Legal Costs Subtota 5.612 Phase 1 2020 756.52 Design and Pre -Construction Phase 2021 5744.84 Construction Phase 1 2022 2,272,488 Construction Phase 202 92,1 Construction Phase Phase 2 Subtota 2022 10,165794 24 Test to Fit 2023-2025 516 Design and Pre -Construction (through April, 2025 2025-2026 8.749 Forecasted Funds NeededTo Get Through Design Phase Tota 5.690.0 TotaLSpend: 081.437 Status of Land Sates Long Acres - No longer under contract with Unico. Have started to look at other options. George Long 4,500,000 Closing with King County on May 21, 2025. Minkler Shops 4,250,000 Estimated value. King County Flood District has expressed an interest in purchasing. Total: 8,750,000 DISCUSSION Based on the significant construction costs, the City began to rescope the project and to focus on a "Minkler" first design. Essentially, what is the minimum project that will get City staff off the Minkler shops site, was the question we worked on addressing. Based on this focus, the design team and staff have worked on a revised design for Public Works Phase 2. The rescoped design removes several significant functions areas, most notably relocating public works staff from the 6300 building to the new location. Additional project elements were removed or reduced in size to reduce the overall budget. The project team has generated two reduced scope options. Option 1 would construct a small maintenance and operations building on the site and include a construction cost of $35 million; Option 2 would use modular buildings and cost about $30 million. Both options include spoils, storage, and other site needs. A decant facility is also proposed with both options, provided the decant can be built with outside funds. City staff is leaning towards option 1 because there is concern that the use of modular buildings will create higher long-term costs for the City and would eventually need to be replaced. 2 INFORMATIONAL MEMO Page 3 Rescoping the project has kicked out the construction timetable slightly, with construction starting in April of 2026. However, the reduced scope results in a faster build, with move in scheduled for July 2027. Staff is still examining financing models to fund the construction of the reduced scoped project, but wanted to check in with the City Council regarding the current status of the design. With land acquisition, the City's total project cost is just over $40 million. Through April of 2025, the City has spent just over $3.5 million in design and preconstruction costs for phase 2. An additional $1.988 million would be needed to complete the design and get ready for bid. These funds are already budgeted and included in the current phase. Lease of Phase 2 Property Prior to assuming title of the phase 2 property on November 1, 2023, the City of Tukwila extended the tenant, TForce, on the property through April of 2025. The ending rent was approximately $78,000 per month. The City had inquired with TForce if there was interest in extending their lease. While initially expressing interest, TForce chose to move to a small property in Fife, Washington. The property is currently vacant. The City has a broker that could lease the property should the City choose to temporarily delay phase 2. Since construction of phase 2 would not start until April of 2026, the City is looking for short term lessees interested in renting the yard for storage. RECOMMENDATION No action is needed by the City Council at this time. Prior to beginning the next phase of design, staff will come back to the City Council with funding options, as well considerations for other facility issues. ATTACHMENTS A. May 19, 2025, Work Session PowerPoint. B. August 5, 2024, Work Session PowerPoint. C. Seismic Hazards Screening Report memorandum, dated August 28, 2008. D. Public Facilities Siting Criteria Council Packet, dated May 22, 2017. E. Siting Criteria Matrix. F. Public Safety Plan Siting Advisory Committee Recommendations. G. Public Safety Plan Siting Updated, dated July 17, 2027. H. Facility Study Appendix B. 3 Attachment A Tukwila aintenance an perations ® ast us Project date ay 1 , 2025 City of Tukwila P Replace Fire Station 51 Replace Fire Station 52 Build Justice Center Consolidate Public Works Minkler Shops screen capture from 2017 public outreach materials 01 City Facilities Proposed Project Site and Fleet and Facilities Building G e yoLOi Fff f o rrn or) 6300 (PW Engineering) Long Acres Minkler Shops Current and Former Public Works Facilities George Long (former site) Fleet and Facilities Departments relocated to the new renovated F&F Building Minkler Shops Street, Traffic Signals, Sewer, Water, Surface Water 13,000 sf interior spaces 3,500 sf exterior covered space Long Acres Storage and Laydown Yard (shown 3x smaller to fit page) v 00 Minkier Site Cvdtz00.5 Tier 1 Project; 1G-35 P=17 Pond Connection Reconnection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed; Lower Green (WI River mile; RM 13,7-13,9/ left bank Bankside jurisdiction; City of Tukwila Project sponsor: itv of Tukwila Budget: $37,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: elrtcate the City of Tukwila`s stormwaler pond; clean and connect the existing pond to the river, setback the levee to create up to 7 acres of off channel habitat, PE: Reettxatio Planning! SCWing/ Resign Reconnaissance HEY HABITAT; Primary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectiv efits; od risk reduction Increased habitat connect Increased rearing habitat Contribution to goals metrics: off -channel habitat - `}xA G—u.SG 9tClAT Y, Minkier Site 0 Minkler Site Current Minkler Shops Overview Salt, Sand, & Gravel Storage limited truck access for delivery reduces efficiency in snow event current storage capacity: 120 tons (need up to 240 tons for a big snow storm) N.) Current Minkler Shops Overview rrr Shared yard with fleet and large trucks adjacent to personal vehicles ,„4 Current Minkler Shops Overview Inadequate space for gear and storage of personal belongings. Current Minkler Shops Overview Office environments in converted shop space. Ventilation, lighting, occupant spaces are substandard. Long Acres Storage and Laydown Yard Site Context Chinook Wind Mitigation Project (King County) ent (permanrntaccess Reduction to Project Scope ChinookWind Mitigation Project (King County) Separate Decant Facility Deferred co Reduction to Project Scope Project elements carried forward: Salt, Sand, Gravel Storage Spoils Storage Tool and Equipment torage Covered Loading Included in 1-story building: Offices for Crews Break Room Locker Rooms & Gear Rooms Laundry Room veay connection between east and west sites Decant: linked to rant funding -stork uuil;dir g IJ , u sty >trucfural upr to essential f ac public meeting r o ding root fc city- i u e offices fon inee ring epartmen ilex Offices nr f r rowt tecovery Rooms (far 24/` events) cif ness . Employee Resource + docove i d t ri c ►ac Compare Minkler Shops to Proposed Project Current Minkler Shops Does not have backup power Does not have Spoils Storage Does not have Decant Facility Does not have Covered Loading vs Proposed Improvement New Backup Generator New 4,400 sf Spoils Storage New 5,800 sf Decant (pending grant $) New 3,000 sf Covered Loading 1,260 sf Salt/Sand/Gravel Storage 3,610 sf Covered Storage 1,089 sf Warehouse (distributed) 1,090 sf Tool Room (distributed) 1,000 sf Parts Storage Rooms 860 sf Signal Shop + Storage No Gear Room or Decon Space 473 sf Locker Rooms New 4,400 sf Salt/Sand/Gravel Storage New 5,000 sf Covered Storage New 2,175 sf Warehouse (central) New 1,460 sf Tool Room (central) New 1,965 sf Parts Storage Rooms New 1,300 sf Signal Shop + Storage New 570 sf Gear Room + 175 sf Decon New 1,920 sf Locker Rooms Option 1 — Maintenance and Operations Building N56,2,30-1, SHORELINE RESTORATION (SEPARATE PROJECT) LIDING VEHICLE GATE EMPLOYEE GATE STAFF PARKING EASPIAN AEA REC- Ng, 73130.10,,,A TING :SOUND TRANS 1=ASEMEN, REC, E C NSFORI Estimated Construction Cost $23,330,000 Estimated Project Related Costs $11,670,000 sti ate oject ost tion 1 ,0 0,000 Option 2 — Tool Storage Building with separate Modular Building t466',2'30N 65' S DING VEHICLE GATE MODULAR BUILDING OFF1rES, LOCKERS, SUPPORT SPACES SHORELINE RESTORATION (SEPARATE PROJECT) EMPLOYEE GATE STAFF PARKING - TOOLS, PARTS, MATERIALS & SIGNAL SHOP WtT EASRWITING AR A .F;ouNr., TRAHS, REC 24()SW1= Estimated Construction Cost $20,950,000 Estimated Project Related Costs $10,050,000 sti ate roject ost ption 2 $31,0 0,000 Option 1 — Maintenance and Operations Building — FLOOR PLAN MEN S LOCKERST- - PESTICIDE STORAGE PARTS STORAGE SEWER / SURFACE WATER PARTS STORAGE - WATER Street Department I Signal Shop I Water Department I Sewer! Surface Water Department 17,450 sf interior conditioned space + 5,000 sf exterior covered storage + 3,000 sf covered loading Opportunity to Preserve Future Expansion Capabilities SALT STORAGE GRAVEL 0STORAGE SURFACE PARKING OVER UNDERGROUND STORMWATER SHORELINE RESTORATION (SEPARATE PROJECT) SLIDING VEHICLE GATE EMPLOYEE GATE STAFF PARKI Q DID PSTERS 17,450 SF 1-STORY BUILDING PROPOSED SPOILS 8,000 SF COVERED .n,am�------ FUTURE BUILDING AREA 1 f 18,000 SF FOOTPRINT 1 1 PLANTING ARE TING AREA 5POI .5 DECANT' PHASED INDOO FLEET PARKING PLANTING AREA GENERATOR NSFORI fV Project Schedule JAN 2023 GCC Procurement REPORT TO COUNCIL March 2023 JAN 2024 Nov 2023 City ownership of UPS parcel JAN 2025 April 2025 UPS Lease Expired REPORT REPORT REPORT REPORT TO COUNCIL TO COUNCIL TO COUNCIL TO COUNCIL April 2024 October 2024 March 2025 May 2025 • RECEIVED SEPA DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) ISSUED ON 9/25/2024 • SEPA AMENDMENT: TARGET JULY 2025 • BUILDING PERMIT: TARGET SEPTEMBER 2025 • CONSTRUCTION START: MAY 2026 • CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION: JUNE 2027 JAN 2026 COUNCIL DECISION TO AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION Target: March 2026 JAN 2027 Update May 19, 2025 Attachment B Tukwila Maintenance and Engineering - East Campus Project Council Work Session August 5, 2024 N O) Introductions randon les, Director I Strategic Initiatives and Governmen ions ryan Still, Public orks perations anager John Palewicz, Progra anage en uality Assurance Justine lei , Sr. Project anager, S Julie eDonato, Project anager, S J Laura aman, Principal, filler Hayashi Architects Steve Gates, Project Executive, uilders PMQA ° Works ���UU� Combined Shops, Cost to Date Site Acquisition 2017 2018 2019 283,709 13,237,891 12,704,012 Preliminary Design and Real Estate Services Land Purchase, Business Assistance, and Legal Costs Land Purchase, Business Assistance, and Legal Costs 26,225,612 2022 2023 756,352 5,744,843 2,272.480 1.382.111 Design and Pre -Construction Phase 1 Construction Phase 1 Construction Phase 1 Construction Phase 1 10,165,794 Phase 185,124 Test to Fit 2023 1,354,449 Design and Pn8-CUDStnJCt|0n 1,539,573 Total Spend: 37,938,879 Total (Hard and Soft) Cost: 84,000,000 Cash Contribution: (6,000,000) Potential Total Bond: 78,000,000 Debt Service (No Land Sa es General Fund Allocation 39,000,000 Less Grants and One Time: Less Land Sales: Alternative Scopes: Total: 39,000,000 General Fund Debt Service 2,537,006 Utility Fund Allocation 39,000,000 Less Grants Alternative Scopes: Less One Time Monies Total, Utilities: 39,000,000 Utilty Debt Service 2,537,006 Bond Assumptions Interest Rate 5% Payments Per Year Number of Year 30 Debt Service (with Land Sales) General Fund Allocation 39,000,000 Less Grants and One Time: Less Land Sales: 10,000,000 Alternative Scopes: Total: 29,000,000 General Fund Debt Service 1,886,492 Utility Fund Allocation Less Grants Alternative Scopes: Less One Time Monies 39,000,000 Total, Utilities: Utilty Debt Service 9,000,000 2,537,006 • Six City facilities ere dee e• o be in unsuita • e condition: • Fire Stations 51, 52 and 54. • George Long • inkler Shops • 6300 Building • City adopted Public Safety Plan • Replacement of fire stations • New justice center • Combined Public orks Shop Public Safety Plan City of Tukwila PUBLIC SAFETY PLAN Pub& Safety Pao Fite Stailem Justice Centel Pub4ic Work ) Corairrretrt Next Slept Public Safety Plan To keen tho Tukwila community aote for years tb arbran the City aneriementeri Pubtic Saftity Plan. Here's whrn the Pon dans: Three New Fire Stations • Includea ugajradek ld Mauna !nest at Pak of earthquake damage • Provides tart and imptoved tespense times • Guaranteed leading lot equipment tor 20-yeara f Funding the Public Safety Plan New Justice Center New Consolidated Shops Facility In November .2016, Tukw voters approved d .20 year Public Safely Bond to land replacement of ▪ threeTkwo lire staeons, roequg.kbent end apparaturate and a rw Juktree Center. This pabrio Soteity. Bacot war pay tor the new bre s-on a and the irustice Comer. The conSOadeted shop tannin" ma be funded by equrrbotoro born the general and utility fund Ia Source: screen capture from 2017 public outreach materials Replace Fire Station 51 (2021) Replace Fire Station 52 (2021) Build Justice Center (2022) Consolidate Public Works (2027) Site Selection Process Evaluation Siting Criteria Committee presented to formed Council January 2017 May 2017 Public Outreach and Engagement Recommendations presented to Council in October 2017 Updates to Council throughout 2018 Public Outreach and Engagement Council authorizes property acquisition in 2018 City completes property acquisitions 2018 & 2023 Public Outreach and Engagement W N City Facilities COMMUNITY *CENTER $.90 FO GEO LONG SHOPS 4 , FS 52 *6300 - - CITY4100BLDG - HALL :LON'ti' ACRE SITE Proposed Project Site and Fleet and Facilities Building George Long Shops (former 6300 (PW Engineering) Long Acres Minkler Shops co A Current and Former Public Works Facilities George Long (former site) Fleet and Facilities Departments relocated to the new renovated F&F Building Minkler Shops Street, Traffic Signals, Sewer, Water, Surface Water Long Acres Storage and Laydown Yard (shown 3x smaller to fit page) Tukwila Public Works Department Overview Public Works protects the health and safety of residents, visitors, and businesses. Design and maintain the City's essential infrastructure: Transportation, Water, Sewer, Surface Water Support other departments through purchase & upkeep of vehicles and facilities. i i I • The facility is lacking key functions needed to support and restore t I citys i s following an emergency event. The absence of an emergency power severely limits this facility to meet its mission of restoring city services during a power outage event. • Material r is r li i , thus impacting the availability of parts and materials for emergency event response. The upcoming loss of the remote site due to the Strander Boulevard/27th Street Corridor Improvements Project for material storage and vactor truck waste sorting/transfer will further exasperate the storage issue in addition to creating new operational challenges to dispose of vactor truck waste. r is r ti s t r r i I II i t c t. If this equipment remains at the Minkler Shop, it is recommend that all equipment and support space for this function be separated with fire rated walls from the remainder of the facility. • ter/ r tr sty r i II i erg c t. If this equipment remains at the Minkler Shop, it is recommend that all equipment and support space for this function be separated with fire rated walls from the remainder of the facility. • Seismic improvements would have minor architectural impacts to the spaces, but significant operational issues would remain, rendering replacement a better option. Should seismic improvements be elected, they can likely be performed without vacating the facility. Current Minkler Shops Overview Salt, Sand, & Gravel Storage inadequate storage capacity limited truck access reduces efficiency in snow event Current Minkler Shops Overview , Shared yard that combines fleet vehicles and large trucks with parking for staff personal vehicles Current Minkler Shops Overview Inadequate space for gear and storage of personal belongings. CD Current Minkler Shops Overview Lacks industry standard dumpster loading platform. Current Minkler Shops Overview Office environments in converted shop space. Ventilation, lighting, occupant spaces are substandard. N Long Acres Storage and Laydown Yard Minkler Site A Minkler Site Minkler Site 0.7.0 agnSw*kf Tier 1 Project: LG-35 P=17 Pond Connection Reconnection PROJECT FACTS Subwatershed: Lower Green (LG) River mile: RM 117-13,9/ left bank Bankside jurisdiction: City of Tukwila Project sponsor: City of Tukwila Budget; $37,000,000 KEY HABITAT: PROJECT OESCRIPTtON: Relocate the City of Tukwila's stormwater pond; clean and connect the existing pond to the river, setback the levee to create up to 7 acres of off channel habitat. rtrnary strategy Protect, restore and enhance floodplain connectivity. Benefits; Flood risk reduction - Increased habdal connect - Increased rearing habitat Y Contribution to goals metrics: - LG - Off -channel habitat oq rKV 010.10000 `i:m' 000' 0,010 0-0000 n-0000:00,0 iG'.,2031,E0 00000:ON9 W01. aR40,1,10x0 h. 0,00 0) Project Site Compared to Existing Minkler Site Site Context Chinook Wind Mitigation Project (King County) Duwamish Gardens - (City Own Duwamish River co roject Values y P s is ortu �v Stakeholder Engagement Test -to -fit Concept Phase 40'04).4' SCHEME A Selected Concept Plan ;:7071,75,T Lr=7:V; SCHEME D SCHEME E ' - - ,C2TrottOrjrzrinf, . SCHEME C SCHEME F `,11±,A.P.N.Triza - Test -to -fit Concept Phase Criteria Criteria ID # Criteria Description Importance "Big Picture" Criteria (pass/fail) 1.1 Provides for Department of Ecology waiver requirements Essential 1.2 Provides for code required stormwater facilities Essential 1.3 Located above 500 year flood plane Essential 1.4 Provides for future capacity Essential Public Works Staff Input 2.0 Public Works Staff Preferences & Recommendations 1.00 Program Elements and Flow 2.1 Public Works site program elements provided 1.00 ' 3 2.2 Public Works covered parking provided 1.00 - 3 2.3 Public Works uncovered parking provided 1.00 3 2.4 Decant facility located adjacent to Spoils 1.00 3 2.5 Accommodates Drive Through Tool Storage 0.75 - 2.25 2.6 Accommodates Drive Through Dumpster Platform 0.75 2.25 2.7 Police Evidence Provided 0.50 s 1 2.8 Police Impound Provided 0.50 2 1 Campus, Access, Security, and Identity Building location allows for M&E visitor parking to be separated from 3.1 staff parking 1.00 -,, 3 3.2 F&F visitor parking separated from staff parking 1.00 3 3.3 Improves entrance from Tukwila Inel Blvd 1.00 3 3 3.4 Provides for new security fence 1.00 3 3 3.5 Provides for new site lighting and security cameras 1.00 3 3 3.6 Efficient walking route between F&F and M&E buildings 0.75 ; 1.5 3.7 Efficient walking distance from M&E to site program 0.75 - 2.25 3.8 Building location high-vis to the public 0.50 -, 1 3.9 Building location takes advantage of amenity view to river 0.50 1.5 3.10 Utilizes existing driveway locations at E Marginal Way S 0.50 ,-; 1.5 Environment and Sustainability 4.1 Building orientation optimized for passive solar access 1.00 ' 3 4.2 Opportunity for solar panels over covered parking or roof 1.00 3 4.3 Opportunity for EV charging infrastructure 1.00 0, 3 4.4 Reduces impervious surfaces 0.75 2.25 4.5 Habitat and trail connection to adjacent restoration areas 0.50 1.5 Concept A Concept B Concept C Concept D Concept E Concept F Initial Weighted initial Weighted Initiid Weighted Initial Weighted Initial Weighted Initi...11 Weighted Score Total Score Total Total Score Total Score Total •,/ Subtotal Weighted Score Weighted Ranking •••.▪ " 2 3 3 3 0 1.5 1.5 0 0 1 3 2 3 3 3 2.25 1.5 46.75 3rd 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 ; 1 1 C 0 3 -'2 3 3 3 3 =2 3 0.75 I 0.75 2.25 3 2,25 1 1 0.5 1.5 e; 0 1.5 0 0 2 3 3 1.5 1.5 34.5 4th 0 Total 0 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 S 3 3 3 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 2.25 0 0 3 2.25 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 2 1 r 0 3 3 3 2 2 0 3 3 0 0 3 ,,, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 =-; 3 • 0 3 2.25 1 0.75 1.5 0 0 I 0.75 0.5 3 1.5 0 0 • 0 3 1.5 0 0 O 0 2 1.5 3 1.5 0 0 :1 1 :i 3 3 "3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 1.5 3 2.25 1 0.75 1.5 3 1.5 2, 1.5 32.5 50 32.25 5th 2nd 6th Tukwila Maintenance and Engineering East Campus Project COX EPS MI POLICE IMPOUND. FLEET AND FACILITIES BUILDING 1111 MAINTENANCE AND ENGINEERING BUILDING TRUCK LOADING RAMP PARKING (COVERED) PARKING (UNCOVERED) RECREATION AND CIRCULATION LANDSCAPED AREAS STORMWATER FACILITY PLANTED TREES RIPARIAN AREA DUWAMISH RIVER Tukwila Maintenance and Engineering East Campus Project I�=1Ii YAIR2 UP 'L_JL_J TRASH IL,I ILJ L/./ 11-1 1a L� KITCHEN FITNESS CENTER E'_r BIKE STORAGE STORAGE DECON RR B OT RYI RYIN -BOOM DRYING ROOM D� L HD-1 LAUNDRY wt MEN'S RR SIGNAL SHOP H Level 1 Floor Plan n 1 1 1 1 1 1rr1FFi11111/111111 STAIR. 1 ;iii�i�ii L LL'iLLLLLL.I.� UPI'„�� Lj RECEPTION WOMEN'S SHOWER OMENS RR ° c EN'S LOCKER _m_; v1'-i r WOMEN'S MEN'S SHOWER LOCKER RM MDF ROOM 1 LEEFI WATER QUALITY ELECTRICAL ROOM ECHANICA ROOM 8 C UST FS ROOM ELEV MACH RM MEETING MEETING 6a 6d ��kd cd �d kd 0 1 Ul Tukwila Maintenance and Engineering East Campus Project Level 2 Floor Plan i DN STAI R UP MEETING ROOM ADD'L ijop € ADD'L ADdL',! ADD'L FLEXIBLE WORK SPACE -_i F f --1 ADDITIONAL OPEN OFFICE RR RR STORAGE OFFICE OFFICE J e ' ADM. RECOVERY 414 PEN HALLWAY H u LLGalli 1 I W, ADD'L 4•�,f WATER DEPARTMENT i 0 STREET DEPARTMENT ADD'L 0 II 4 EMPLOYEE RESOURCE CENTER 1 ii ELEV DN STAIR 1 ur COPY TRAFFIC IDF ROOM SERVER ROOM CUST; ELECTR CA ROOM I 4 44,444 u SEWER 1 SURFACE WATER DEPARTMENT -4 r-rr1 rr I 1 19 I liorN, ADD'L Fti EETING ROOM EETING ROO V 1 I 4 4, I 1 2 1 A 1 EETING ROO JCOVERED OUTDOOR SPACE COVERED OUTDOOR SPACE �0 0 Tukwila Maintenance and Engineering East Campus Project WOMEN'S M EN'S RESTROOM RESTROOM aural '2 Flrinr Plan fTf LLLiJ TAIR 2 fol 0,1 OFFICE -ff.1 ENGG ENGG dnor L gr ENGG "DO ENGG al;i! ; ADMIN LyY! ADMIN (4idi ADMIN 4, --1,-- ADMIN OFFICE ENGG ggfg„,,d2 ENGG a I', a ail [REF ggi KITCHENETTE PHONE OOTH[ I IF +4— ,f1 OFFICE T71- 1 CUST VIEETING ROOM IDE MEETING ROOM It LJLLJLJL1Li I, STORAGE ELEC CLOSET HAL 1444, + 4 gr_ ,147;;10., ENGG ENGG ENGG ADDL OPEN OFFICE I I WAY 0 7, 1 kr; ENGG ENGG ENGG LADDL il:i17.,r",v ADM. r rr, I , _ r g H„ TAIR 3 CHAIR STOR. 1 AV CLOSET 1 E:L STAIR r n 0 - ar4 a 04 7, 0 I ,44 TRAINING ROOM - WEST riJ iN ,g1 L 40 a } ara 0=4.4 0 /00, TRAINING ROOM - EAST Vgl COVERED OUTDOOR SPACE rETfH _ COVERED OUTDOOR SPACE] -. 0) Tukwila Maintenance and Engineering East Campus Project Tukwila Maintenance and Engineering East Campus Project 03 Examples from Pierce County similar facilities Tukwila Maintenance and Engineering East Campus Project JAN JAN JAN JAN JAN 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 PRE - DESIGN GCCM Procurement Nov 2023 City ownership of UPS parcel REPORT TO COUNCIL (March 2023) UMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL fttifiEW AN PRMITTING - - - - - — - REPORT TO COUNCIL (April 2024) April 2025 UPS Lease Expires REPORTTO COUNCIL (Target: Fall 2024) REPORT TO COUNCIL (Target: August 2025) January 2027 c native Pu tic forks iver Contractor selected by the public agency Provide services during the design phase "Negotiate" a maximum allowable construction cost ( ACC) Act as both a construction manager and general contractor e RF • to pick qualified firms • Qualifications and experience to do this project • Scored by selection committee Proposed teams are interviewed • Scored by interview committee Fee and General Conditions are competitively bid • Scored based on sliding scale Highest scoring firm is selected Owner selects the designer and GC/CM separately Owner is able to pick the team members to work with Preconstruction services for estimating, scheduling, constructability, phasing, investigation, value engineering echanical and electrical subcontractors can be picked • $3 million minimum Similar selection as for GC/CM • Negotiate this work Cost is not known until documents are 90% complete All subcontract work, with exceptions, must be bid out GC/CM can bid and perform up to 30% of MACC Owner has separate contracts with designer and contractor Project can start early with mini-MACCs GC/CM manages subcontractors, change orders Diversity, Equity, Inclusion — Past Projects Apprenticeship Utilization WMBE Diverse Business Participation Local Hire 0-mile radius) Justice Center Goal: 15% Result: 18.57% Goal: 17% Result: 17.5% Local Employees: 178 Hours Worked: 20,170 Fire Station 51 Goal: 15% Result: 16% Goal: 17% Result: 23% Local Employees: 93 Hours Worked: 5,897 Fire Station 52 Goal: 15% Result: 22.6% Goal: 17% Result: 24% Local Employees: 136 Hours Worked: 14,323 Market Conditions and General Update • General Contractor Market • Escalation has slowed tremendously compared to 2021 and 2022 numbers. YEAR END BUILDING COST INDEX .2015 .2016 217 .2018 2019 20,20 2024 6067 6249 6385 6766 7 8532 8591 8909 2.8% 2,1% 3.5% 3.0% 22% 60% 2.4% 12,1% 3.7% Running Prior Years Pnir Veers 4.85% 10 Year Avg Year Av Eittauild ers arket Conditions and eneral Update SEA E REGIONAL. MODIFIER . iy Av ;It 20- ity Avg, orado OC Diego Iy Area Compare to 20 City Avg -10 2 �F3 0) arket Conditions and eneral Update tr-ct • r • r t • ajor Trade Unions negotiations settled or being negotiated summer of 2024. • Rates will increase roughly 5% a year, but it's a known cost which will be included in bids • Subs experiencing a dip in available projects. • Participation rates are much better over the last 12 months than we saw previously. • Not unusual to get 5 or more subs participating, especially in publicly advertised projects • With the slowdown in work, the available workforce includes more seasoned craft, which improves production and quality, which leads to more competitive bids. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion PROCESS FOR MAXIMIZING DIVERSE & L CAL PARTICIPATION PROMOTE EQUITABLE ACCESS 4 OPPORTU NITIE 5 DEVELOP BID PACKAGING STRATEY IDENTIFY SUB -TIER oppopTurlil ES P ri! CR" E 5515TA Goal • 20% goal for DBE/MWBE subcontractor participation ,,ARR KRPEPORT Eittauil Status of Land Sales Long Acres 4,250,000 Under contract with Unico. George Long 4,700,000 Property came back as clean, King County is working on PSA. Minkler Shops 4,500,000 Estimated value. King County Flood District has expressed an interest in purchasing. Total: 13,450,000 AIA„DBIA[LFEDDRBF am Management y Assurance o(PM' o Review and comment on overall project budgets, schedule and delivery strategy. o Meet regularly with the Executive Project Management Team to assess progress, advise and strategize. o Provide quarterly written reports to the Council and make semi-annual presentations to the Council UW Capital Projects Office for 21 years, Retired November 2017 ▪ Director of Major Projects on the Seattle Campus ▪ Managed or Directed 24 GC/CM and DB projects, $1.2 Billion Project Cost ▪ Advising Public Owners (WWU, SPS, WSDOT, Evergreen Health, Tacoma SD, Renton SD) AIA„DBIA[LFED„DRBF am M nagement y faccuran ( P Project Design Progress 1. Schematic Design was completed November 2023 2. Cost estimates prepared by both architect and contractor (GC/CM) 3. They were reconciled, value engineering was incorporated, alternates were identified 4. Total Project Budget was met 5. Design Development was started February 2024 6. GC/CM is meeting with the design team weekly 7. DD documents are scheduled to be completed August 2024 8. Estimates will then be made, reconciled and the design balanced to meet the estimated Total Project Budget AIA„DBIA[LFED„DRBF am M nage meat y Accuran ( P Project Budget 1. Current approved Design Phase Only Budget is S5,974,412 2. This includes project design, permitting, preconstruction and related project costs 3. The Project Budget will need to be approved to include the Construction Phase budget when construction is authorized 4. The current projected Total Project Cost estimate is S83,981,179 Recommendations 1. Proceed with reconciliation of the cost estimates before proceeding with Construction Documents 2. Balance the cost estimate, design, funding plan and Total Project Budget before proceeding INFORMATION MEMO To: Mayor Haggerton From: Public Works Direc Date: August 28, 2008 Subject: Seismic Hazards Screening Report Please Bring Your Copies of the Evaluation Report. ISSUE Review results of Seismic Hazards Screening Evaluation. DISCUSSION Reid Middleton was contracted to provide Seismic Hazard Screening and Reporting services, using FEMA 154 and ASCE 31-03 screening criteria for nine City buildings (Minkler Shops was separated into three separate structures). The screening and evaluation looked at the buildings' expected structural performance for the Immediate Occupancy performance objective. The Immediate Occupancy perfoiuiance objective was chosen because each of the facilities being evaluated perfoiiii a critical function/service for the community and would be needed during a disaster and the during the recovery period following the disaster. All of the buildings, with the exception of Fire Station 53, were found to have seismic deficiencies and do not meet the Immediate Occupancyperfoiinance objective. Concept -level seismic upgrade designs have been completed and are provided describing the options to mitigate structural deficiencies. Cost estimates for the seismic upgrades have also been developed. RECOIVIlVIENDATION Present to the Committee of the Whole for consideration. C:\temp\XPGrpWise\Info Memo Seismic Screening Report.doc 72 II el) f1,' "71 xr, August 2008 Mit .,, 1'Si;j •.' Y'ty.rt++ y�1''hr , viY,96P(irr '.%/, Reid iddleton iuH ono oau Facilities Overview & Importance is lace ent ased Priject isual Seiscree to�I_S ahGI, ce t-Level Seas st Esti .. tes J4 C C •II City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 IC ado ppr.ach mg s Its es Its rides 1111 655 Legend City Hall (2j' Public Work Engineering Fire Station 51 riN Fire Station 52 L7 Fire Station 53 6 o Fire Station 54 O Workroom, Covered Parking (®) George Long Shops Tukwila Community Center City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program August 2008 11 uildings, 166,000 SF City Hall, Police/Public 'orks, Fir- ° Stations, 2 Shos Facilities, 1 Co muni Ce ter Co str cti t,li',e fri• 1961 to 195 p to 20 0 Person Occupant Loa Cost to Upgrade? Establish pgrade Priorities Building Name No. Stories Area Structure Type Year Built Age Occupant Load Use Tukwila City Hall 2 27,000 SF Wood Frame, Concrete & Wood SW 1977 31 300 Administration/Police/ Court 6300 Building 2 33,600 SF Wood Frame, Concrete & Wood SW, Steel Frame 1978 30 300 Public Works/Engineering/Police Fire Station 51 2 17,700 SF Precast Tilt -Up Concrete 1973 35 15 Emergency Services Fire Station 52 1 3350 SF Precast Tilt -Up Concrete 1971 37 10 Emergency Services Fire Station 53 1 14,000 SF Wood Frame, Wood & Masonry SW 1995 13 15 Emergency Services Fire Station 54 1 5,300 SF Masonry Bearing Wall 1961 47 10 Emergency Services Minkler Shops Buildings 1 20,750 SF Precast Tilt -Up Concrete 1972 36 100 Public Works Shops & Storage George Long Shop 2 18,500 SF Pre -Engineered Metal Bldg. 1965 43 150 Vehicle Maintenance Tukwila Community Center 1 55,000 SF Wood Frame, Wood & Masonry SW 1995 13 1100 Recreation Totals 166,000 SF 2000 ' :Eat:Mr 75'..". City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 TC-21 apid Visual Screening Procedure Inventory, Screen, & Rank SC1 31- 3 iet.fle. Seismic Eval ations Tier 1 - Checklist Screening Tier 2 - Quick Checks More Det.iled Evaluation Tier 3 - letafled Evaluation 1 11,1 erfor ce ased 1 esig Deter ine Limited or Enhanced Objectives Establish E.Q. Hazard Levels & Performance Objectives Establish Overall Program Budget Prepare Detailed Design and Construction Documents City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 i. ; City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 au` Crustal earthquakes 1872) Deep Vfp1pl�^i U,l , � r • earthquakes (194,19I65, 001) �:LdINWWY' Prob. SA, PGA jf <median l R,15.1 -1 < Eo <-0.5 e ›media r 0«p<0.5 2 • ¢F.o<3 r'-f- �r Prob. Seismic Hazard Deaggregation City'_of Tukwila_ 122.247° W, 47.492 N. Peak Horia. Ground Acccl.>=0.32.86 g Mean Return Time 475 years Mean (R„M,E0) 37.1 km, 6.55„ 0.62 Modal (R,M„E") = 5.0 km, 6.63, -1.22 (from peak R,M bin) Modal (R,M,E"') = 518 krn, 7.00, 1 to 2 sigma (from peak R,M,E bin) Binning: DeltaR 10, km, dcltaM=0.2.„ Deltaa=1.0 0.5 .1 1re:0<1.5 1.5 < zQ .2 2003 update USGS PSHA 2 ®2038 Jun 10 17:42:37 FM2tnca(Frl, nugrl'ludo ?41, apnllal(EO,E) ciao ygraga Un for a Miacn ROCK mq lkc780 mtitp 30 rn U900 CO -IT P514W20026r3 UP DATE Ms, wit) It 0.05% ccntlb. witted ram¢ City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 era City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 a 0 0 '0 C 0Fri a of particular concern Q DDJE Long, 0 0 0 0 flexible Stories Setbacks n Ls�t�e 8uic. iirtgs Coupled Shear Wall r City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 City of Tukvvila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 :IJ kid!ann .11.4101. 30.101 O.011.0al Yam HIGH Seismicity oak NT0 OCCU COlowr UUIWINOIYI'C WI .111014 nln lbl.bhM l9v"tly..hWm. m.0..l. M 0 Type n N.O.O. tl a0A r .e FIAL 0C.11.0 i4 C31M143120 1101.41112 War CMeMI.L AWIn. 0200 00u11pnl.r IINd, TuN.AI. Sp 00 0.3 . Pane ..n1Y1 CMN 323100 0pr 011f0NM. '1UNM12C1yO4Il n. CAYAdn,Ml.u.aon ""V"".........._ 0O4MVI1W15r0Mn6MOM10000 IaPWMW 5rllmk1Mxr01 1.11I1110oW 1441•I0104C01140N,1mI HIGH Seismicity 11.3.401 to. 001401110 TYRA W1 nx 0111110110 Ou..UN.1a 01 TWA Ch. - 00.0 M..ranl. Cun0 01.0 2 V0.r0011 Poo.m.;Y1 11,300 rn o.4 11n1110 RI id Il$III0011 R.010V0wISae.Mlq O30010300 11.131.210... Ia Pa1MIN SIN Mc I Wr01 1.0AVI.w.Iw1001 Mt r4MA.I010M040NNm eon rr.NIAIro HIGH Seismicity Amnn O.W0 340110.m0r W. 1uxwl. xy 00100 00r 0 OM. 0 ...WA 1010 kn.I:M1 00lWOO/ ax,0001Wrx1o) 0103,10. a00nwoMMnn Pu4lle Wu.x. Onqu..lu0 I -- •- itl 1 ~ 1 IN ° u6lfif� O.A. ton OCCUPANCY 001LT310, PAL WOI1na.A11U0 0.00. W. 010 ,rn 11n00 nvw 00 01 2; 2n AM ion �. ❑ ...eon. ❑ 0.00ny oumr SIC !CORE, MO LN IFlS. AND FINAL SCOWL OUIL01310 LYRE WI W! 01 02 xx Me 00 CI : Ce : C0 P01 WO 14x 10x 010a one An v. ^ 01ANiWa000x 00 00n1+M.0 �v2.0P.y .IN ° u MMm.wM.F �.o 01 •0x ma l..w". r. .. NA :00 or. 20 Se No ilnryee4-00 aA..37...poi__._.._.........._._........•ol .:oi 01.Tw.0 ae .OS Mo.ynr 00 ee •v •l.x t0 •u M.n a a. ro.e .0.. .A1 •n. 0.r tle FINAL 11CCWY..0 12 COMM.. nl.emlg 00 M.n MMMM., nnr001 0y 0w ON M Tukwila COMM ASCU NI. 01 No 1 Cln1M.1. O.MII.J Nv.tu.11cn n.0mnd VD N0 City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 Relative Rank Building Description Structural Scores, S 1 Tukwila Community Center 0.7 2 6300 Building 1.2 3 Fire Station 51 1.5 4 Minkler Shop Office and Repair Garage 1.5 5 Minkler Shop Work Room and Storage Bins 1.5 6 Minkler Shop Covered Parking 1.5 7 Fire Station 52 2.0 8 George Long Shop 2.1 9 Fire Station 54 2.2 10 Fire Station 53 2.9 11 Tukwila City Hall 3.6 3 PligUiPlo, .:,,• w miJ,11 II 11 , ipataill,,11,1: -1.4k.J(44ix,4° 11111,1, Eli fir manionsim mor,10:0141,V!wrt:IY,,,, '4148111" 1k -eiz4,41c, 441, '4Y rla, iLdtvimmil City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 11 2-Story, Wood Framed 27,000 SF, 1977 Construction Incomplete/ on -Orthogonal LIRS Vertical Disconti ity Overstressed ood Shear alls ",. ood all Hold -Downs Discontinuous Load Path in Diaphragms Overstressed Concrete Shear ails : Foundations • Add Wood Shear Walls Add Hold -Downs at Existing Wood Shear alls Strengthen Posts and Columns Add ra Strut . d Collect Elements dd Diagonal Bracing dd/Improve C ncrete Shear Walls Improve Foundati ns Structural Recommendation - Retrofit Existing Structure City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 0.62,,rair City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 • 3-Story, Wood Framed, Concrete/Wood Shear Walls 33,600 SF, 1978 Construction Overstressed Upper Floor o d Shear .1Is Overstressed C ncrete Shear ails 'I, 1 • Overstressed Floor a d Roof Diaphragms eak Steel Mo ent Frame Joints City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 ® Add Steel Moment Frames Longitudinally Add Steel Braced Frames in Transverse ) i rectio ad S g rli a d Fu t n s dd Steel Col m s dd crag Struts ® Structural Recommendation - Retrofit Existing Structure City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 2-Story, Tilt -Up Concrete, ood Gravity Framing 17,7 0 SF, 1973 C• nstrction Overstressed • ncrete Shear ails Overstresse• o,• d Chi p ragms o it iaphragm C•Ilector Elements Overstressed GWB Walls Inadequate Floor/' oof to Wall Ties L.iquef.ction " tenti City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 O Add Wood Shear Walls e Add Concrete Moment Frames dd Steel oment Frames O Shotcrete Existing alls 8 o iaphra. m C Hector Elements O dd ra Strut Elements 11 e Improve all to "oof/Floor Ties ® Compaction Grouting to Mitigate Liquefaction Potential • Structural Recommendation - Replace Structure - lir 114 I ,1111 I, I jaVfor,lt 11'.4r,11','A".",2111`1110 City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 1-Story, Wood Framed 3,350 SF, 1971 Construction isc ntinuous L ad Path verstresse• od Shear afls Inasequate O verstressed Diaphrag s oof to Wall Ties City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 Add Wall to Roof Ties • Add Sheathing and Hold -Downs to Wood Walls odify Existing eam Connections to act as 'crag Struts • Structural Recommendation - Retrofit Existing Structure • 1-Story, Wood Framed, SMRF in Apparatus Bay 14,000 SF, 1995 Construction e er Co strction No Tier 2 Deficiencies City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program August 2008 City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 1-Story, Wood Framed, Wood & Masonry Walls 5,300 SF, 1961 Construction overstressed asonry Walls Overstressed °ooShear ails ® Ina •''equate Diaphr. gm Collector Elements Inadequate iaphragm Shear Capacity Add Masonry Walls Shotcrete Existing Masonry Walls Remove Hose Tower Expand Fou dations pgrade ood S ear Walls dd crag Struts Re -Sheath oof '!) iaphragm • Structural Recommendation - Retrofit Existing Structure City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2.008 Reid iddleton rikailitEnatINEPanatiEgiliEiZEIVA,61',2, City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 • 1-Story, Tilt -Up Concrete Framing, 3 uildings on Site 20,750 SF, 1972 Construction Overstresse. Concrete Shear ails Inadequate •rizontal iaphragm Capacity • Insufficient Out -of -Plane Wail Ties • Added Mezzanines Liquefaction Potential City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program August 2008 Improve Roof to Wall Ties ,dd Masonry Shear Walls Shotcrete Existing Concrete Walls dd Concrete ails ver-Sheath ®•^ Diaphragms Add Diaphragm Chord Elements Compaction Grouting to Mitigate Liquefaction Potential la Structural Recommendation - Retrofit Existing Structures !NO $1,1.r g',1„,414[P.WIll City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 1-Story, Masonry, Steel, ood : Light Gauge Metal Framed, 55, 00 SF, 1995 Construction Weak • nd Ins fficient ood Shear ails Insufficient d all old -Do ns Some Gym Masonry Walis Overstressed m Overstressed iaphragms Liquefaction Potential x �rIL9�lpVl�luU�jN Lii�i�ii '^ City of Tukwila Seismic; Improvements Program - August 2008 Add Sheathing and Nailing to ood Shear Walls Improve ood Wall Hold - owns dd Concrete "° ason r Y ails Strengthen 'oof Diaphragms Add Drag Struts to Roof Diaphragms Co paction Grouting to Mitigate Liquefaction Potential IN Structural Recommendation — Reduce Performance Objective, Limited Retrofit r.. • 2-Story, Pre -Manufactured Metal Framing, Steel 18,500 SF, 1965 Construction o Legitimte Lo gitudinal LF S eak Mome t Frames Inadequate iap ragm Capacity Discontinuous Load Path ® Liquefaction Potential City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 Reid iddleton City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program August 2008 Add Steel Moment Frames Longitudinally Strengthen Existing Steel Columns add asonry Shear ails Improve Existin Column t•; Found•ti• n Connections Expand Existing Foundations Impr•ve Roof Diaphragm connections fi Compaction Grouting to Mitigate Liquefaction Potential Structural Recommendation - Replace Structure Facility Year Built Seismic Evaluation') Consultant Seismic Fix Recommendation°) Seismic Fix Cost Cost of Needed Facility Improvements(3) Backup Generator Costs Total Facility Costs Staff Recommended Action City Hall 1977 Failed Retrofit $3,652,000 $4,690,000 $380,000 $8,722,000 Upgrade Facility 6300 Bldg 1978 Failed Retrofit $5,069,000 $3,225,000 $280,000 See Replacement Sheet Replace Facility(4) Fire Sta 51 1973 Failed Replace N/A $1,446,000 $180,000 See Replacement Sheet Replace Facility(5) Fire Sta 52 1971 Failed Retrofit $77,000 $198,000 $128,000 $403,000 Upgrade/Replace Facilityf) Fire Sta 53 1995 Passed N/A N/A $50,000 $141,000 $191,000 Upgrade Facility Fire Sta 54 Minkler Shops 1961 Failed Retrofit $380,000 $387,000 $141,000 $908,000 Upgrade/Replace Facility(') 1972 Failed Retrofit $1,684,000 $1,308,000 $255,000 George Long Shop See Replacement Sheet Replace Facility(6) 1965 Failed Replace N/A $2,178,000 $150,000 Community Center See Replacement Sheet Replace Facility°) Totals 1995 Failed Retrofit $4,363,000 $15,225,000 $501,000 $13,983,000 $370,000 $5,234,000 $2,025,000 The seismic evaluation looked at the buildings' expected structural performance for the Immediate Occupancy performance objective. Each building is considered to be critical to the City's ability to provide post -earthquake services. Recommendation is made by the Seismic Evaluation Consultant — Reid Middleton Needed facility improvements include HVAC upgrades, new windows, ADA compliance, lighting upgrades, plumbing upgrades, electrical upgrades, etc. 6300 Building is recommended for replacement rather than upgrading because of the extensive amount of improvements needed; the facility's age; ctc. The cost -benefit ratio is extremely poor if the facility is just upgraded. Final action depends upon result of a space needs, location, response time study. Minkler Shops is severely under -sized, there is no Vactor Waste handling capability (NPDES requirement); insufficient lay down area for materials. No room to expand the facility. George Long Shop is severely undersized; inadequate capability to properly maintain the City's equipment; improper site drainage; out of compliance for handling oily waste; no space for Police to store impounded vehicles (evidence). No room to expand the facility. Recommendation is for the facility to be evaluated against the Life -Safety criteria rather than Immediate Occupancy. The Immediate Occupancy was chosen because the Community Center may be used as a shelter and mass -care site. If the Life -Safety Criteria were used, the retrofit costs would be lower. City of Tukwila Seismic Improvements Program - August 2008 Upgrade Facility(8) 11; 11 ii ��" DE M„ ;37,1' " °iT 1:r^x^i"9PInrriM7;^''i,''M,' MITA exiTW);MII^lM bird," T"S fg ^+4��7ggiAW: If "w:ClZgrig Ss"'D't01, 9 11G1 G CWf,YIti '1'WgeU6lf *it,1 'rwrr4lidui August 2008 not Ai;q^'11 � "'vat 1�' , 0� a�v ni�tlC ti� � ' I a r(1!%'rl"tV Reid iddleton Attachment D COUNCIL AGLNDA SYNOPSIS Al eel,' lag Dale 05/2 7 I Prepared ly BG ayor's repien, ITEM INFORMATION nwie,v ITEM No, 4.D. STAFF SPONSOR: BOB GIBERSON ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 0 2 17 AGNI\ 1, Pub ic Safety Plan Facilities Final Siting Criteria. VIVA.; iJ ) /sat fsiall I [t Date 05/22/17 A/lotion . Date Refokilion A ifs Date rdlnaMe Dale A tg Oak rd Public Hearin, g ate Other AN Date SvoNs()R ]Coiimi Apyor • Fire 3- Paiee 1)117 ',ONSOR'S SUNIMARY The Council is being asked to provide consensus on the final siting criteria. Li C .0 .W.Mtg Trans &Infrastructure DATE: 5/15/17 CDN Comm Arts Comm. Finance Corr al. Public Safety. Comm, 0 Parks Comm. 0 Planning Comm. MMITTEE CRAM: MCL.E0D RECOMMENDATIONS: SPoNsoR/ADNIIN Public Works (:"M MITI NI": Unanimous approval; Forward to Commi COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE ee a the Whole for consensus EX PI .N R ill I O AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION RE ji ED. Fund Source: CO Ill Meats: MTG. DATE 05/22/17 RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION TG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 05/22/17 nformational Mernorandum dated 2 7, amended after PS meeting inal Siting Criteria ended after PS meeting inutes from the Public Safe Committee meeting of 5 17 104 City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Public Safety Committee FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: May 12, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Safety Plan Facilities Final Siting Criteria F iist i at lVi � f.._1 17 {-741(c c ; .`,rot tt ISSUE Staff is seeking consensus from the Committee and Council on the final s associated with the Public Safety Plan buildings program. n criteria matrix BACKGROUND The draft siting criteria was presented to the Committee an February 21, 2017 and at the Open House on March 18, 2017. In addition, Heartland LLC, the selected real estate brokerage consultant„ has reviewed and concurred with this final siting criteria matrix. RECOMMENDATION Staff is asking for the Committee's consensus on the final siting criteria matrix and forward this to the May 22, 2017 Committee of the Whole meeting for consensus. ATTACHMENTS Final Siting Criteria Matrix_ci;pf, e:a1� 105 Site Selection Criteria, v.6 Public Safety Plan Facilities Justice Center Criteria 15-May-17 Red Indicates Essential Component vN 'a Q EVALUATION CRITERIA -JUSTICE CENTER ,,. , ; ; ": C$! A. v±kS. #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 T Y o m Q Q E w O .°i O 1. City Operational Requirements - Must Have Illustration ,a. Pt ke.R:equirernents -.. ,,. Only i. Parcel accommodates building footprint, space requirements, environmental conditions ii. Secure parking for 80 PD vehicles iii. Secure parking for PD equipment iv. Secure parking for evidence vehicles (optional) v. Outdoor training area vi. EOC Requirement: microwave communications equip vs E 1C Re<J lirement: seismic flood plain yid. EOC Reg: fuel skorage for emergency generator ix. Multiple access points, min 2 streets x. Proximity of high frequency transit b. Go6rt.Requirements i. Parcel accommodates building footprint €r requirements H. Public parking needs: 150 spaces iii. Secure parking for staffJjudge: 15 spaces ss iv. Community/meeting room for 50, flex configuration v. High Frequency Transit -scored above above above above above above above above above above Subtotal out of possible 28: 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2, City Policy Requirements/Guidance a. Benefit to Public Safety b. Commitment to Customer Service c. Ensuring the Efficient Delivery of Customer Service d. Containing Development Costs - Ensure ability to deliver all promised facilities e. Mindfulness of Ongoing Operations Expenses f. Importance of Location g. Significance of Flexibility h. Opportunity to catalyze private developments i. Opportunities for future expansion j. Location of utilities and infrastructure k. Ongoing operating expenses I. Opportunities for innovation Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Public Desires i. Expandability to accommodate future needs ii. Security for the public and the staff iii. Nearby transit access iv. Opportunity to enhance a neighborhood v. Cost of the overall facility vi. Sustainability/environmental concerns vti. Conference rooms available to the public viii. Close to roadways, city buildings, businesses ix. Far from residential areas Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Score' 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4, Site Details a. Existing Building? YES b. Parcel Size 120,000 c. Building size 45,000 d. Parking capacity - public 175 e. Parking capacity - secure 20 f. Walking distance to transit (feet) 675 g. Transit frequency (every xx minutes) 15 5. Costs a. Purchase Option - applied to purch price, not in total b. Purchase Price $5,699,000 c. Due Diligence d. Site Modifications e. Building Modifications f. New Construction Total Costs $5,699,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Legend: Requirements NO Acceptable Optimal Policy/Public Unfavorable 4-6 Neutral ';""7-9 " Favorable 106 Site Selection Criteria, v.6 Public Safety Plan Facilities Fire Station Criteria 15-May-17 ilinignaiiblii611141011VOMNS02630233iiiiiMitiffigiglifi Station 52 1 Station 54 Red indicates Essential Component Eu.. -c3 Tt EVALUATION CRITERIA - FIRE STATIONS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 ''.. ?L'' c .4zz a i.A -2 f, 8 8 ... m m 1. City Operational Requirements - Must Have Illustration a. Location within Response Time Polygon Only b. Parcel Size, Environmental Conditions c. Parking Needs d. Multiple Entry Points e. Site meets same standards required for an EOC .44,\N f. Neighborhood Considerations IIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIIIiiiiii,,,„„I.,IIIIII, g. Location of utilities and infrastructure .... .... ............ „.. h. Ongoing operating expenses Ii:I„..,,,,,IiiII:IIIINE:IIIIIIIIIIIIII.....“ Subtotal out of possible 16: 45 0 0 0 0 0 2. City Policy Requirements/Guidance a. Benefit to Public Safety b. Commitment to Customer Service c. Ensuring the Efficient Delivery of Customer Service d. Containing Development Costs - Ensure ability to deliver all promised facilities e. Mindfulness of Ongoing Operations Expenses f. Importance of Location g. Significance of Flexibility h. Opportunities for innovation Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Public Desires a, include meeting rooms available to community b. Make fire stations easier to find Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 TotalScorel 45 0 0 I 0 0 0 4. Site Details a. Parcel Size 43,560 b. Building size 12,500 c. Parking capacity - public 15 d. Parking capacity - equipment 4 5, Costs a. Purchase Option - applied to purch price, not in total b. Purchase Price $1,500,000 c. Due Diligence d. Site Modifications e. Building Modifications f. New Construction Total Costs $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Legend: Requirements NO Acceptable Optimal Policy/Public Unfavorable 4-6 Neutral 7-9 Favorable 1 07 Site Selection Criteria, v.6 Public Safety Plan Facilities Public Works Facility Criteria 15-May-17 Red indicates Essential Component -0 :FC EVALUATION CRITERIA - PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY Itillina,041,9001:" ,E : IOW -1001:10,181316, -1 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 -'' iii; ..L 1 r 0 “. 1. City Operational Requirements - Must Have Illustration a. Parcel accommodates building footprint, space requirements, environmental conditions Only b. Location c. Reserve power, fuel storage d. Expansion capability e. Location of utilities and infrastructure f. Ongoing operating expenses g. Site meets same standards required for an EOC h. Adequate Parking Subtotal out of possible 14: 39 0 0 0 0 0 2. City Policy Requirements/Guidance a. Benefit to Public Safety b. Commitment to Customer Service c. Ensuring the Efficient Delivery of Customer Service d. Containing Development Costs - Ensure ability to deliver all promised facilities e. Mindfulness of Ongoing Operations Expenses f. Importance of Location g. Significance of Flexibility h. Opportunities for innovation Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Public Desires i. Expandability to accommodate future needs ii. Sustainability/environmental concerns iii. Opportunity to enhance a neighborhood iv. Central location v. Access to new public spaces vi. Facilities sharing a site Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 TotalScorel 39 0 0 0 0 0 4, Site Details a. Parcel Size 225,000 b. Building size c/a c. Parking capacity - public 27 d. Parking capacity - equipment 13 S. Costs a. Purchase Option - applied to purch price, not in total b. Purchase Price $2,600,000 c. Due Diligence d. Site Modifications e. Building Modifications f. New Construction Total Costs $2,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Legend: Requirements NO Acceptable Optimal Policy/Public Unfavorable 4-6 Neutral 7-9 Favorable 108 ity if Tu 11 • City Council Public Safety Committee PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes May 15, 2017 - 5:30 p.m. - Hazelnut Conference Room, City Hall Councilmembers: Thomas McLeod, Chair; Joe Duffie, De'Sean Quinn Staff: David Cline, Chris Flores, Rachel Bianchi, Bo erson, Mike Villa, Laurel Humphrey Guests: Justine Kim and D.J. Baxter, Shiels Obley , nson; Anderson and Matt Hoffman, Heartland; Emma Nowinski, A+U CALL TO ORDER: Committee Chair McLeod called th* ng to order at 5:30 p.m. I. ANNOUNCEMENT II. BUSINESS AGENDA A. Public Safet Plan Facilities Sitin Staff is seeking Council a Plan buildings progra/ version incorpora over the additior. next steps after'' contractor for brok Cri . oval of a finl:•\,ting ..• i;„‘ m i tt e e t'' t, iz' -f, \ce the Com , -tee last r criteria \ ,,, roved, a throu ptial c be surqt accoruiito the • cided to renpw ac „.0 4,\ Center becaus t wo vnflict with the "high frequency transit" need which they dee \pore importare k ey alsOIfequested that "proximity to schools" be removed from the Public facility crit .k as that is not realistic. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AS AMENDED. FORWARbjyIAY22, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. B. Public Safety Play ring and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Pilot Policy Proposal As follow up to clisci.)' sions held in March at the Public Safety and Community Development and Neighborhoods Committees, staff proposed two pilot policies regarding local and disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) hiring for the Public Safety Plan construction projects. Councilmembers have expressed strong support for encouraging local hiring/apprenticeships and DBE participation on these large projects. Staff believes that formal labor agreements such as those in place at Sound Transit and City of Seattle would require dedicated City staff to oversee, monitor and audit. Those large agencies have that capacity, while the City of Tukwila does not have funding for such a position. With these proposed policies, the burden of tracking •III1 x fUt9e used for the Public Safety prov 1)put into draft criteria, and this '4" JII5 bu lic Open House in March. Mr. Baxter went ',wed the criteria. Chair McLeod inquired about representatives from Heartland, the City's hey would start with parcel data and run nts of the siting criteria. From there, individual properties would r components. Committee members asked clarifying questions ility to Tukwila Community Center" from criteria for the 109 Site Selection Criteria, v.3 Public Safety Plan Facilities Justice Center Criteria Attachment E v -o -o v EVALUATION CRITERIA - JUSTICE CENTER SiteAlterriatiaes,-Justic Censer .., #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 For Illustration Only Example Site 3900 S Example Street 1. City Operational Requirements - Must Have Scores for a.Police:Reguiretnents Illustration i. Parcel accommodates building footprint & requiremen Only ii. Secure parking for 80 PD vehicles iii. Secure parking for PD equipment iv. Secure parking for evidence vehicles (optional) v. Outdoor training area $ vi. EOC Requirement: microwave communications equip vii. EOC Requirement: seismic, flood plain viii. EOC Req: fuel storage for emergency generator ix. Multiple access points, min 2 streets x. Proximity of high frequency transit b, GourtRequirements i. Parcel accommodates building footprint & requirements ii. Public parking needs: 150 spaces iii. Secure parking for staff/judge: 10 spaces iv. Community/meeting room for 50, flex configuration v. High Frequency Transit -scored above above above above above above above above above above Subtotal out of possible 140: 43 0 0 0 0 0 2. City Policy Requirements/Guidance a. Benefit to Public Safety b. Commitment to Customer Service c. Ensuring the Efficient Delivery of Customer Service d. Containing Development Costs - Ensure ability to deliver all promised facilities e. Mindfulness of Ongoing Operations Expenses f. Importance of Location g. Significance of Flexibility h. Opportunity to catalyze private developments i. Opportunities for future expansion j. Location of utilities and infrastructure k. Ongoing operating expenses I. Opportunities for innovation Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Public Desires i. Expandability to accommodate future needs ii. Security for the public and the staff iii. Nearby transit access iv. Opportunity to enhance a neighborhood v. Cost of the overall facility vi. Sustainability/environmental concerns Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Score 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4. Site Details a. Existing Building? YES b. Parcel Size 120,000 c. Building size 45,000 d. Parking capacity - public 175 e. Parking capacity - secure 20 f. Walking distance to transit (feet) 675 g. Transit frequency (every xx minutes) 15 .. , S. Costs. a. Purchase Option - applied to purch price, not in total b. Purchase Price $5,699,000 c. Due Diligence d. Site Modifications e. Building Modifications f. New Construction Total Costs $5,699,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Legend: IUnfavorable 4-6 Neutral Favorable Ideal 110 Site Selection Criteria, v.3 Public Safety Plan Facilities Fire Station Criteria v `a .4 Q v EVALUATION CRITERIA - FIRE STATIONS . ter i— ,:'PireL iops� Station 52 Station 54 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 For Illustration Only Example Site 3900 S Example Street 1. City operational Requirements - Must Have a. Location within Response Time Polygon"` b. Parcel Size c. Parking Needs d. Multiple Entry Points ®\� e. EOC Standards L.N f. Neighborhood Considerations g. Location of utilities and infrastructure h. Ongoing operating expenses Subtotal out of possible 60: 40 0 0 0 0 0 2, City Policy Requirements/Guidance a. Benefit to Public Safety b. Commitment to Customer Service c. Ensuring the Efficient Delivery of Customer Service d. Containing Development Costs - Ensure ability to deliver all promised facilities e. Mindfulness of Ongoing Operations Expenses f. Importance of Location g. Significance of Flexibility h. Opportunities for innovation Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Public Desires Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Score 40 0 0 1 0 0 0 4. Site Details a. Parcel Size 43,560 b. Building size 12,500 c. Parking capacity - public 15 d. Parking capacity - equipment 4 5. Costs a. Purchase Option - applied to purch price, not in total b. Purchase Price $1,500,000 c. Due Diligence d. Site Modifications e. Building Modifications f. New Construction Total Costs $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Legend: Unfavorable 4-6 Neutral 7-9 Favorable Ideal 111 Site Selection Criteria, v.3 Public Safety Plan Facilities Public Works Facility Criteria v a a Q 5, EVALUATION CRITERIA - PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY SCtt M(t ttitatii 5'k'Public°. OAtrirks �aeility .., .::... . #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 For Illustration Only Example Site 3900 S Example Street 1. City Operational Requirements - Must Have a. Building footprint and requirements b. Location c. Reserve power, fuel storage d. Expansion capability e. Location of utilities and infrastructure. f. Ongoing operating expenses Subtotal out of possible 60: 40 0 0 0 0 0 2. City Policy Requirements/Guidance a. Benefit to Public Safety b. Commitment to Customer Service c. Ensuring the Efficient Delivery of Customer Service d. Containing Development Costs - Ensure ability to deliver all promised facilities e. Mindfulness of Ongoing Operations Expenses f. Importance of Location g. Significance of Flexibility h. Opportunities for innovation Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Public Desires i. Expandability to accommodate future needs ii. Sustainability/environmental concerns iii. Opportunity to enhance a neighborhood iv. Central location v. Access to new public spaces vi. Facilities sharing a site Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Score! 40 0 0 0 0 0 4. Site Details a. Parcel Size 225,000 b. Building size n/a c. Parking capacity - public 27 d. Parking capacity - equipment 13 S. Costs a. Purchase Option - applied to purch price, not in total b. Purchase Price $2,600,000 c. Due Diligence d. Site Modifications e. Building Modifications f. New Construction Total Costs $2,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Legend: Unfavorable 4-6 Neutral 7-9 Favorable Ideal 112 Siting Process and Recommendations Provide advice and recommendations on siting process and sites Provide input and direction to ensure robust community engagement throughout the siting process ODennis Roberston ,Thomas McLeod OJoe Duffle (alternate) OBob Giberson Tod Bookless, Chair Kathleen Wilson, Vice Chair Will Gillespie Jerry Thornton Reviewed information on each facility Reviewed and provided advice on council -approved Siting Criteria for each site Fire Station Location study Participated in the planning and implementation of Open Houses (2) s EYALESETTE E [RElERIA. JUSTICE MES£fi .Sf` .. _` ------- ----- MIEMEIZEMEMENEEZEIMEZEIEN --- IMMEIMMEMM ------- ----- .11.1111111111.1 ®®®®®®® Reviewed site -specific locations for each facility Fire Station 52 CO Reviewed site -specific locations for each facility 5 146th- _'i717 Conglc, .c- Reviewed site -specific locations for each facility Justice Center N O Reviewed site -specific locations for each facility Reviewed site -specific locations for each facility Reviewed site -specific locations for each facility 5-124tt City of Tukwila - Public Facilities Site Selection - Report to Siting Advisory Committee 3/3O/11 red font 1 No Further Conttdaabnn Site Selection Criteria, v.6 Public Safety fan Facilities Fire Station Criteria MIMECIMEMBEMBEEMMIESIMMEMEMEMIXEMEMEMEMCEMMEEM EVALUATION £arrenw.. - FIRE STATIONS S.enefit to Public Safety d. Containing Devetopt,enf Costs 0®®®©®®0 MIM aaaaaoaaa Two in -person open houses Two online open houses Mailings with information Comprehensive website Engagement with community organizations Public meetings; regular Council updates Ability of projects to transform a neighborhood Facility needs to fit within a neighborhood Fire stations should be sited equitably throughout the City Keep Public Works out of residential areas What we heard Location, access and operability key Emergency response times, particularly for Fire Stations Keeping our commitments - safe locations away from flood plain, liquefaction areas, etc. Site selection criteria Community input N 03 Fire Station 52 City Hall Campus North parking lot Fire Station 54 42nd Ave. S. & S. 140th St. Public Works Between TIB, S. 1 l2th St. and E. Marginal Way Robust process; highest ranked sites met the criteria Work with the businesses displaced Understand and support eminent domain; hope for negotiated agreement Continued advice on community engagement - critical as the projects move forward Excited about the opportunity to improve our community Meeting Date Prepared by aiior's review Council l review 07/10/17 RB C DIAZ\ ITE NFOR ATION STAFF SPONSOR: RACHEL BIANCHI ORIGINAL AGENDA DATE: 07/10/17 AGENDA ITEM TITLE Public Safety Plan Siting Update 07/10/17 Ell Motion Mfg Date 0 Resolution Mtg Date El Bid Award Mtg Date El Other Mtg Date CATEGORY Discussion Ordinance • Public Hearing Mtg Date Mtg Date Mtg Date SPONSOR -ouncil IIMayor E HR $DCD IFinance IjFire [ITS P&R •Police DPW EJCourt SPONSORS Staff and our program management team wish to provide the Council with an update on SUMMARY the siting process for the Public Safety Plan, as well as key target dates and outcomes. REVIEWED BY E C.O.W. Mtg. fj CDN Comm 0 Finance Comm. 0 Trans &Infrastructure Arts Comm. 0 Parks Comm. DATE: N/A COMMITTEE CHAIR: 11 Public Safety Comm. 0 Planning Comm. RECOMMENDATIONS: SPoNsoR/ADmIN. COMMITTEE Mayor's Office COST IMPACT / FUND SOURCE EXPENDITURE REQUIRED AMOUNT BUDGETED APPROPRIATION REQUIRED $ $ $ Fund Source: Comments: MTG. DATE RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION 07/10/17 MTG. DATE ATTACHMENTS 07/10/17 Informational Memorandum dated 06/29/17 Draft Site Selection process Site selection criteria matrix (3) approved thru consensus at 5/22 C.O.W. 134 TO:: City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM City Council — Committee of the Whole FROM: Rachel Bianchi, Communications and Government Relations Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: June 29, 2017 SUBJECT: Public Safety Plan Site Acquisition Process Update ISSUE To secure sites for the new facilities proposed by the Public Safety Plan, the City has engaged Shiels Obletz Johnsen (SOJ) and Heartland, LLC, to lead the City's land search and acquisition process. The Administration proposed to provide an update to the Council on the progress made thus far, and the schedule for future activities. BACKGROUND Pursuant to Site Selection Criteria approved by the Council, and with the guidance of the FACETS report, SOJ and Heartland have begun the process to identify possible sites for the City's new public facilities, including the Justice Center, Fire Stations 52 and 54, and the Public Works Shop. The Siting Advisory Committee (SAC) will monitor and guide the process. SOJ and Heartland will attend the SAC's meetings each month to provide updates and incorporate the Committee's input. Based on early consultation with City staff and the operational needs of these facilities, Heartland has developed a map showing the general search areas for each facility. SOJ will share the proposed sequence of activities related to land acquisition. This includes a recommendation for the following Council review dates: July 10: August 7: August 10: September 5: September 5: September — November: Overview presentation on Site Selection Process and Search Area Map. Potential executive session meeting for review and input on Medium List of properties. Open House #2 at Fire Station 54 Potential executive session to review and approve Short List of properties. Potential open session to consider Eminent Domain resolution for Short List properties. Authorize broker to begin negotiations. Potential regular executive session meetings to discuss deal terms on particular properties. RECOMMENDATION The Council is asked to provide any feedback on the search areas and activity schedule. ATTACHMENTS Map of search areas Site Selection Process 135 Justice Center Area PLANNED FIRE STATION #51 ARE STATION #53 City of Tukwila SEARCH AREA Justice Center Fire Station Public Works Fire Station Area 136 Tukwila Public Safety Plan. Draft Site Selection Process, v. 6 (rev. 6/28 May 2017: 1. Broker selection, NTP. 7 June 2017: 2. Collect and analyze parcel, environmental, listing and other data in a GIS platform 3. Import FACETS data July 2017: 4. SOJ & Heartland work with City staff to generate "Long List" of site options. Initial screening against Operational Requirements to create "Medium. List." 5. July 10, 7 pm: SOJ and Heartland provide overview presentation on site selection process/progress to Council. 6. July 10 — August 7: Additional analysis and data collection on Medium. List. Measure against Council -approved screening criteria. 7. July 26, 6:00 pm: SOJ and Heartland present site selection criteria and process to Siting Advisory Committee. August 2017: 8. August 7, 7 pm: Potential City Council. Executive Session to present Medium List for review and input. 9. August 8 — September 5: Heartland develop rough cost estimates for top -ranked properties. 10. August 10, 5:30-7:30 pm: Open House #2 at Fire Station 54 11. August 23, 6:00 pm: Update and consultation with Siting Advisory Committee. September 2017: 12. September 5: 7:00 pm: Potential City Council Executive Session to review Short List 13. September 5: City Council may consider, in open session, and adopt. Eminent Domain resolutions for all. Short List Properties. Authorize Heartland to begin negotiations with property owners. 14. September 27, 6:00 pm: Update and consultation with. Siting Advisory Cotntnittee. September — November: 1.5. Heartland to initiate negotiations with selected property owners. a. Potential regular discussions with City Council in Executive Session. 16. Heartland work with. City's legal counsel to draft negotiated purchase and sale agreements 137 15-May-17 Site Selection Criteria, v.6 Public Safety Plan Facilities Fire Station Criteria ;Site AI Station 52 Station 54 Red Indicates Essential Component ¢ EVALUATION CRITERIA - FIRE STATIONS #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 a m E i X S W _ w a u- 0 1. City OperationaI .Requirements - Must Have Illustration a. Location within Response Time Polygon Only b, Parcel Size, Environmental Conditions����{ c. Parking Needs _ ---, d. Multiple Entry Points e. Site meets same standards required for an EOC ME9 Subtotal out of possible 16: 45 0 0 0 0 0 2 City Policy Requirements/Guidance a. Benefitto Public Safety b. Commitment to Customer Service c. Ensuring the Efficient Delivery of Customer entice d. Containing Development Costs Ensure'ability to deliver all prornised facilities e. Mindfulness of Ongoing Operations Expenses f. Importance of Location I g. Significance of F9exibility h. Opportunities for innovation Subtotalal 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Pubi'sc Desires a. Irncludeaneedtg roc to vailabie to ctamartsin ky- b, Make to t or s eeserto i➢n Subtotal: Total Score 45 1 0 0 0 0 0 4. Site Details a. Parcel Size 43,560 b. Building size 12500 c. Parking capacity - public g5 d. Parking capacity - equipment 4 5. Costs a. Purchase Option- applied to purch price, not in total b.Purchase Price $1,500000 c. Due Diligence d. Site Modifications e. Building Modifications f. New Construction Total Costs $1500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Legend; Requirements N Acceptable Optimal Policy/Public 123 Unfavorable 4-6 Neutral 7-9 Favorable 138 113 Site Selection Criteria, v.6 Public Safety Plan Facilities Justice Center Criteria 15-May-17 Red Indicates Essential Component vi mr EVALUATION CRITERIA - JUSTICE CENTER #1 02 43 04 #5 86 67 3fg p9 For Illustration Only. Example Site 3900 S Example Street 1, City Operational Requirements - Must Have Illustration "' PDifteRequirerrta Ffis Only i. Parcel accommodates building footprint, space requirements, environmental conditions ii. Secure parking for 80 PD vehicles iil. Secure parking for PD egcup merrtiv. Secure parking for evfden'Ce vehicles (optional) v. Outdoor training area vi. EOC Requirement; ml'croarave contrnunicati ons equip vii. IOC Requirement(, seismic, flood plain vie FOC Reg: fuel storage for emergency generator ix, MulIip le access points, min 2 streets x, Proximity of high frequency transit 'b"„ Court Requirements, i Parcel accommodates building footprint&requirements ". �.. ii. Public parking needs. 150 spaces _ iil. Secure parking For staff/judge: 15 spaces iv. Community/meeting room for 50, flex configuration v,HighFrequencyTransit-scored above above above above above above above above above above Subtotal out of possible 28: 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. ..... .. ,. - .... 2. City Policy RequirementeJ'C,ufdance .... .. a. BeneFitto Public Safety b. Commitment to Customer Service c. Ensuring the Efficient Delivery of Customer Service d. Containing Development Costs - Ensure ability to deliver all promised facilities e. Mindfulness of Ongoing Operations Expenses f. Importance of Location g. Significance of Flexibility h.. Opportunity to catalyze private developments i. opportunities for Future expansion j. Location of utilities and infrastructure k. Ongoing operating expenses I. Opportunities for dnnoeatfon Subtotal; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Public Desires i. Expandability to accommodate future needs ii. Security for the public and the staff Hi. Nearby transit access iv. opportunity to enhance a neighborhood v, Cost of the overall facility vi. Sustalnabflity/environmental concerns vl0 Conference rooms aval lable to tbe,pubfic vlli. Clow to roadways, d~rty tuildingx, busirieuses _-- 19,P rftornresidential.areas Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Score 65 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 . .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. 4. Site. Details. _ .. . ... ... ... . a. Existing Building? YES - b. Parcel Size 120,000 c. Buildingsize 45,000 d. Parking capacity -public 175 e. Parking capacity -secure 20 - - f. Walking distance to transit {feet) 675 g. Transit frequency (every xx minutes) 1g .. .. .. ... ..., .. ... ... ..: 5, Costs ,. .. ... .. .. a. Purchase Option - applied to purch price, not in total b. Purchase Price $5,699,000. c.. Due Diligence d. Site Modifications e. Building Modifications E New Construction Total Costs $5,699,000 $0., $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Legend; Policy/Pobllc :Unfavorable Neutral Favorable 115 139 Site Selection Criteria, v.6 Public Safety Plan Facilities Public Works Facility Criteria 15-May-17 Red indicates Essential Component 7e < EVALUATION CRITERIA - PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY rt*l l fYl tIv s Ubti :ho k 7Cf�itf #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 46 > w ro Q E _ w u. m 1, City Operational Requirements - Must Have Illustration a. Parcel accommodates building footprint, space Only requirements, environmental conditions b.ri x ; A:. Location �� � .-. d Expansion capability 11111 w n w • r*•^ gym, i .w •p-„,N h. Adequate Parkirjg Subtotal out of possible 14: 39 0 0 0 0 0 2. City Policy Requirements/Guidance a. Benefit to Public Safety b. Commitment to Customer Service c. Ensuring the Efficient DeI very of Customer Service d. Containing Development Costs Ensure ability to deliver all promised facilities j e. Mindfulness of Ongoing Operations Expenses f. Importance of Location g. Significance of Flexibility h. Opportunities for innovation Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 3. Public Desires Expandability to accommodate future needs i.5ustainabihtyfenvironmental concerns i. Opp ortunityto enhance a neighborhood v. Central location v, Access to new public spaces vi. !Facilities sharing a site Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Score] 39 0 0 0 0 0 4. Site Details a. Parcel Sawn 225000 b. Bui9d'ang size nJa c. Perking capacity- public 27 d. Parking capacity - equipment 13 5. Costs a. Purchase Option - applied to purch price, not in tote! b. Purchase Price $$2,6o0 o0o c- Due Diligence d. Site Modifications e. Building Modifications f. Neuv Construction Total Costs $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Legend; N Acceptable ptimal Policy/Public 1: .: Unfavorable 4-6 Neutral 7-9 Favorable 140 117 PROPERTY ARKETABILITY OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS The operating costs of a building are significantly affected by the energy expenses incurred to heat, cool and illuminate the building. These expenses typically correlate to the thermal efficiency of the building envelope and efficiency of its lighting and HVAC systems. The costs to maintain a building includes preventive and routine maintenance, corrective repairs, deferred maintenance, trouble calls, and replacement of equipment, fixtures, and furnishings as they wear out or become obsolete. Facilities that cost more to operate and maintain are less valuable than those that are more efficient. In general, operating and maintenance costs rise with the age of the building. This necessitates reinvestment in the structure until those reinvestments are no longer cost effective. PROPERTY VALUE Property value is the sum of both the structure (building) and the property value. Value of the structure is affected by the original quality of construction, level of on -going maintenance, and its current condition. Value of the property is also affected by its size, shape, location, visibility, and road access, as well as the utilities and any infrastructure that serves it. Consideration of property value becomes relevant if and when consideration arises to surplus a given property. If the resale value of a property is high, the decision to replace instead of remodel is often the more cost-effective approach. PROPERTY ATTRIBUTES WORK PROCESS EFFICIENCY Consideration is given to the physical design and layout of the building floor plan and how the site is configured. How accommodating the property is in facilitating the nature of the work performed has been evaluated, as well the magnitude of improvements required to improve the DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 1 141 overall efficiency. Consideration is given to work process efficiency since efficient delivery of service equates to lower costs in providing it. FACILITY QUALITY Consideration is given to the level of construction quality utilized when the facility was initially built. Higher quality materials almost always have higher durability and last longer, which means routine maintenance costs are less and replacement of worn out materials are less frequent. LOCATION Each facility location has been judged on several levels: The efficiency of delivering services from this location for the city departments housed there, The convenience of the location to the public who interacts with the city departments housed there, The compatibility of the city departments located there with the neighboring occupancies that surround it, and The proximity to other city departments identified as valuable adjacencies. PUBLIC & STAFF EXPERIENCE PUBLIC IMAGE As a public facility, does the building convey a civic image commensurate with civic governance for the particular departments that are housed there? Does the building convey pride, purpose, and professionalism? Is the building consistent with the aspirational goals included in the City of Tukwila's community -led strategic plan? CUSTOMER SERVICE Does the facility encourage public engagement by virtue of its design? Is it convenient for citizens to find and to access their local government? Does the building give a feeling of safety, and does it reflect the values of the community it serves? QUALITY OF WORK LIFE Is the building and its work environment conducive to getting the work of government done? Does it give staff a feeling of safety, health, comfort, and well-being? Is it a pleasant place to conduct business for both the staff member and the public they interact with? FACILITY SPECIFICS SEISMIC DEFICIENCIES An extensive seismic analysis of all of the City's facilities was conducted by Reid Middleton in 2008. That report examined the ability of the City's assets to resist a major earthquake, the likely damage that could occur, and the potential effects on the City's ability to provide uninterrupted government services. Reid Middleton's report was used as the basis for this particular evaluation aspect. DRAFT I Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 2 142 OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY Does the building's structure and design lend itself to rearranging work groups and departments without extensive improvements or remodeling? EXPANSION POTENTIAL Does the building's design and site configuration lend itself to increasing the building size either upward or outward? Does the size and shape of the property, its topography, and access facilitate such an expansion? Are the building and land -use codes favorable for such an expansion and, if so, by how much? ADA DEFICIENCIES Is the building and site access compliant with current accessibility regulations? If not, to what extent and at what difficultly could they be improved upon? It is important to note is that full compliance with current building codes, including accessibility requirements for individuals with disabilities, can be expected when significant alterations, remodeling, structural repairs or additions are made to any existing building. ACOUSTICS The level of acoustic privacy required between individual staff members varies from department to department, and from individual functional spaces within each department. A lack of acoustic privacy can, in some instances, be distractive in getting work done. It can also compromise confidential information. This would be of significant concern regarding conversations of a legal, personnel, or medical (HIPPA) nature. This evaluation aspect considers the level of acoustic privacy that would be expected within a particular department as compared to the actual level of acoustic privacy that currently exists. DRAFT I Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 3 143 FACILITY A ENT CITY HALL 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington Year Built: 1 9977 Number of Stories: 2 Floor Area (upper): 1 3,825 sq. ft. Floor Area (lower): 11,250 sq. ft. Floor Area (Total): 25,075 sq. ft. The City Hall is a two-story, concrete- and wood -framed structure located in the central area of Tukwila. The building is approximately 195 feet by 128 feet in plan, 37 feet tall, and has an 'L' shaped footprint with a distinctive saw -tooth form on the southeastern elevation of the structure. The main roof is stepped in 24-foot-wide sections that align with the saw -tooth wall lines and slope monolithically from northwest to southeast. The upper story is wood -framed construction with structural -panel walls and long -span timber roof trusses. The lower story construction consists of concrete walls and columns, steel posts, and wood -framed walls supporting the floor above. The building is located on a site that slopes downhill from north to south. The first story is below grade on the north side and portions of the east and west sides. The first story includes a small wood -framed employee lounge area with an outdoor deck at the southeast corner of the building. A partial basement level is located below the first story in the southwest corner. The City Hall building currently accommodates the Municipal Court (which doubles as City Council Chambers), Mayor, Finance, City Clerk, City Council Administration, City Administrator (including Economic Development and Tourism & Marketing), City Council, and Police (booking, holding, interview, officer lockers and workstations, administration, training, evidence intake and storage). There have been no additions or major renovations of the building since its original construction. There have been various minor interior reconfigurations of interior partitions. Architecturally the plan for the building is developed at a 45 degree angle off orthogonal. While visually interesting, it inherently makes space planning for rooms and open office workstations difficult. Although building code analysis indicates the structure could be expanded, the architectural style and site constraints limit possibilities for any significant expansion. The proposed seismic upgrades include the enlargement and addition of columns at the lower level police department space, cramping an already overcrowded situation. Seismic upgrades on the upper level will reduce the amount of glazing, but overall are of modest impact architecturally. Perhaps the most significant impact to the staff and public will be the need to DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 4 144 vacate the building for 9 to 12 months during construction. This would require creation of temporary quarters at a location convenient to the public as well as office moves by staff both to and from the temporary city hall. Even if the seismic improvements are undertaken and the cost/inconvenience of temporary facilities is tolerated, the operational and functional issues identified will remain. The police will remain split between two locations with the resultant operational inefficiencies. Secure parking for officers, staff, and police vehicles will remain lacking. APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CRITERIA OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS:CORE: -2 Deficiencies include insufficient cooling in areas with clerestory windows. The wall/ceiling/glazing insulating values are all well below current energy code standards, which contributes to an HVAC system that is heavily taxed. In addition to the HVAC system being dated and undersized, the general facility lighting is energy inefficient. The building's infrastructure and general condition exhibit the wear and tear, and condition expected for a building that is 37 years old. No major renovation work has occurred over that time. Consequently, many of the systems and finishes are nearing the end of their useful life. In 2008 The City of Tukwila identified $ 4,125,000 worth of facility improvements needed for the City Hall building, not including seismic improvements. PROPERTY VALUE: S CO R The value of the City Hall property is high given its central location within the City, adjacency to the retail core, and the relative high quality of other buildings and properties surrounding it. It is zoned as Office use. WORK PROCESS EFFICIENCY: SCORE -1 Contributing to an inefficient workplace is the lack of privacy for confidential discussions, inadequate security measures at the open public counters, and inflexibility of rearranging staff and desks, which has been exacerbated by the increase in staff positions for the departments housed in City Hall. While sharing space amongst the Municipal Court and Council Chambers is efficient in space utilization, it carries drawbacks in functional efficiency given the differences in operational layout, furnishings, and security. Scheduling conflicts will undoubtedly become more common than today as Municipal Court demands increase and public use of the Council Chambers becomes more desired. General Issues including Mayor's Office, Finance, Clerk, and Administration: The building, with the exception of the courtroom/city council chambers, has received few improvements since it was opened over 30 years ago. Spaces have been sub -divided and partitions added which negatively impacts the function of the mechanical system and common spaces have been taken over to accommodate staff growth. The systems furniture is building original and is still in place with portions reconfigured to accommodate staff growth over the years. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 5 145 Deficiencies are insufficient cooling in areas with clerestory windows, lack of privacy for confidential discussions, original floor -mounted "tombstone" power receptacles limit flexibility, no security at the Clerk's area open public counters, no access to replace/upgrade mechanical equipment, and lack of space for any further growth in staff. Storage space for records and in the vault is inadequate. City Council and Municipal Court: The City Council shares council chambers with the Tukwila Municipal Court. A recent renovation of the shared space has improved functionality. A preferred arrangement is for each function to have separate space to fully address the disparate activities, i.e. court operations/security/public observation vs. city council public presentations/public participation. There is no dedicated space for members of City Council other than lockable cabinets within the courtroom. Police: Police staff count is beyond the capacity of the buildings' ability to provide support. Currently department staff is split between City Hall and the 6300 Building — not an optimal condition for efficient operation. As department needs grow this split will continue to be a detriment to operations. In addition, the plan forces the police operation into a linear double loaded corridor configuration which stretches staff travel to the maximum extent, compounding inefficiency even more. Another plan -derived shortcoming is in the process of evidence processing and storage. There is currently no ability to laboratory process evidence as it is dropped, logged in and prior to being placed in secure evidence storage. Current procedure calls for transporting the evidence off site for analysis then returning it to the facility for secure evidence storage. While the department is making do in this regard it creates difficulty in maintaining a chain of custody for evidence. This has the resultant effect of acquiring and maintaining accreditation difficult for the department. One deficiency that cannot be resolved due to site constraints is vehicle evidence analysis space and secured storage. Ideally vehicle breakdown space would be in a secure drive-in bay next to the evidence laboratory area. Once processed it would then be removed to a secure and monitored impound area immediately adjacent to the facility. The south elevation of the building is composed of large expanses of non -ballistic rated glass. This runs counter to appropriate security design for contemporary Police station design and it places the staff in a vulnerable position. The Police have made adjustments and compromises over time as they continue to populate the building, and as more space is consumed to seat staff, the support space required, i.e. training, restroom, and conferencing, becomes further over -taxed. There is no secure parking for police cruisers and officers, including a SWAT vehicle. ■ FACILITY QUALITY: SCO2E: In general, City Hall was built at a high level of quality in 1977. This is reflected in the cost of the building at that time, quality of the materials used, and the craftsmanship in the assembly. Given the relatively little remodeling and maintenance performed on the building to date, the building has held up well for the 37 years it has been in operation. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 6 146 • LOCATION: SCOF. The location has served the public well as Tukwila's seat of municipal government. It is convenient for community members to find and access, and there is an established familiarity with its current location. It blends in well with the surrounding uses. And, its close proximity to other city departments located in the 6300 Building brings convenience and efficiency in a consolidated campus -type setting. PUBLIC IMAGE & REPUTATION: SCORE 2 The building has a unique architectural character and form that makes it readily recognizable as a civic building in the community. It has a welcoming character. The large number of windows facing the parking lot and the open reception work counters promote an accessible and transparent government. CUSTOMER SERVICE: yCJO:, 1 There are a couple of indicators that the customer experience at City Hall could be better: the multitude of signage in the lobby directing where to go, and the uncertainty of which counter to approach once the customer weaves down the hallway past the Men's Restroom. QUALITY OF WORK LIFE: S$C t Over the course of the 37 years since City Hall was constructed, the delivery of government services for the City of Tukwila has grown and changed. The openness of the original plan, while appropriate in 1977, no longer provides the right balance of private verses public workspaces, and issues of acoustic privacy abound. SEISMIC DEFICIENCIES ::3::.ORE The 2008 Reid Middleton report identified multiple seismic deficiencies and noted the building as susceptible to unacceptable levels of damage and poor performance during a design -level earthquake. With that said, the structural condition of the building is generally satisfactory and reasonable measures to improve the building's seismic performance were proposed in their report. OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY,: SCORE -.1 The uniqueness of the floor plans do not provide large unencumbered spaces that facilitate reconfiguration of open office landscaping systems in response to changing staffing needs. • EXPANSION POTENTIAL: SCORE -. .. The site and current zoning allow for expansion both laterally and vertically. The nature of the plan and locations of recommended seismic upgrade elements make the addition of space onto the building challenging but workable, depending on the type of space and direction of expansion anticipated. ■ ADA DEFICIENCIES: SCORE -.. Past reports have defined a need to remodel bathrooms to current ADA standards to facilitate both public and staff needs. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 7 147 ■ ACOUSTICS: SCO RR The acoustical quality within the building is poor. There are a high percentage of "hard" surfaces, combined with an open plan (and acoustically inefficient open office landscaping) that yields a relatively "live", noisy environment. CODE SUS ARY/ EXPANSION OPPORTUNITY All references to the International Building Code (IBC), unless noted otherwise. A. Construction Type (Chapter 6, Table 601): V-A, Combustible, not rated. B. Fire Suppression: Fully sprinkled. C. Height — Actual (502.1): Two story plus mechanical mezzanine. Forty feet, conservative worst case. D. Area — Actual: Lower Level: 11,250 sq. ft. Upper Level 13,820 sq. ft. Total 25,075 sq. ft. E. Use Groups (Chapter 3) a. Assembly: A-3: Courtroom b. Business: B: Offices and Police Station. 1-3 does not apply as police has less than five holding rooms (308.4). c. Storage: S-1 Moderate Hazard Storage F. Mixed Use Group Strategy (508.3.2): Non -separated. Most stringent case, A-3, applied to entire structure. G. Height/Area Limitations (Table 503) a. A-3: One story, 40 feet height, 6,000 sq. ft b. B: Two story, 40 feet height, 9,000 sq. ft. c. S-1: One story, 40 feet height, 8,000 sq. ft. H. Sprinkler exception (504.2): One additional story, 60 feet height. I. Frontage Increase (506.2): 85% open — 25% required = 60% increase. J. Height/Area Increases (506) a. 100% base area + 200% sprinkled + 60% frontage = 360%. b. 6,000 sq. ft x 3.6 = 21,600 sq. ft. each floor if frontage ratio is maintained. c. 6,000 sq. ft. x 3.0 = 18,000 sq. ft. each floor with sprinkler increase only. K. Potential Expansion from Code Height/Area Limitations: L. Height: Expansion could house Business use on a third floor within 60 foot height limit, subject to zoning restrictions. No Assembly or S-1 use is permitted above the second floor. Taking the conservative approach of not including frontage increase, a two story building could be expanded to 36, 000 SF, an increase of 9,300 SF, a 35% increase. A three story expansion could be a total of 54,000 SF, an increase of 27,300 SF, a 102% increase. DRAFT I Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 8 148 6300 BUI mm ING 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington Year Built: Number of Stories: 3 Floor Area (1st Floor): Floor Area (2nd Floor): Total Office Area: ft. 16,150 sq. ft. 16,800 sq. ft. 32,950 sq. The 6300 building is a three-story concrete- and wood -framed structure located in the Central area of Tukwila, adjacent to City Hall. The rectangular building is 80 feet by 210 feet in plan and 43 feet tall. The first and second stories are primarily wood -framed construction with structural -panel walls and diaphragms. The building has a parking level below the first story. Construction of the parking level consists of concrete walls and columns supporting the levels above. The building is located on a site that slopes downhill from north to south. The north end of the parking level is below grade. Concrete walls in the northern half of the building also act as retaining walls. There have been no additions or major renovations of the building since its original construction. There have been various minor interior reconfigurations of interior partitions. The following city functions are housed at this facility: ■ Administrative Services including Personnel, Human Services, and Volunteer Program. ■ Public Works Department: Engineering and Project Management. ■ Community Development: Building, Planning, and Permit Center. ■ Emergency Management ■ Community Development: Planning and Building, plan review and permitting. ■ Police: Major crime unit, detectives, traffic, anti -crime, and administration. ■ Parking: Parking for police motorcycles, SWAT vehicle, and detective vehicles underneath building. ■ Information Technology (IT) Department: Project management, technical and administrative staff. Delivery, set up and testing of new PC's, File Servers, Primary and Back-up for City computer network. The building requires significant replacement of building systems in order to extend the building lifespan. Lifecycle costs should be prepared and compared with building replacement costs. Building code review indicates the structure could be expanded, however site limitations and the condition/quality of the existing building render expansion a poor choice, unless the rest of the building is renovated to have an equal lifespan as a new addition. DRAFT I Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 9 149 The building requires emergency power to keep key city functions such IT file servers, police, and engineering operational during a power outage event. City network file servers and back-up services may not be available following an emergency event. Proposed seismic upgrades will have minimal architectural impacts, but like the City Hall, the most significant impact to the staff and public will be the need to vacate the building for 9 to 12 months during construction. This requires both the acquisition and creation of temporary offices at a location convenient to the public as well as office moves by staff to and from the temporary facility. Similar to City Hall, even if the seismic improvements are undertaken and the cost/inconvenience of temporary facilities is tolerated, the operational and functional issues identified will remain. The police will remain split between two locations with the resultant operational inefficiencies. Secure parking for officers, staff, and police vehicles will remain lacking. APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CRITERIA OPERATING/MAINTENANCE COST SC The building envelope (walls, roof, and windows) are well below current energy code standards, as determined by empirical observation and general experience with structures from this era. It has been identified that HVAC systems are dated and undersized, and the general facility lighting is energy inefficient. The building and its systems exhibit the wear and condition expected in a building that is 36 years old and has not had major renovation work during that time. In 2008, the City of Tukwila identified $ 2,505,000 worth of facility improvements needed for the 6300 Building, not including seismic improvements. PROPERTY VALUE: SCORE The resale value of the property is marked as high, given the central location within the City, adjacency to the retail core, and the relative high quality of the surrounding buildings and grounds. Like the adjacent City Hall, this site is zoned as Office use. WORK PROCESS EFFICIENCY SCO=E -.. ;. Work process efficiency is low, given that city departments spread between both the City Hall and 6300 Buildings. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 10 150 FACILITY QUALITY: SC The building was built to a low level of quality, both in the expense and quality of the materials used and the craftsmanship in the assembly. The basic structure of the building has suffered over the course of 36 years in operation. Foundation drainage is poor and floor topping slabs are cracked and in need of repairs. HVAC delivery is poor due to multiple space configurations over the course of the building's life. The building quality is typical of a 30 year old office building. The building systems and construction materials are not that of a 50+ year lifespan institutional building. Examples are: Floor topping slabs are cracked and require replacement along with subfloor repairs and mechanical equipment has exceeded its expected lifespan and is due to be replaced. Exterior closure (roof and windows) are due for replacement. Lighting is original and inefficient. Heating, cooling, and ventilation air is poor due to multiple space re -configurations over the years. LOCATION: ;Sz :iRE 2 The location has served the public well as the seat of municipal government and is well situated for vehicular access. PUBLIC IMAGE AND REPUTATION: SC s) \ . The building has an undistinguished architectural character and is not comparable to the City Hall in terms of quality or presentation of the City's aspirations. CUSTOMER SERVICE: SCORE2 Way -finding in the building is difficult, and the double loaded corridor configuration makes it unfriendly and not engaging for public interaction. QUALITY OF WORK LIFE: SCORE Because of the closed character of the plan and the resulting spatial separation, the work flow is interrupted and there is a lack of "connectivity" between departments. Information Technology: Main and Back-up file servers for the City's network are located in the same building with no fire rated or seismic separation, therefore may not be operational following an emergency event. There is no emergency power for the file servers and the UPS is limited to 15 minutes to allow shutdown only. There is no loading dock/lift for delivery of IT equipment. Police: Operational inefficiencies exist due to department being split into two locations with City Hall. The layout of the building provides minimal security for the police departments in the 6300 building. For example, pubic enter directly into administrative area with no checkpoint. There is no secure parking for police vehicles or staff, including motorcycles and a SWAT vehicle. There is no emergency power for police, IT, or Engineering to maintain operations during a power outage. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 11 151 • SEISMIC DEFICIENCIES: SCORE-2 The 2008 Reid Middleton report identified seismic deficiencies that would render it heavily damaged in a design- level earthquake. The ability to remain functional would be severely limited and the risk to inhabitants would be high. • OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY: SCO The current plan configuration would allow for some degree of flexibility in reconfiguration, given a substantial remodel. The building is regular in plan, with a simple repetitive structure yielding some ease in modifying its current use. • EXPANSION POTENTIAL: SCORE -2 Site limitations restrict the lateral expansion of the building. Coupled with low quality of the original construction, expansion is an undesirable course of action. The building does include approximately 1,800 square feet of leased/vacant space that could be used for future growth. ADA DEFICIENCIES: CORE 1. The restroom facilities are not ADA compliant and deficiencies in signage and railings have been noted in past reports. ACOUSTICS: The acoustical quality within the building is average to poor. While there is not an inordinate amount of "hard" surfaces, the second floor construction is not efficient in mitigating floor to floor noise. In addition, the low quality HVAC rooftop -mounted package systems and associated ducting transmit noise to the inhabited spaces below. CODE SUS ARY / EXPANSION OPPORTUNITY All references to the International Building Code (IBC), unless noted otherwise. A. Construction Type (Chapter 6, Table 601): V-A, Combustible, not rated. B. Fire Suppression: Fully sprinkled C. Height - Actual (502.1): Two stories over parking for three stories total. Thirty-nine feet, conservative worst case. D. Area — Actual: Parking Level: 16,225 sq. ft. First Floor: 16,150 sq. ft. Second Floor: 16,800 sq. ft. Total 49,175 sq. ft. E. Use Groups (Chapter 3 and 406) a. Business: B: Office b. Storage: S-2 Low Hazard Storage — Enclosed Parking Garage (406.3.3/406.4) F. Mixed Use Group Strategy (308.3.3): Separated, One -hour per Table 308.3.3. Height/Area Limitations (503) a. B: Two story, 40 feet height, 9,000 sq. ft. b. S-2: One Story, 40 feet height, 9,000 sq. ft. G. Sprinkler exception (504.2): One additional story, 60 feet height. H. Frontage Increase (506.2): 60% open — 25% required = 35% increase. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 12 152 I. Height/Area Increases (506) J. 100% base area + 200% sprinkled + 75% frontage = 375% increase. a. 6,000 sq. ft. x 3.75 = 22,500 sq. ft. each floor if frontage ratio is maintained. b. 6,000 sq. ft. x 3.0 = 18,000 sq. ft. each floor with sprinkler increase only. K. Potential Expansion from Code Height/Area Limitations: Taking the conservative approach of not including frontage increase, a three story building could be expanded to 54,000 sq. ft., an increase of 4,870 sq. ft., a 10% increase. An expansion that maintains the open frontage ration could be at total of 67,500 sq. ft., F, an increase of 18,370 sq. ft., a 37% increase. COMMUNITY CENTER 1 2424 42nd Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Year Built: 1 995 Number of Stories: 1 Floor Area: 55,000 sq. ft. The Tukwila Community Center is a one-story building located in the northern end of Tukwila along the Green River. The building consists of two low-rise, rectangular wing sections and a 38-foot-tall circular high -roof rotunda between the wings. The east wing also includes a 38-foot-tall high -roof gymnasium. The rotunda construction consists of a wood- and steel - framed roof with a wood structural -panel diaphragm supported by steel, masonry -clad columns. The east and west wings are generally wood- and steel -framed roofs with wood structural - panel diaphragms supported by wood and Tight -gage steel stud walls with a masonry facade. The gymnasium is constructed of steel roof trusses and metal roof deck supported by CMU perimeter walls. APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CRITERIA OPERATING/MAINTENANCE COST SCORE 0 In 2008, the City of Tukwila identified $893,000 worth of facility improvements needed for the Community Center, not including seismic improvements. The facility is modern in terms of insulation levels and building systems and materials, however it is in need of exterior maintenance and repairs. ■ PROPERTY VALUE: 500R°@ The resale value of the property is marked as average, given the more remote distance location within the City and floodplain concerns. The highest and best use for this site is DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 13 153 noted by the King County Department of Assessments as its current Park/Recreation use. The site is zoned Low Density Residential, with Public Recreation Overlay. • WORK PROCESS EFFICIENCY. SCORE. 2 No issues relating to work process efficiency have been identified. • FACILITY QUALITY: SCORE The building was built to a good -quality, commercial standard in 1995 and the interior is in good condition. However, time, weather, and poor flashing detailing have taken their toll on the exterior. We noted the following: There are numerous signs of weathered paint and finishes as well as rotten trim and siding on all sides of the building. A lack of sheet metal window and trim flashings and failing caulking has also contributed to these conditions. Repainting and re -staining is required throughout the exterior of the building. Water intrusion is noted at the interior of the windows where swelling of the mullions and interior trims is apparent. Flashings and gutters incorrectly channel water behind eave trims and soffits, resulting in deterioration and damage to both. To preserve the building and prevent further deterioration, the Community Center should be evaluated by a weatherization consultant to determine appropriate fixes for the flashing issues. Priority should be given to these maintenance issues in order to prevent serious and expensive damage to the interior. An appropriately funded periodic maintenance program will allow this building to meet or exceed its expected lifespan. LOCATION: SCORE :L The primary concern is the facilities adjacency to the river put in to question its' availability in a major flood event. PUBLIC IMAGE AND REPUTATION: 7Ct:" The Community Center is a functional and attractive facility. However, as a 19 year -old facility, it is showing signs of age and deterioration. CUSTOMER SERVICE: SCORE As previously noted, the Community Center is one of the City's newer facilities and no adverse issues have been identified. • QUALITY OF WORK LIFE: SCORE' ..`i The Community Center is relatively new and generally functions and operates well, with the following issues noted: o Recreational equipment storage to support multiple programs is lacking. o Gym mechanical system is reported to be lacking, and the gym could be re- configured to allow two full size courts. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 14 154 Emergency Shelter: The center is one of seven potential community shelters in the City. Due to the proximity to the river, primary site access via a bridge over the Green River, and seismic limitations, the center may not be available as a shelter depending on the nature of the emergency event. The facility does not have an emergency power generator, limiting the facility's usefulness as an emergency shelter. Adding an emergency generator will allow the building to function effectively as a shelter during a power outage event. SEISMIC DEFICIENCIES: SCORE The Community Center was not originally designed as an essential facility in terms of its usage as a potential emergency shelter. It therefor performs poorly when measured against the Immediate Occupancy seismic criteria. The site is also noted as susceptible to soils liquefaction and lateral spreading, contributing to its poor seismic capabilities. The cost of seismic upgrades to this building to improve its ability to remain in continuous operation after a seismic event is disproportional to the value of the building. It is recommended that the City accept that it is one of multiple designated shelters and may not be available depending on the type of emergency event. OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY: SC O c.E 0 In terms of staff and administrative uses of the Community Center, all offices are collocated between the lobby rotunda and the gymnasium. As such, there is little opportunity to easily expand the staff area within the existing shell of the building without impacting the customer recreation areas within the facility. EXPANSION POTENTIAL: 0 The Community Center's 12.8 acre riverfront site is well suited to its recreational use. However, the building is bounded on the west and south by the Duwamish Waterway and by an adjacent baseball field to the east. Parking is to the north of the parcel. While expansion of the existing building is possible, it would likely need to be of limited size in order to avoid an adverse impact on the recreational and parking uses of the site. ADA DEFICIENCIES: SCORE I Designed in 1995, the Community Center is generally ADA compliant. ACOUSTf : -?E No acoustical issues have been identified at this facility. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 15 155 PARKS & GO E MAIN'' ENA 1E 1 3900 Interurban Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Year Built: 4`i8 Number of Stories: 1 Floor Area: 8,890 sq. ft. The Parks and Golf Maintenance building is a one-story concrete block- and wood -framed structure located between the George Long Shops and the Foster Golf Course. In addition to the maintenance building, there are two wood -framed covered storage buildings, materials storage bins, a fueling station, a vehicle washing pad, and parking for service fleet vehicles and staff. There have been no additions or major renovations of the building since its original construction. Adjacent the Maintenance Building is a Maintenance Shed (2,184 sq. ft.) and an Equipment Building (910 sq. ft.). The Parks and Golf Maintenance facility is generally in good condition and fulfills the role of supporting the city's maintenance crews. At 15 years of age, the building is showing signs of needing some exterior maintenance, but otherwise it is in reasonable condition. APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CRITERIA ■ OPERATING/MAINTENANCE COST: SC.nR Built in 1998, the Parks and Golf facility is reasonably modern in terms of mechanical systems and building construction. Building shell walls are insulated to R-19 with batt insulation and the roof is approximately R-30 rigid insulation. Mechanical System: An electric heat pump HVAC system serves the office/crew portion of the building. Gas -fired unit heaters serve the storage bays and shops portions of the facility. The systems appeared to be in good working order and no issues were observed or noted. The two open, covered storage buildings are unconditioned. PROPERTY VALUE: SCORE -1 The resale value of this property is relatively low as it is relatively small and tightly situated between the George Long Shops, the golf course, and the police department impound yard. The building itself is of average quality and construction and, given its dedicated function, not readily conducive to conversion to the retail or commercial uses of the type typically encountered along Interurban Avenue. Should the Parks and Golf Maintenance facility be located elsewhere, the property is most valuable when considered as an expansion to either the shops or the golf course. It is zoned as Low Density Residential with Public Recreation Overlay. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 16 156 WORK PROCESS EFFICIENCY SC( I Staff parking is reported by staff as being tight, though with the neighboring George Long Shops parking available, this has not been a problem. City fleet vehicle parking is also reported as being tight both in terms of quantity and stall size to accommodate larger vehicles. Neither is noted as serious problems and the site is fully secured with chain link fencing and barbed wire. FACILITY QUALITY. SCORE The Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility is in average to good condition for a building of its age. In addition to the Crew Building, there are two covered storage buildings, an above -ground fueling station, a vehicle wash pad, and several concrete materials bins for sand, gravel, mulch, and the like. Parking is provided for both employees and the City's fleet vehicles. Offices are provided for both the Parks Department and the Golf Course Maintenance Department. Exterior Condition: The exterior of the facility is composed of fiber -cement panel siding with a concrete masonry veneer wainscot. Plywood soffits and cedar eave and rake boards are used at the roof. It is generally in good condition although the siding color has faded and the transparent -finished eaves and rakes are weathering poorly. New paint is recommended for all fiber -cement and wood surfaces. The asphalt composition roofing shingles are starting to show signs of wear and replacement of the roof is recommended within the next 5 to 7 years. Interior Condition: The interior of the building is also in generally good condition for a building of its age and use. No major deficiencies beyond general wear and tear were observed. Life Safety Systems: The facility has a fire alarm system present in the maintenance facility, though no fire sprinkler system is installed at any of the buildings. LOCATION: SCORE I. The Parks and Golf Maintenance facility is well situated adjacent to the George Long Shops and the Foster Golf Links golf course, which the building serves. PUBLIC IMAGE AND REPUTATION: SCORE The Parks and Golf Maintenance facility is appropriately designed for its use and purpose. The building itself is not highly visible as it is behind the police vehicle impound yard, with the storage buildings hidden by the George Long Shops. The sides of the buildings facing the golf course have few windows and no other openings. CUSTOMER SERVICE: SCORE 0 The Parks and Golf Maintenance building does not typically serve the general public directly from this building, although they do receive vendors and other city staff visiting the site. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 17 157 • QUALITY OF WORK LIFE: SCORE 1 The crew portion of the building contains two offices, locker area, restrooms with showers, a large break room with kitchenette, and a room for storing and drying clothing. No quality of work life issues were noted in discussions with staff. • SEISMIC DEFICIENCIES: ; RE 1 Per Reid Middleton's 2014 report, the Parks and Golf Maintenance facility is generally in acceptable condition from a seismic, life -safety point of view. Due to its proximity to the Duwamish Waterway, soil liquefaction during a seismic event is a potential hazard. However, given the light loads from the structure and the slab -on -grade foundation system, the risk is low that the foundations will spread laterally and cause additional damage or structural instability. OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY SCORE 0 As a maintenance facility, the Parks and Golf Maintenance facility works well for its mission. While staff noted that storage has become somewhat tight over the years, some of this is attributable to other city departments storing items at the building. EXPANSION POTENTIAL: SCORE m 1. The Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility is located between the George Long Shops, the golf course, and the river. As currently configured, there is no opportunity to expand the facility or grounds without additional lands being acquired from either the golf course of the adjacent shops parcel. ADA DEFICIENCIES: SCORE .1„ Both men's and women's restrooms have toilet grab bars and appropriate clearances. No significant ADA deficiencies were observed. ACOUSTICS: C+C. In general, there does not appear to be any significant acoustical issues at the facility. Staff did note that the large crew room also serves as a meeting room and that there are some echo -related acoustical issues due to the hard floor, wall, and ceiling surfaces that make the room somewhat noisy when heavily occupied. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 18 158 IM NKLER SHOPS 600 Minkler Tukwila, Washington Work Room & Storage Bin Building Covered Parking Building Office & Garage Building The Minkler Shops is a small campus consisting of three buildings: The 4,700 square -foot Work Room and Storage Bin building, 2. The 7,200 square -foot Office and Garage Building, and 3. The 8,850 square -foot covered parking structure. All of the structures are one story and were constructed in 1972. There have been no major renovations or additions although portions of the buildings have had pre-engineered or stick - built mezzanines added over the years for parts storage, office, and electronic equipment. Portions of original vehicle bays have been converted into crew or office space to accommodate increased staff. The following city functions are housed at the Minkler Shops: ■ Capital Facility Maintenance shop: Maintenance and Custodial. ■ Public Works Infrastructure Maintenance Shop: Right -of way improvements, water, sanitary, and storm systems. ■ Traffic Operations Center: The Southcenter Mall area is hardwired to this location for remote operation of traffic lights. The system is planned to be expanded for remote operation of traffic control throughout the City during emergency events. ■ Water and Sewer Remote Telemetry for monitoring of water and sewer systems throughout the City. ■ Provides minimal water/sewer system repair parts inventory. ■ Chemical and hazardous material storage for maintenance operations. ■ Transferr facility for sorting and treating storm sewer vactor truck waste. ■ Infrastructure system parts and material storage. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 19 159 ■ Sign Shop and Storage. ■ Traffic Signal Shop and Storage. ■ Offices, Crew areas, lockers and restrooms for Sewer, Water, Streets department crews and managers. ■ Vehicle washing bay. The facility is lacking key functions needed to support and restore essential city services following an emergency event. The absence of an emergency power severely limits this facility to meet its mission of restoring city services during a power outage event. Material storage is very limited, thus impacting the availability of parts and materials for emergency event response. The upcoming loss of the remote site due to the Strander Boulevard/27th Street Corridor Improvements Project for material storage and vactor truck waste sorting/transfer will further exasperate the storage issue in addition to creating new operational challenges to dispose of vactor truck waste. Traffic Operations Center may not be operational following an emergency event. If this equipment remains at the Minkler Shop, it is recommend that all equipment and support space for this function be separated with fire rated walls from the remainder of the facility. Water/Sewer Telemetry System may not be operational following an emergency event. If this equipment remains at the Minkler Shop, it is recommend that all equipment and support space for this function be separated with fire rated walls from the remainder of the facility. Seismic improvements would have minor architectural impacts to the spaces, but significant operational issues would remain, rendering replacement a better option. Should seismic improvements be elected, they can likely be performed without vacating the facility. Minkler Shops Work Room and Storage Bin Building Year Built: 1 f 72 Number of Stories: 1 Floor Area: 3,961 sq. ft. The Work Room and Storage Bin Building is a single -story, wood and concrete structure located in the southern commercial and industrial area of Tukwila. The 20-foot-tall building has an angular 1-shape, with maximum plan dimensions of 90 feet by 1 30 feet and a cross -sectional width of 20 to 25 feet. Building construction consists of wood -framed and precast concrete roof structures supported by concrete shear walls. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 20 160 Covered Parking Year Built: Number of Stories: 1 Floor Area: 8,996 sq. ft. The Covered Parking is a partially open, single -story concrete structure located in the southern commercial and industrial area of Tukwila. The C-shaped structure has maximum plan dimensions of 140 feet by 300 feet and a cross -sectional width of 20 feet. Building construction consists of precast concrete roof planks supported by precast concrete walls and concrete beams on steel posts. Office and Repair Garage Year Built: I9; 22 Number of Stories: 1 Floor Area: 7,480 sq. ft. The Office and Repair Garage is a single -story, wood and precast concrete structure located in the southern commercial and industrial area of Tukwila. The building is roughly L-shaped, with maximum plan dimensions of 75 feet by 176 feet and a cross -sectional width of 30 to 40 feet. The building has two distinct roof elevations, with a low roof over the office area and a high roof over the repair garage. Building construction consists of a wood -framed roof supported by precast concrete perimeter walls and partially supported by steel posts in the repair garage portion of the structure. APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CRITERIA ■ OPERATING/MAINTENANCE COST SCOREm2" In 2008 The City of Tukwila identified $ 1,563,000 worth of facility improvements needed for the Minkler Shops, not including seismic improvements. Insulation values in the building envelope, including wall, roof and glazing insulating values are well below current energy code standards. Many portions of the shop areas are completely uninsulated. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 21 161 PROPERTY VALUE: SCORE ..I.. The 11.13 acre site is zoned as Tukwila Urban Center with Public Recreation Overlay. While the overall acreage is of good size, the usable portion of the site upon which the campus sits is only approximately 2.5 acres. The remainder of the parcel is a pond and wetlands related to the river. The Minkler site also has seismic liquefaction and lateral spreading issues due to proximity to the river. Resale value is expected to be average or low, depending on any wetland or water -related setbacks. WORK PROCESS EFFICIENCY: SCOI! The facility lacks the both interior space and general yard area needed to support and restore City service in emergency events. Minkler Shops is home to a crew of approximately 40 personnel on a daily basis, with an additional 10 seasonal crew members added in the summer months. Material Storage: The yard area at the Minkler shops includes minimal storage areas for bulk material storage for these departments to maintain city infrastructure. The department has resorted to placing material stocks of pipe, wood chips, and remediated soil at three other locations around the city, requiring additional travel time. Waste Transfer and Vactor truck dumping: Additional material storage and a vactor truck and street sweeper waste sorting/transfer station and soil remediation areas are required. Currently, crews must travel to an approved dumping site in King County to empty the vactors, taking crew out of service for 1.5 to 3 hours. Emergency Operations: Material storage is extremely limited, so the department uses "Just -in -Time" material delivery. Materials may not be available on demand to maintain city operations and restore essential city services following an emergency event. Traffic Operations Center is not seismically or fire separated, therefore it may not be operational following an emergency event. The electronic equipment is located on a small wood mezzanine within the Work Room and Storage Bin Building. The control center is located on an office mezzanine in the same building. Water/Sewer Telemetry System, located in the Office and Garage Building, is not seismically or fire separated, therefore it may not be operational following an emergency event. Storage: As departments have taken over portions of the garage and storage areas for office uses, some of the storage uses have ended up on the site where they in turn displace parking for city fleet vehicles. Currently there are 3 conex boxes on -site to serve storage needs that cannot be accommodated within the facilities. Vehicle Parking: As noted above, storage has displaced and crowded parking and site circulation for the city's maintenance fleet vehicles such as dump trucks and backhoe trailers. No capacity is apparent for additional vehicles. Police Use: One garage bay is being used by the police department for secured vehicle evidence. This use should be collocated with police department functions. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 22 162 FACILITY QUALITY: SC The building was built to a moderate level of quality, both in the expense and quality of the materials used and the craftsmanship in the assembly. The basic structure of the building has degraded due to the industrial use. Numerous issues have been noted, including: Cracks are evident in the concrete wall panels at the storage bin portion of the Work Room and Storage Bin Building. Holes and cracks have been identified in the oil/water separator vault, requiring repair or replacement to prevent potential soils contamination at the site. The building electrical panels are antiquated and replacement parts are difficult to obtain. The electrical system also requires code upgrades before an emergency power system can be added. LOCATION: SCORE -.. The location is not desirable for continued City use, both for the adjacency to the river but also the inadequate expansion area for a new Public Works facility and poor soils conditions. PUBLIC IMAGE AND REPUTATION: SCCC 1 While the building does not directly serve the public, the poor quality and make -shift accommodations are not conducive to good employee morale. CUSTOMER SERVICE: SCORE 0 The Minkler Shops campus does not typically serve the general public directly from this building, although they do receive vendors and other city staff visiting the site. QUALITY OF WORK LIFE: 5500RE-2 The following issues were noted: Crew office and break spaces are converted vehicle bays and undersized for current staffing of 40 to 50 personnel. Restroom and locker space is undersized for current staffing to the point that the efficiency of the crews to begin field work each day is negatively impacted by waiting in line to use the one small restroom. The crews are predominately male and the men's restroom provided includes only a single shower, two urinals, and 3 toilets. There is no carpentry shop for maintenance work. The sewer department offices are cramped and contain offices for the manager and 3 foremen as well as desk space for 10 crew members. This area is a converted vehicle garage and the single —6' high exit is too short to be considered a legal exit per the building code. The stairway to the added second floor office does not meet code due to insufficient landings and handrails. No ventilation is provided at the main floor and only a baseboard heater is provided at the second floor. Given the open office configuration, private conversations by the manager are not possible. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 23 163 Similarly, the water department offices are extremely cramped when the 7 members of the crew are present. No ventilation is present and heat is provided only by a baseboard heater. The sign shop is uninsulated and minimally heated to prevent freezing of plumbing. Lighting quality is poor. ■ SEISMIC DEFICIENCIES: SC C )1 The 2008 Reid Middleton report identified seismic deficiencies that would render it susceptible to unacceptable levels of damage during a design level earthquake. In addition, the site is susceptible to soil liquefaction due to adjacency to the Green River. ■ OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY. Sm The configuration of the floor plans are awkward in proportion and do not provide any significant degree of flexibility. EXPANSION POTENTIAL: SCORE -2 The usable portion of the site is approximately 2.5 acres and is limited by existing buildings to the west and the river to the north and east. The southern portion of the site is a pond and related park space. No further expansion on the site is likely possible without obtaining adjacent parcels to the west. ADA DEFICIENCIES: SCOR E -2 The facility currently has no ADA compliant restroom facilities and several offices are located on inaccessible second floors. None of the mezzanines, which include office and traffic control spaces, are handicapped accessible. ACOUSTICS SCORE 0 No acoustic issues have been identified. GEORGE LONG SHOP 14000 Interurban Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Year Built: 1 96 Number of Stories: 2 Floor Area: 18,168 sq. ft. The two-story, 1 8,500-square-foot George Long Shop building is located along the western edge of Tukwila, adjacent to the Green River and Foster Golf Links. The structural system of the DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 24 164 pre -manufactured metal building consists of steel moment frames with a steel deck diaphragm. There appears to have been a number of additions to the facility since its original construction. The facility is lacking key functions needed to maintain city fleet operations that are required to restore essential city services following an emergency event. The building also lacks adequate facilities to maintain and repair larger vehicles severely limit the ability of this shop to perform its mission. No emergency power generator is present, making it impossible for this facility to meet its operational performance requirements during a power outage event. Seismic improvements would have minor architectural impacts to the spaces, but due to the costs of seismic retrofits, this building is recommended to be replaced. Should seismic improvements be elected, they can likely be performed without vacating the facility. However, even if all noted repairs, renovation, and seismic upgrades were performed, basic operational issues for large vehicle repairs would remain. The following city functions are housed at the George Long Shops: Capital facility drawing and record storage. Public Works Administrative support offices. Vehicle fleet maintenance for all City vehicles, including roadways, water, sewer, police, and fire. Parts storage for vehicle maintenance. Surplus furnishings and equipment storage. Storage yard for evidence vehicles from crime scenes. Locksmith Shop. APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CRITERIA OPERATING/MAINTENANCE COST: SCORE -2 In 2008 The City of Tukwila identified $ 2,328,000 worth of facility improvements needed for the George Long Shop, not including seismic improvements. The building systems at the Shop are extremely antiquated and contribute to unnecessarily high operating costs, occupant comfort issues, and inefficiencies: Single -pane windows with no thermal breaks. Minimal insulation levels with no thermal breaks at the metal building envelope. Torn, damaged, or missing vapor barriers at numerous wall and roof insulation locations. Uninsulated fiberglass overhead doors with holes due to age and UV deterioration. Old, energy -inefficient T-12 light bulbs. A general lack of weather-stripping that allows water and wind intrusion into the shop interior. PROPERTY VALUE: SCORE. The resale value of the 2.52 acre property is marked as poor, given its Commercial/Light Industrial with Public Recreation Overlay zoning designation. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 25 165 However, maps indicate the northwest portion of the site is encroached by a flood plain which would likely preclude any substantial sales value. WORK PROCESS EFFICIENCY. SCORE -2 As noted below and in the Facility Quality and the Quality of Work Life sections, there are numerous issues directly related to the size constraints and physical condition of the George Long Shops that directly create inefficiencies in workflow. Inefficiencies: At 1 8, 168 sq. ft., the George Long shop is undersized for its mission to service the City's 350-400 vehicles. This in turn promotes inefficiencies in the following aspects: Split public works locations: with crews and equipment split between George Long and Minkler locations, travel time for personal is increased and consolidation of equipment and storage spaces is not possible. The public works operations manager, responsible for both shops, must split his or her time between both locations. Storage: Vehicle parts, facilities stock, tire storage and other materials are stored at several locations within and outside of the building, resulting in inefficient storage spaces and inefficient use of staff time. Tires, for instance, are stored in rooms, the shop floor, hallways, and conex boxes outside the shop. Operational Performance: The department has an operational performance requirement of vehicle repair turn -around in 24 hours maximum to maintain city operations and restore essential city services. This requires the ability to efficiently repair and maintain vehicles at all times and under all weather conditions. The shop floor is packed with tools, vehicles, and equipment. In order to work on the City's largest vehicles, staff must move equipment and vehicles around to accommodate vactors and fire engines, resulting in further loss of productivity. The existing pivot crane and lifts are difficult to utilize given the low clearance of gas lines, lights, and other ceiling hung equipment. A forklift is often needed to help move items lifted by the crane into position. The site is insufficient for the storage of vehicles under service as well as the processing of new and replacement vehicles received by the city each year. As vehicles are added to the site, maneuvering the city's largest vehicles becomes difficult and inefficient. FACILITY QUALITY: SCORE .,-2 The George Long Shops are in extremely poor condition. Many of the issues are related simply to the age of the facility as noted above. Floor sump in maintenance bay is not operational and cannot be repaired; there is no means to control drainage of fluids on shop floor. There is no emergency power to allow repair of city vehicles during a power outage event. There is space to plug in a portable generator system at the building, though the generator is not powerful enough to enable use of the shop compressor and a portable compressor must be utilized. The shop floor slab has offsets of over one -inch, creating tripping hazards. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 26 166 Fire Service/Large Vehicle Maintenance: There are no lifts in building for either the ladder truck or larger vehicles and there is inadequate clearance to fully open the cab of the ladder truck for engine maintenance. Additionally, the existing ladder truck is too long to fit in maintenance bay — the department must service the front half, then turn around and back -in to service the rear, with part of the vehicle extended through an open door — inconvenient at best and problematic during inclement weather. Vehicle Evidence Storage: Secure storage for crime evidence vehicles has minimal chain link fence enclosure and no cover. Lack of secure storage and weather protection compromises evidence. Evidence can be removed or tampered by unauthorized persons, or deteriorate due to exposure to weather. A long-term solution for the evidence yard is needed. Site issues: Vehicle parking and materials storage is largely unpaved and potentially allows soils contamination from vehicle fluids or other materials. This is a concern given proximity to the river. Additionally, sewer line maintenance and replacement is required to prevent further contamination issues. Other issues: Electrical service inadequate for welding needs. Surplus city equipment storage area is lacking. Inadequate space exists for surplus furnishings and equipment storage, which minimizes re -use of these items. IT server and computer workshop and associated storage area is small and cramped. LOCATION: SCORE -.1°.. The location is not desirable for continued City use due to poor soils and flood plain intrusion. Additionally, the site is likely too small to accommodate any expansion scenario that would combine the George Long and Minkler shops. PUBLIC IMAGE AND REPUTATION: SCORE The George Long shop looks old, tired, and deteriorated from the street. Gravel parking lots and the police department's impound yard adjacent to Interurban Avenue give the area a blighted feeling not in keeping with the aspirations of the City. CUSTOMER SERVICE: SCORE 0 The George Long Shop building does not typically serve the general public directly from this building, although they do receive vendors and other city staff visiting the site. • QUALITY OF WORK LIFE: SOFE�' There are numerous issues that affect the health and well-being of the staff serving at the building: The second floor, used by crew for lounge and restroom use, lacks lights (except for the restrooms) and heating. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 27 167 The shop and storage areas lack general exhaust fan systems, which required the overhead bay doors to be open for ventilation purposes. This is energy -inefficient due to heated air being lost to the exterior. Even with doors open, interior air quality is extremely poor: odors from welding, chemical parts cleaning, and other mechanic and maintenance activities infiltrate the entire facility. The welding hood is largely ineffective and the vehicle exhaust point source capture systems are ineffective and worn. Shop lighting is poor and inefficient. Numerous broken or unusable fixtures were noted. Offices within the shop space are cramped and lack any ventilation or heating systems. SEISMIC DEFICIENCIES: SC The 2008 Reid Middle report recommends demolition of the structure due to the expense of a seismic retrofit. The site is also subject to soils liquefaction issues given its proximity to the river. OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY SCORE -2. As an existing 1960's-era metal building structure, the George Long Shop is not readily expandable or easily modified. EXPANSION POTENTIAL: 'CORE The site is constrained by the police evidence yard to the west, the Duwamish River to the east and the Parks and Golf Maintenance facility to the north. An existing commercial building borders the site to the south. Given the requirements for vehicle access, materials storage, and vehicle parking, the building cannot feasibly be expanded on this site without additional property. ADA DEFICIENCIES: SCORE - The second floor is not accessible, and no ADA restrooms are present. ACOUSTICS: SCORE 0 No acoustic issues were noted. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 28 168 FIRE STATION 51 444 Andover Park East Tukwila, Washington Year Built: 1973 Number of Stories: 2 Floor Area: 16,115 sq. ft. Station 51 serves as the Department's administrative headquarters. Also housed in the station is the Fire Marshal's office and supporting staff. Station 51 serves as a response station for the downtown area and houses the following apparatus: engine, reserve ladder truck, heavy rescue truck, rescue boat, hazardous material response vehicles, structural collapse/trench rescue trailers, and an Explorer Post emergency response van. Fire Station 51 is a two-story, 17,700-square-foot concrete- and wood -framed structure located in the commercial and industrial area near Tukwila's southern border and the Green River. The building's floors and roofs are typically of wood construction and are supported by precast concrete walls. Fire Station 51 was originally constructed in 1973, with additional offices and a conference room constructed in 1990. Station 51 should be replaced for two reasons: 1) in general the station is undersized for its current uses as well as the potential increases in staffing and, 2) the station is in a poor response location to serve the southern portion of the city. Given the construction limitations of the existing facility, it is recommended that the existing facility be replaced at another site within the station's new response area. Seismic improvements are difficult due to the nature of the station's original structural system. Seismic improvements will also reduce clearances and tighten an already tight space, particularly in the apparatus bays that currently do not meet WAC requirements for fire stations. Any seismic improvements will require vacating the station during the construction period and necessitate locating and constructing a temporary station. There may be room on the parcel for temporary facilities, but temporary operations are costly and inconvenient at best. APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CRITERIA ■ OPERATING/MAINTENANCE COST SCO E 7L At 41 years of age, Fire Station 51 has not received substantial upgrades to its mechanical, electrical, or building envelope systems, with the sole exception of the 1990 Fire Marshal's Office addition. The station has also had a history of mold and electrical system corrosion. A maintenance backlog of $1,824,000 was identified by the City in 2008 and included items such as HVAC replacement, roof replacement, interior re - DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 29 169 painting, and flooring replacement. The 2008 Reid Middleton seismic report recommends demolition of the structure due to the expense of a seismic retrofit. PROPERTY VALUE: ,SCORE 2 The resale value of the 1.86 acre property is marked as high, given location in a desirable commercial zone. It is zoned as Tukwila Urban Center and the property is generally flat and rectangular in shape. WORK PROCESS EFFICIENCY SCORE As noted below in Quality of Work Life, Station 51 has numerous issues related to its physical size and layout that in turn affect the efficiency with which firefighters are able to respond to emergency situations as well as conduct routine tasks such as decontamination of gear. FACILITY QUALITY: SCORE Station 51 is of average to below -average quality, given the age of the facility. Deterioration of the electrical system has been observed. Water intrusion from cracks in the concrete structure have been noted and repaired. LOCATION: SCORE -2 Station Response Location: The station is in a poor response location to serve the southern portion of Tukwila. The station's site is subject to soils liquefaction, given its proximity to the river. PUBLIC IMAGE AND REPUTATION: SCORE 0 Station 51 has aged poorly and its harsh, concrete form does not adequately portray the Department's pride, purpose, and professionalism. CUSTOMER SERVICE: SCORE 0 Station 51 receives only occasional visitors. Sufficient parking is available for visitors requesting blood pressure checks or who are meeting with the fire marshal's office or other department staff. QUALITY OF WORK LIFE: SCORE -.? Lack of protected areas for Equipment: There are eight pieces of equipment and trailers currently unable to be accommodated inside the station. Having equipment outside the facility exposes them to weather related wear and tear and potential vandalism which in turn limits their operational readiness. It is recommended that all equipment be in a fully enclosed garage and the site be provided with a security fence to prevent vandalism. Storage limitations: in general, the station lacks storage area with the result being crowding of other program areas. This is particularly evident in the storage room south of the apparatus bay in which the generator, electrical equipment, telephone equipment, shop area, station laundry, and operational storage areas are all combined in one crowded room. Additional supplies are stored in stairways. Living quarters: The Station currently sleeps 10 personnel with no room for expansion of firefighter staffing with a Battalion Chief on the main floor. The nine firefighters are DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 30 170 housed in a single room partitioned with curtains and wardrobe lockers. Individual rooms are desirable due to better privacy, alleviation of gender -issues, better sleeping environment due to noise control, and less disruption as individuals enter and leave on calls. Additionally, shower facilities are minimal with only 3 showers are provided in the men's bathroom and 1 for women. For a station of this size, 5 complete unisex bathrooms should be provided along with a separate bathroom and shower for the Battalion Chief. Kitchen Facilities: The kitchen and dining facilities are undersized to meet the needs of the firefighters and day shift usage. Weight room size is insufficient to safely contain equipment currently housed and to provide adequate clearances around equipment. Training Room: the station's training room is too small for department meetings and lacks presentation options. The room's small storage space has been given over to the Explorer program as an office. While often used for public meetings, restroom facilities are substandard with only a single men's restroom near the training room. Apparatus clearances: To meet WAC 296-305-06509, stations must allow 3 feet of clearance around all apparatus. Given the size, housed apparatus, and layout of Station 51, this is not possible in portions of the current station. Disinfection and sanitation: Existing decontamination facilities consist of a laundry sink and a clothes washer and dryer located in a crowded storage room adjacent the apparatus bay. The sink is too small to allow sufficient cleaning of equipment and backboards. The washer and dryer also double as the station laundry, which is not advisable due to cross contamination concerns. No bunker gear cleaning options are available at the station and there is no space available to allow placement of a bunker gear extractor. The existing emergency generator is antiquated and the automatic transfer switch is noted as unreliable. SEISMIC DEFICIENCIES: SCOR1. -2 Per Reid Middleton's 2008 seismic evaluation, Station 51 is recommended for replacement, rather than seismic upgrade due to the building age, condition, and extensive level of upgrade and associated expense required to bring the facility up to Immediate Occupancy standards. Soil liquefaction is also a concern given the proximity of the Green River to the east of the site. It is expected that compaction grouting would be required at the foundation perimeter to prevent liquefaction -related building damage. DRAFT I Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 31 171 ■ OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY: SCORE Station 51 is a concrete building with the living quarters built over the apparatus bay. As such is not readily or easily modified. EXPANSION POTENTIAL: SCORE As noted above, Station 51 is not readily expandable. The site is also not easily expandable given the existing buildings to the north and south. As a drive -through configured apparatus bay, adding additional space to the east is not feasible cis that would limit access to returning vehicles. ■ ADA DEFICIENCIES: SCORE . As a two-story facility with no elevator, Station 51 is not ADA compliant. Main floor restrooms are accessible however. Additionally, the City has identified other ADA improvements needed at the station. ACOUSTICS: SCORE 0 No acoustical issues have been identified. FIRE S1ATI O N 52 14475 59th Avenue S. Tukwila, Washington Year Built: Number of Stories: 1 Floor Area: 3,360 sq. ft. Fire Station 52 is a one-story, precast concrete and wood -framed structure located near the center of Tukwila. The rectangular building is approximately 51 feet by 61 feet in plan and has a maximum roof height of 18 feet. Building construction consists of a wood -framed roof with structural -panel diaphragms supported by precast concrete and wood structural -panel walls. The building includes a wood -framed hose tower at the north end standing 37 feet tall. Built in 1971, Station 52 is approximately 3,350 sq. ft.. Minor remodeling has been performed in subsequent years to adjust to staffing changes. This station is currently staffed with 3 firefighters, with the potential that a fourth may be added in the future. Station 52 is a response station with one primary response engine and one reserve engine. Station 52 serves as primary back-up to the City's other engines and ladder truck. No ALS or BLS units are stationed at this site. Given the construction limitations of the existing facility, it is recommended that the existing facility be replaced, either upon the existing site or another site within the station's response DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 32 172 area. Station 52 is simply too small to contain all of the uses required of a modern fire station in a manner that is efficient for station operations. It's concrete and truss structure is not conducive to efficient expansion and the lack of vertical clearance in the apparatus bays indicate that the station will be minimally useful to maintain into the future. The following comments apply, should seismic improvements be elected: Seismic improvements will require vacating the station for a period of time. A location for temporary facilities will need to be identified. Temporary operations are costly and inconvenient at best. Seismic improvements would have minor architectural impacts to the space. APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CRITERIA OPERATING/MAINTENANCE COST SCORE 1. In 2008, the City of Tukwila identified $ 348,000 worth of facility improvements needed for Station 52, not including seismic improvements. Station 52 has numerous antiquated systems that contribute to poor occupant comfort and higher than necessary operating costs: single -pane windows, uninsulated concrete walls, poor and failing roof insulation, and window -mounted air conditioners. PROPERTY VALUE: SCORE -2 Station 52's 1.16 acre site is of average value and located in a predominately residential neighborhood. The site is shared with the Tukwila Heritage & Cultural Center, located behind the station. The site is zoned as Medium Density Residential with a Public Recreation Overlay. Given the presence of the Cultural Center and the combined access and parking, the fire station portion of the site cannot be sold separately. WORK PROCESS EFFICIENCY: SCO. Station 52 has no dedicated spaces for operational equipment and tool storage, fitness room, or laundry room for personnel laundry. Additionally, the kitchen is undersized, resulting in the placement of 2 refrigerators in the apparatus bay. As a result, these functions are forced into the apparatus bay where they are poorly accommodated and juxtaposed in a makeshift fashion. FACILITY QUALITY: SCORE 0 Station 52 is in average condition relative to the facility's age. While the station has been recently repainted, the diagonal wood siding is showing signs of wear and rot is evident at wood trims and eave fascia boards, particularly at the hose tower. Additionally, water intrusion has been noted due to roof leaks, resulting in wet insulation and damaged ceiling tiles. LOCATION: SCORE Station 52's location should be evaluated from an emergency call response perspective prior to any decisions to replace or substantially improve the facility to ensure that it is in an optimal location for service deployment. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 33 173 • PUBLIC IMAGE AND REPUTATION: SCORE -- Station 52 has aged poorly and its harsh concrete and wood siding form fits poorly with the surrounding residential neighborhood and does not adequately portray the Department's pride, purpose, and professionalism. • CUSTOMER SERVICE: St Station 52 is easily visible from the street and has acceptable parking for visitors to the station. As a response station with no administrative functions, the facility receives relatively few visitors. • QUALITY OF WORK LIFE: SCORE -µ The facility is 43 years old, and has not had substantial upgrades over the years. Functionally it is not up to current fire facility standards in terms of operational clearances, decontamination facilities, and firefighter residential accommodations. Crew housing limitations: The station's dorm area was reconfigured subsequent to construction to provide additional firefighter work space due to the inadequate watch office. Currently, two single dorm rooms are provided with a third serving as a Lieutenant's Office/Dorm. There is currently no expansion space in the event that staffing levels are increased. The remodel removed one restroom to provide storage space and as a result, the station has only one shower for the crew's use. Crew space is at such a premium that two shift refrigerators have been placed for use in the apparatus bay. It is not ideal to store crew foodstuffs in a potentially "dirty" area such as the apparatus bay. The apparatus bay doors and interior structure of the apparatus bays limit apparatus height to 12 feet. Current standards and modern apparatus sizes necessitate 14 foot high doors and structural clearances. Station 52 has no fire sprinklers in the living areas as would currently be required by WAC 296-305-06503. Apparatus access clearances are marginal around the vehicles. The station has an emergency power generator. The station site is unfenced and has no secured parking for staff vehicles. SEISMIC DEFICIENCIES: SO)RE 1 The 2008 Reid Middleton report identified seismic deficiencies that would render it susceptible to unacceptable levels of damage during a design level earthquake. ■ OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY. SCORE 2 Station 52 is too small to contain all of the uses demanded of it, and will not afford reasonable expansion to provide the needed additional functionality. The structure is pre -cast concrete and wood trusses, and is difficult to modify. ■ EXPANSION POTENTIAL: V. Rt,-- Given the existing Cultural Center to the north, expansion is not possible. Building expansion potential is further limited by the structural system used. The 2008 Reid DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 34 174 Middleton report suggested replacement of the facility, either in the same location or within the response area it serves. ■ ADA DEFICIENCIES: SCORE Et An accessible bathroom is located in the facility. ■ ACOUSTICS: SCORE -.5. The station utilizes residential -grade, window -mounted air conditioners at the sleep rooms and day room. As such, they allow road noise from the street side of the building to transmit easily into the crew sleeping portions of the building. FIRE STATION 53 4202 South 1 15th Street Tukwila, Washington Year Built: 995 Number of Stories: 1 Floor Area: 7,392 sq. ft. Fire Station 53 is a one-story wood -framed structure located near the northern end of Tukwila, along the Green River. The building is approximately 130 feet by 60 feet in plan and has a maximum roof height of 18 feet. Building construction consists of a wood -framed structural -panel roof and walls. The building includes a high -bay area with a steel moment frame around roll -up garage doors in the south wall. A 37-foot-tall hose tower located at the east end of the building is constructed of concrete masonry units (CMUs). The foundation system for the building is concrete grade beams on concrete auger -cast piles. APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CRITERIA ■ OPERATING/MAINTENANCE COST SCOR 1 Station 53 is generally in good repair: the 19 year old station is in need of re -painting and minor rot is noted in some wood trim. Woodpecker attacks have also damaged the wood siding in several locations. ■ PROPERTY VALUE: SCORE 5 Station 53's trapezoidal -shaped, 2.55 acre site is zoned as Low Density Residential. A high resale value is not anticipated. ■ WORK PROCESS EFFICIENCY SCORE : Station 53 is a modern fire station in terms of design, program and site layout. No significant issues affecting staff efficiency were noted. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 35 175 • FACILITY QUALITY: SC Station 53 is built to a durable, commercial quality and is in good condition relative to its age. LOCATION: SCO E 1 Station 53's site is across the street from the Green River and as such its soils are prone to both liquefaction and lateral spreading hazards. • PUBLIC IMAGE AND REPUTATION: SCORE .I Station 53 is an attractive facility that fits well within its residential neighborhood context. CUSTOMER SERVICE: SCORE 0 Station 53 is easily visible from the street and has acceptable parking for visitors to the station. As a response station with no administrative functions, the facility receives relatively few visitors. QUALITY OF WORK LIFE: SCORE 1 Minor quality of work life issues were noted by staff: Training: As the station that houses the department's rescue team, training opportunities (such as rated anchor points) located within the apparatus bay would allow crews to perform training exercises without having to relocate to the training area at Station 54 or other location off -site. Vehicle Exhaust: the rescue truck's exhaust stack is not compatible with the existing Nederman vehicle exhaust system. SEISMIC DEFICIENCIES: SCORE I Reid Middleton performed a Tier 2 Seismic Assessment in 2008 and determined that additional evaluation and seismic retrofit were not required. As noted above, the site is located adjacent to the Green River and is susceptible to soils liquefaction and lateral spreading. While the station is on pilings which will help mitigate damage to the structure, any subsidence that affects the site paving or adjacent roadways may limit access to and from the station in the event of an emergency. OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY: SCORE Station 53 is a two -bay station, with drive -through style bay design. It currently houses the Department's rescue vehicle and air trailer, in addition to an engine. The station generally meets the needs of the crews housed there, though storage space is at a premium and some of the sleep rooms have been converted to storage and other project space. ■ EXPANSION POTENTIAL: SCONE 0 Minor expansions are likely possible, though the station is located close to its south and west property lines and requires driving access on both the north and south sides of the station to accommodate the station's drive -through bay design. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 36 176 F ■ ADA DEFICIENCIES: S€ X)R: LL Given the 1995 construction, significant ADA issues and deficiencies are not anticipated. ACOUSTICS: SCORE No acoustic issues or problems have been identified. RE STATION 54 4237 South 144th Street Tukwila, Washington Year Built: % 9;r f Number of Stories: 1 Floor Area: 5,398 sq. ft. Fire Station 54 is a one-story masonry- and wood -framed structure located near the western edge of Tukwila, near Tukwila International Boulevard. The original 1961 building was remodeled and expanded on the east side in 1990. The rectangular building is approximately 60 feet by 88 feet in plan and 15 feet tall. Building construction consists of a wood -framed roof with timber trusses and structural -panel diaphragms supported by concrete masonry and wood structural -panel walls. A 37 foot -tall hose tower constructed of CMUs is located at the center of the building. Station 54's key failure is a lack of apparatus bay size to accommodate the apparatus needed at its location. This problem is compounded by a concrete masonry structure that is not easily expanded. Additionally, there is limited height in the apparatus bay as evidenced by the make- shift revisions to the ladder truck bay in which a portion of the facade was removed to afford a taller overhead vehicle door. Overall the station lacks operational support spaces, the result of which is further impact to the apparatus bay as portions of the bay perimeter are used for storage of equipment, medical supplies, bunker gear, work benches, and decontamination areas. This usage of space exacerbates the narrow apparatus bays and reduces further the required clearances around the apparatus. Given the construction limitations of the existing facility, it is recommended that the existing facility be replaced, either upon the existing site or another site within the station's response area. Seismic improvements would have minor architectural impacts to the space, other than loss of the hose drying tower, which appears to be used primarily for storage. Seismic improvements will require vacating the station for a period of time. A location for temporary facilities will need to be identified. Temporary operations are costly and inconvenient at best and training functions, both indoor and outdoor, could not be held at this location during the construction work. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 37 177 APPLICATION OF EVALUATION CRITERIA OPERATING/MAINTENANCE COST.• SC I In 2008 the City of Tukwila identified $528,000 worth of facility improvements needed for Station 54, not including seismic improvements. PROPERTY VALUE: SCORE --1 Station 54's 0.89 acre site is located in a residential neighborhood, across the street from Foster High School. The site is zoned for High Density Residential uses. A high resale value is not anticipated. WORK PROCESS EFFICIENCY: 1() F -w The following site and building -related items contribute to poor work efficiency: Site limitations: The south portion of the site contains training props and serves as the department's confined spaces and roof training area. To support the props outside, a training classroom is needed. This function is currently accommodated in the kitchen, dining, and dayroom areas of the station. This requires all furniture to be removed from the dayroom and placed in the kitchen and tables to be set up. This greatly limits the functionality of all the spaces and uses. The outdoor training area is directly backed up to single family residences. Apparatus clearances: To meet WAC 296-305-06509, stations must allow 3 feet of clearance around all apparatus. Given the size, housed apparatus, and layout of Station 54, this is not possible in the current station. There is encroachment by structural walls that makes it infeasible to widen the facility. Disinfection and sanitation: Existing decontamination facilities consist of a laundry sink and a clothes washer and dryer located in the apparatus bay. The sink is too small to allow sufficient cleaning of equipment and backboards. The washer and dryer also double as the station laundry, which is not advisable due to cross contamination concerns. No bunker gear cleaning options are available at the station and there is no space available to allow placement of a bunker gear extractor. No watch office: Due to the need for a Captain's office, the watch office has been taken over by the station officer. The station work areas are in the dining/day room which negatively impacts those already crowded spaces. The station's copier is in a hallway. FACILITY QUALITY: SC :IS' ::: ;) Station 54 was built to an average level of quality and is generally in good repair. An emergency generator has been installed to maintain operations in the event of a power outage. Apparatus Bay Floor: Damage to the apparatus bay floors due to snow chains was noted. While the damage does not affect the structural integrity of the floor slab, it will allow ponding water (a potential slipping hazard) and contributes to increased floor deterioration. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 38 178 • LOCATION: SCOF. Station 54 is located across from Foster High School. Station response times and optimal service location suitability should be confirmed as part of the evaluation to replace or renovate this facility. • PUBLIC IMAGE AND REPUTATION: SCORE Station 54 is in average condition for a building of its age. Its 1960s-era form does not fit comfortably in the predominately residential neighborhood and does not adequately portray the Department's pride, purpose, and professionalism. • CUSTOMER SERVICE: SCORE 0 Station 54 is easily visible from the street and has acceptable parking for visitors to the station. As a response station with no administrative functions, the facility receives relatively few visitors. QUALITY OF WORK LIFE: 0001E The following items contribute to a poor quality work experience for staff: Storage limitations: Due to lack of storage space for equipment, gear has been shelved in the apparatus bay, reducing required clearances around vehicles. Equipment has also been stored in the hose tower, limiting its usefulness for its intended hose drying function. Sleep Rooms: Sleep areas are partitioned, rather than individual rooms. Individual rooms are desirable due to better privacy, alleviation of gender -issues, better sleeping environment due to noise control, and less disruption as individuals enter and leave on calls. Weight room size is insufficient to safely contain equipment currently housed and to provide adequate clearances around equipment. Apparatus Bay Clearances: In addition to the vehicle clearance issues previously noted, the existing overhead doors are 1 2' x 1 2' (slightly taller in the ladder truck bay), smaller than the recommended size of 14' x 14'. This makes backing the vehicles into the station much more difficult with accidents more likely to damage the facility or vehicles. SEISMIC DEFICIENCIES: SCORE -I Currently, Station 54 does not meet Immediate Occupancy performance objectives. During a design -level earthquake, extensive damage and potential failure of lateral force resisting elements may occur, posing a risk to building occupants. Because of the deficiencies identified in the 2008 Reid Middleton study, it is recommended that the building be seismically retrofitted or replaced. • OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY::.SCORE -2 Given the concrete masonry construction present at the station, cost effective expansion of the facility is difficult. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 39 179 EXPANSION POTENTIAL: SCORE -.4 Expansion potential is limited by the structural system used. The 2008 Reid Middleton report suggested replacement of the facility, either in the same location or within the response area it serves. Additionally, at 0.89 acre, the building site is small and tightly constrained on the east, west, and south sides by existing residential sites. The site also contains a number of the Department's training props, and any expansion of the facility would likely impact the available training space behind the station. ADA DEFICIENCIES: SCORE st Station 54 has one accessible restroom, though the crew restrooms and showers do not appear compliant. ACOUSTICS:`..: No acoustical issues have been identified. DRAFT 1 Submitted to City Council on December 14, 2015 40 180