HomeMy WebLinkAboutFS 2012-10-02 Item 2C - Discussion - Draft Facilities PlanCity of Tukwila
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Haggerton
Finance and Safety Committee
FROM: Bob Giberson, Public Works Director
DATE: September 28, 2012
SUBJECT: Facilities Plan
Project No. 91230201
ISSUE
The draft 2013 -2018 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) includes the construction of two
replacement City facilities to provide a safe working environment for police, courts, city staff and
other first responders among its new projects. The current City facilities for police, fire and other
first responders have been identified as having serious seismic issues and are in danger of
collapse during a major earthquake.
Staff is seeking Finance Safety Committee review, input, and recommendation on a draft
Facilities Plan which complements the facilities projects as outlined in the draft CIP. The
Facilities Plan summarizes the conditions of existing facilities, future facility needs, funding
options, and cost estimates for retrofit and /or replacements of existing facilities.
BACKGROUND
Historically, the City has budgeted for new or replacement facilities through the 303 Fund
(General Government Improvements) on a case -by -case basis, without the use or guidance of a
comprehensive Facilities Plan.
In 2008, Reid Middleton conducted an in -depth seismic evaluation and rapid visual screening
which was presented to the Finance Safety Committee and subsequently the Committee of
the Whole in September 2008. Based on the information received at that time, Council
requested that staff return to the Finance Safety Committee with a recommendation on a
program that would entail all costs associated with the project including timelines and funding
options. Shortly after this time, the City experienced significant budgetary shortfalls and
cutbacks, which affected the opportunity to move forward with what is now referred to as the
Facilities Plan.
The Reid Middleton seismic evaluation revealed that 10 of 11 essential post earthquake City
facilities failed seismic evaluation for immediate occupancy. This means that these 10 facilities
would not be habitable, for customers or employees, after a substantial earthquake. Essential
services performed in these buildings would not be provided during an incident or the recovery
period following. Repairs for habitability are anticipated to take from 3 -12 months.
The Reid Middleton evaluation laid the groundwork for identifying the need for the retrofitting of
eight (8) buildings and replacement of two (2). However, it did not take into consideration
system improvements due to aging facilities, provisions to provide additional capacity, or the
efficiency and delivery of City services. With these considerations, justifying facility replacement
over retrofit is recommended when the cost of the retrofit exceeds half the cost of replacing the
building facility.
WA2012Info Memos- Counciffluilding Facilities Plan bg 9 28 12 gl KAMA=
13
INFORMATIONAL MEMO: Facilities Plan Pacre 2
Recognizing the need to prepare to retrofit and /or replace these facilities as soon as possible, in
early 2010 City Administration approved an in -house effort utilizing Public Works and
Community Development staff to analyze existing and proposed facilities resulting in the
development of a comprehensive long -term Facilities Plan, including a financial plan. The intent
of the Facilities Plan is to recognize the current safety, operational, and maintenance
deficiencies of existing City buildings, and provide a means by which the City provide adequate
facilities for the long -range future of the City.
DISCUSSION
The draft Facilities Plan includes four (4) sections of evaluation: existing conditions, future
facility needs, options to address conditions and needs, and funding options. These sections are
summarized below.
Section 1: Existing Conditions
Police, Court and other City employees are currently housed in the City Hall and the 6300
Building. These are aging buildings that are experiencing repetitive system failures. Repair
costs and energy expenses are constantly increasing. These buildings are typically under
severe stress during peak heating and cooling periods. The heating /cooling systems are
antiquated and no longer have replacement parts available.
The Minkler and George Long Shops are separate maintenance and operations facilities that
are undersized for the current service and program workloads, which include essential City
functions such as water, sewer, surface water, streets, signals, fleet, and facilities.
The City's fire stations are undersized, cramped, and not structurally or seismically safe. The
City does not have adequate emergency operations center, which is a hindrance to recovery in
an emergency.
NOTE: The Golf /Parks Maintenance Building, Foster Clubhouse, and Fire Station 53 were not
included in the 2008 Seismic Program because they were constructed under the most recent
seismic code and are considered to be structurally and seismically safe.
Section 2: Future Facility Needs
A new City Hall /Community Justice Center will replace the existing City Hall and 6300 Building
with improved safety and efficiency for Police, Court and other City staff. The size and location
of the facility will be determined as part of the design process.
A combined City Shops facility (currently Minkler and George Longs Shops in separate
locations) will improve safety and efficiency, and eliminate a leased record storage space for the
City Clerk's Office. It will also allow for storage and handling of vactor waste and Police
Department evidence storage (including automobile storage). The location of the new City
Shops facility will be part of the initial design process. The sale of the Minkler and George Long
Shops, in addition to old Fire Station 53 (currently used for police evidence storage) will
significantly offset the cost of the new facility.
The proposed 2013 -2018 CIP includes an unfunded relocation of Fire Station 51, that will be
justified by future growth in the Tukwila South and Southcenter areas. This will trigger the
relocation of Fire Station 52, which is also an unfunded CIP project. The long -range Facility
Plan includes replacement of three of the four current fire station once it is determined the
appropriate locations, size and the service area and model for the City.
Section 3: Options for Addressing Conditions and Needs
The Facilities Plan outlines the following three (3) options for responding to and addressing the
existing conditions and future needs of City facilities:
9/27/12
14 2:58 PM
INFORMATIONAL MEMO: Facilities Plan
Pace 3
Status Quo
This is a basic, do- nothing approach that leaves City facilities in an as -is state. It is an
option that may appear to have no immediate or long -term costs for the City; however,
this option leads to significant increases in maintenance and energy costs. This option
leaves the City in jeopardy and does not address the continuity of City operations when
a disaster strikes.
2. Seismic and Functional Unarades Only
This option provides for seismic, functional, and energy upgrades to prevent structural
collapse of City facilities. It does not provide room for increased service capacity or
future growth, and does not ensure immediate occupancy post disaster.
3. Twelve -Year Plan
This option outlines replacement and retrofit upgrades to City facilities in two phases
over a 12 -year period. Annual costs are estimated to be between $7 -8 million.
Section 4: Funding for Future Facilities
Up to the present time, City funding has not been allocated to provide for any major facility
upgrade, renovation, or replacement. Additionally, current and future City funds alone are not
adequate to fund new and /or retrofitted facilities. However, staff has identified funding
considerations that make implementation of a Facilities Plan over a two -phase 12 -year period
possible.
Options include: utilization of the revenue repayment to the City from Klickitat LID No. 33; rates
associated with enterprise funds; and issuing bonds (sufficient debt capacity has been validated
by the Finance Department). The draft Facilities Plan demonstrates how the bonds will be paid
for in part by the LID repayment, and the energy and maintenance savings.
RECOMMENDATION
Although this item is currently presented as information only to the Finance Safety Committee,
as mentioned earlier staff, is seeking Committee confirmation of the need for a Facilities Plan,
and review, input, and recommendation on a draft Facilities Plan. Staff will return to Committee
for additional review after incorporating comments and recommendations of the Committee.
Staff is recommending the Council eventually consider Option 3 Twelve -Year Plan under
Section 3 above (see page 12 of the Facilities Plan for details). This option allows for funding to
be assembled over six (6) consecutive biennial budgets, and for actual funding and workload to
be spread out over twelve years. The twelve -year option is realistic and achievable, as
described in the Facilities Plan, and shown in the preliminary proposed budget.
ATTACHMENTS
Facilities Plan (without appendices)
The following documents were referenced in the memo, and due to document size, will only be
made available upon request:
2008 Seismic Study
Facilities Plan (with appendices)
9/27/12
2:58 PM 15
16
draft facilities plan september 2012
I:
Contents
Paqe
Appendix A: Seismic Study Executive Summary
Appendix B: Architectural Assessment Summary
Appendix C: Cost Estimates
Appendix D: Floor Plans
Appendix E: Plan Schedule and Articles
19
2
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
3
Introduction....................................................................................
AboutThis Plan
Section 1: Existing Facilities Condition
5
Section 2: Future Facility Needs
Section 3: Future Facility Options
Section 4: Funding for Future Facilities
A�endices
Appendix A: Seismic Study Executive Summary
Appendix B: Architectural Assessment Summary
Appendix C: Cost Estimates
Appendix D: Floor Plans
Appendix E: Plan Schedule and Articles
19
20
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scope of Report
This Facilities Plan is a continuation of the 2008 Seismic Program by Reid Middleton and the
subsequent Architectural Assessment by Rice Fergus Miller. This report summarizes existing
facilities condition, future facility needs, future facility options, future facility funding options,
and cost estimates for retrofits and replacements.
Summary of Findings and Recommendation
In general, most city -owned building facilities need significant safety upgrades or replacement.
Most City buildings except the Community Center house either first responders to emergency
events (i.e., police, fire, and public works departments) or house operations critical to City
disaster recovery such as building permits and human services, etc. The Community Center may
house shelter- related staging, however, depending on the magnitude and location of an
earthquake, the Community Center may not withstand a substantial earthquake if seismic
retrofits are not accomplished. Staff recommends the 12 -Year Funding Option, spreading out the
expenditures and budget impacts over time. This financial plan for two six -year plans is the
result of careful analysis on what the City can afford. The fire station projects are in the 2nd six
year plan to provide time to address many unknown issues, such as moving headquarters Fire
Station 51 into Tukwila South as a result of expected growth, the future of fires services, and a
potential to go out to the voters for an emergency services facility levy.
The influx of LID No. 33 repayment ($8.4 million) and surplus property revenue ($6 million)
will greatly reduce the initial budget impacts.
Summary of Trends
In general, maintenance items are being deferred to the point that soon certain building elements
cannot be repaired they will have to replaced (roofs, heating/cooling systems, etc.). There is a
backlog of over $10 million in deferred maintenance and minor repairs (including HVAC
upgrades, backup power, energy efficiency upgrades, carpet, paint, and structural repairs). Also,
this Facilities Plan represents approximately $97 million worth of building retrofits and
replacements represents in necessary safety improvement work.
Next Steps
The first step is to take the Facilities Plan to Committee and Council. Second, the funding of the
Facilities Plan must be included into the Financial Planning Model and Capital Improvement
Program. Third, the financial mechanism to stage the design and constriction of the proposed
retrofits and /or replacements must be approved.
Plan Goals
Address safety concerns of all City buildings
Resolve the future status of all City buildings
Achieve a long -range sustainable building facility investment strategy
Balance energy efficiencies, surplus properties, deferred maintenance backlog and
emerging deficiencies with retrofits and replacements
-2-
21
22
Introduction
In 2008, the City of Tukwila completed a Seismic Study of selected city facilities. The Study was
completed by structural engineers Reid Middleton, Inc. This Facilities Plan includes various
summary documents from the Seismic Study, including recommendations for upgrades and /or
replacement, depending on the severity of the seismic restraint deficiencies. As a related task,
the architectural firm of Rice Fergus Miller completed an Architectural Assessnaerat for• ,Seismic
Pr•ograin, for the same selected city facilities.
About This Facilities Plan
Content
This document provides a consolidated list of existing city facilities, facility conditions, and
future facility needs. In addition, the Facilities Plan addresses current, mid -range and future
funding needs to address repairs, upgrades and replacements of city facilities. For the purpose of
this plan, all references to facilities refers only to building facilities not to the broader reference
that refers to all capital facilities which includes water, sewer, storm drains, roads, bridges and
parks.
Several facilities were not included in the above mentioned Seismic Study. Facilities not
evaluated included: Golf /Parks Maintenance Building, Foster Golf Clubhouse, and Fire Station
53. These three buildings are relatively new facilities and were designed and constricted to the
current seismic code. However, Public Works Facilities division does have a list of minor
improvements requiring attention for these facilities, separate from any proposed seismic
retrofits.
-3-
23
24
SECTION 1
Condition of Existing Facilities
25
26
Section 1: Existing Facilities Condition
The 2008 Seismic Study (see Appendix A for the Executive Summary of the Seismic Study)
recommends numerous upgrades and retrofits to existing City facilities, and in some cases
replacement of City facilities where seismic and other upgrades approach the cost of a new
facility.
Immediate Occupancy (IO) is a primary assumption of the 2008 Seismic Study. IO provides for
minimal downtime of buildings which is 1 day or less. Other categories of Performance Based
Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) include Life Safety (LS) with up to 30 days of downtime,
Collapse Prevention (CP) with up to 180 days of downtime, and Collapse which results in debris
removal and potentially reconstruction. Refer to Appendix C of the Seismic Study for a more in-
depth discussion of PBEE.
The 2008 Seismic Study began with the Rapid Visual Screening Procedure revealed that 10 of 11
essential post earthquake City facilities failed seismic evaluation for immediate occupancy. This
means that these 10 facilities would not be habitable, for customers or employees, after a
substantial earthquake. Essential services performed in these buildings would not be provided
during an incident or the recovery period following. Repairs to restore habitability are
anticipated to take from 3 -12 months. Figure A -1 below shows the relative impacts of not
having facilities that provide for immediate occupancy.
oil I I
ON ON
E
L
49
E
V
q N
J
25% 50% 100p /a
1 10 250 Casualties and injuries
(per 1,000)
1 7 30 180
Downtime, days
Figure A -1. Estimated Performance Related Consequences (Moehle, 2003).
27
Lateral Detormatian
W.*
There are many competing demands for not only
minor repairs, but also for major improvements
and upgrades. The annual Facility Improvements
project in the CIP (303 fund) was originally
intended for minor facility repairs and upgrades
that are above and beyond in -house facility
Key Considerations
Safety
Seismic resistance
Structural condition
Architectural assessment
maintenance staff capabilities. The backlog of
minor repairs and upgrades now goes back almost
twenty years. This fund simply cannot keep up with the demand. Previously, the 303 fund was
put on hold pending budget and facility decisions. However, after being on hold for three years,
numerous minor projects were accomplished in 2012. The goal is to attempt not to get any
further behind on critical repairs and upgrades that are beyond our facilities maintenance staff
abilities and legal project limits.
In general, existing facilities have five primary issues that need to be addressed:
1. Seismic Resistance (Safety)
The 2008 Seismic Study (see Appendix A for the Executive Summary) recommends
numerous upgrades and retrofits to existing City facilities, and in some cases
replacements of City facilities where seismic and other upgrades approach the cost of a
new facility.
2. Building System Failures
City Hall and the 6300 Building are examples of aging buildings that have experienced
system failures, including HVAC and glazing. The City Hall's HVAC system has had
several failures and an inability to keep up with peak cooling and heating demands. The
6300 Building's HVAC system has gotten to the point where heating and cooling units
need to be replaced, but the systems are being repaired on a weekly or monthly basis
instead. Upgrading the units at the 6300 Building would also require a roof
replacement, which increases the price exponentially.
3. High Energy Consumption
Most of the older city buildings could save thousands of dollars per year in energy
savings with a short payback period for new windows and heating and cooling systems.
4. High Cost to Fix Deficiencies
The 6300 Building is an example of complicated HVAC deficiencies with a high cost to
fix, similar to City Hall.
5. Inefficient Operations
The Police Department, for example, has staff split between City Hall lower level and
the 2nd floor in the 6300 Building. Public Works shops are operating maintenance and
operations out of two separate undersized buildings and yards (Minkler and George
Long Shops). City Hall staff deal with an inefficient front counter, lack of working and
storage space and a building that is not comfortable to work in.
29
30
SECTION 2
Future Facility Needs
31
32
Section 2: Future Facility Needs
In addition to the serious seismic /safety concerns, city facilities suffer from poor security, lack of
energy efficiency, lack of space, poorly utilized or poorly designed spaces, lack of storage and
wasted space. Functional storage is minimal and nearly non existent with little opportunity to
expand into extra spaces. Surplus from all departments is removed to Facilities Department sites
for disposal, storage or reclaiming at a later date. Many of these items are stored in less than
adequate environments, which adds to the degradation of furnishings or other articles affecting
value and useful life.
Records Storage Center
The current records storage center is housed in a leased 6,651 square feet warehouse space on
East Marginal Way S. Lighting and space currently meet needs for the City Clerk and Police
Department. The lease was signed April 6, 2009 for a 5 -year period (the lease expires in 2014).
The amount budgeted to cover the lease is $96,000 (budgeted in PW Facilities Maintenance).
Police Department Evidence Storage
Police evidence storage is currently stored in 5 locations, the vault located in the PD storage
space off of the sally port, the evidence annex located at 12026 42 Ave S (old fire station No.
53), the fenced yard located at the west side of the George Long Shops, and the Minkler Shops.
The Police Department needs sufficient space to house all critical vehicle evidence storage all in
one location for efficient operations.
Public Works Shops
The George Long and Minkler Shops need to be expanded and consolidated on a site that is large
enough to house all operations and storage. Records and Evidence Storage could be incorporated
into the Public Works City Maintenance facility design. The City Maintenance Facility will also
need to accommodate vactor waste storage, staging, and treatment to remain in compliance with
federal mandates.
6300 Building
City departments in the 6300 Building lacking the most space are DCD, Public Works, and IT.
The IT Department would need at least 1,000 sq. ft. minimum additional space for staging new
and /or recycled computer equipment. Additionally, office space for DCD, IT, and Public Works
is cramped or poorly configured and should be expanded. Both DCD and Public Works lack the
kind of areas needed for viewing large plan sets, maps, and storage of critical files.
Citv Hall Camuus /Community Justice Center
The current front counter layout does not allow for efficient and focused customer service.
Municipal Court have files and vital records that cannot be stored in the City's archives. The
City Clerk has essential file needs as well as the Mayor's office and Finance. The estimate is
approximately 2,000 sq. ft. for both archival purposes and office needs for City Hall's first floor.
-s-
33
34
The Police Department patrol, dispatch and evidence staff are also over crowded in the lower
level of City Hall.
In general, there needs to be a substantial upgrade to City Hall including old outdated cubicle
systems, undersized and antiquated HVAC system, insufficient electrical and communication
conduits and outlets and poor space utilization.
Fire Stations
The Fire Department needs about 40,000 to 50,000 square feet to fully accommodate operations.
The 2008 Fire Study analyzed the relocation of Headquarters Fire Station 51 and recommended
that an additional 27,000 square feet is needed to meet requirements. The proposed Fire Station
in Tukwila South would bring the existing Fire Station 51 (currently 15,000 sq. ft.) to a 42,000
square foot station.
Tukwila Communitv Center
The Community Center suffers from lack of storage space for the various programs as well as
Parks and Recreation administrative staff.
35
36
Section 3
Future Facility Options
I0-
37
W.*
Section 3: Future Facility Options
A number of facility needs should be addressed and funded. The options available to the City are:
OPTION 1— Status Ouo
This option would have significant increased maintenance costs to keep operating. However, the long
term cost impact of doing nothing will have a devastating effect on the City budget. For example, if a
6.7 magnitude quake occurred on the Seattle Fault (e.g. the "Seattle Fault Scenario' studied by EERI:
htta: /www.eeri.ori- /earthquake- scenarios /seattle- fault scenario /l, many of the buildings owned
by the City of Tukwila would either collapse or be rendered useless. Further, the cost of maintaining
these buildings and increasing energy bills would have helped pay for the new facility.
OPTION 2 Seismic and Functional Upgrades Onlv
This option would not constrict any new facilities, but would ensure there is no structural collapse. City
Hall and the 6300 Building would receive major seismic, functional and HVAC /energy upgrades. The
buildings may still not be occupiable after an earthquake. This option provides no room for future
growth of staff and operational areas. For maximum efficiency, a building should be totally vacated
prior to an entire upgrade and retrofit is attempted. Logistically, this could be very expensive and
difficult, with temporary buildings such as modular office spaces. Several options exist at this time,
including potential 1 or 2 year leases of the former King County Housing Section 8 offices on 65 Ave
S (only 11,473 square feet) and the Xerox sales building at 6400 Southcenter Boulevard (35,500 square
feet).
City Hall
$3,000,000
$5,000,000
$1,000,000
$9,000,000
6300 Building
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$9,000,000
Fire Station 51
$200,000
$1,000,000
$300,000
$1,500,000
Fire Station 52
$100,000
$500,000
$400,000
$1,000,000
Fire Station 53
$50,000
$0
$0
$50,000
Fire Station 54
$250,000
$1,000,000
$250,000
$1,500,000
Minkler Shops
$1,000,000
$2,500,000
$500,000
$4,000,000
Geo. Long Shops
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$200,000
$5,200,000
Community Center
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$500,000
$2,000,000
Old FS 53 -front office /vac.
$50,000
$50,000
$100,000
$200,000
Old FS 53 rear garage /PD
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$150,000.
Parks Golf Maint.
$0
$0
$0
$0
Foster Golf Clubhouse
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTALS
700, 000
$5,300,000
$33,600,000
-11-
39
.s
OPTION 3 Twelve Year Plan
This option splits the replacement and upgrades into two phases. Phase 1 includes a new City Hall
Campus and a combined City Maintenance Facility. The City Hall Campus concept envisions a new
facility to be constructed in between Southcenter Boulevard and the existing City Hall. The new City
Hall Campus would have to be four to six stories tall, depending on setbacks, building footprint, soils,
and structural limitations.
City Hall Campus /Community Justice Center
Design $2,000,0001 $1,000,000
Permits $1,000,000'
Construction $10,500,000 $17,000,000
Const. Mgmt
(CM) $1,650,000 $1,850,000 $35,000,000
City Maintenance Facility
Design $1,250,000
Land /Permits $5,000,000 $500,000
Construction $8,500,0001 $1,000,000
CM $1,350,0001 $150,000 $17,750,000
TOTALS: $8,250,000 $24,500,000' $20,000,000
12
42
Relocated FS_51
Design
$800,000
Permits
$250,000
Construction
$4,000,000
$5,800,000
CM
$600,000
$700,000
$12,150,000
TCC Seismic Retrofits
Design
$500,000
Permits
$100,000
Construction
$1,000,000
$5,500,000
CM
$500,000
$1,500,000
$9,100,000
INew FS 52
Design
$750,000
$400,000
Permits
$200,000
$300,000
Construction
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
CM
$200,000
$300,000
$550,000
$7,200,000
jEmergency Operations Center
Design
$2,000,000
Permits
$1,000,000
Construction
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,0001
CM
$600,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$13,400,000
FS 54 Upgrades
Design
$500,000
Permits
$650,000
Construction
Construction
$1,500,000
I
CM
_____________________________.l
$500,000'
$3,150,000
TOTALS:
$15,000,000
$15,000,000
$15,000,000
While Option I may seem to be the least cost option, it would only be temporary. If the "big one" hits,
the cost of replacing all facilities at once could be devastating, even with partial FEMA and other
reimbursement. Option 2 may provide the quickest results, but the City would still not have any room
for future growth. Option 3 is the most realistic solution that spreads the nearly $100 million need over
twelve years for an approximate average annual impact to the General Fund in the range of $2 million to
$4 million per year.
-13-
FIN
p
Section 4
Funding for Future Facilities
.r.
Section 4: Funding for Future Facilities
Currently, no funds have been allocated to any major facility upgrade, renovation or
replacement. Several funding options are available to fully fund future facility needs, including:
City funds
Energy Savings
Surplus Properties
Bond funds
Citv Funds
Grant funds
Maintenance Savings
Levy Lid Lift
Tax Increment Financing
Current and future City funds are not adequate to fund the estimated $85 million in needs for
new and renovated City Facilities. However, energy and budget savings in the general fund could
pay all or part of the debt service for bonds. Half of the new City Maintenance Facility could be
paid for by the utility funds (water, sewer and surface water), the other half by the general fund
(streets, facilities and equipment rental).
Grant Funds
Grants are not typically available for building facilities. Occasionally there are opportunities for
emergency facilities, however, most of these grants go to larger agencies that serve smaller
cities.
15
!M
.rim;
Enerizv Savinizs
New buildings will save a minimum of $200,000 per year in utilities costs. See the following
tables with forecasts of savings (Building Utility Expenditures and Facility Utility Expenses).
The new buildings should be built to LEED standards that require a high level of energy
efficiency. The savings over a twelve year design and constriction cycle can be estimated
conservatively at $2.4 million. The $200,000 savings per year could be used for bonded
improvements worth up to $2.5 million per year.
Maintenance Savinzs
New buildings will save the city over $100,000 per year in deferred maintenance. For example,
the annual cost to maintain/repair the City Hall and 6300 Building HVAC systems averages
$50,000 in labor, equipment and material costs.
Surplus Properties
Constriction of a new Maintenance Facility will allow the surplus sale of the Minkler Shops,
George Long Shop, and Old Fire Station 53. The new Maintenance Facility will require
sufficient land area (more than 6 acres) to accommodate records and evidence storage, as well as
normal operations and vactor waste staging. This will also save the cost of leased storage,
currently budgeted at $96,000 per year. The surplus properties could net about $6 million, and
the twelve year savings for leased records storage would amount to over $1 million.
Bond Funds
The City's current bonding capacity would allow for an incremental bond issuance with careful
analysis. The current estimate for annual debt service is 7 to 9% on a 15 -year or 20 -year pay off
(20 -year is lower interest than 15- year). For example, a $1,000,000 bond would have about
$80,000 in annual debt service for a 15 -year pay off. The Tukwila Urban Center Access
(Klickitat) L.I.D. No. 33 will pay the City of Tukwila back $8,400,000, which could be used in
part to pay some of the debt service over time.
F Pe
50
Lease /Lease Buvback
Authorized by RCW 35.42.010 -220, the City could solicit for developers on City owned property
by means of a lease leaseback Request For Proposals (RFP). This statute provides that the
leaseback to the City "shall contain terms as agreed upon by the parties and sets forth a public
private partnership. This lease method has been used by the City of Redmond (City Hall
Campus) and King County (Goat Hill Properties), and many more. This is commonly referred to
as "63 -20 financing based on the IRS Revenue Ruling 63 -20.
Ref.: htta: /www.tre.wa.i- /documents /sfc 63- 20Studv.adf
Levv Lid Lift
A levy increase would require voter approval to increase the amount of property tax levied.
Ref.: htta: /www.mrsc.ori- /finance /levvlidlift.asax
Tax Increment Financing
Tax increment financing has specific limitations and requirements by RCW:
Ref.: htta: /www.mrsc.orL, /econ /ed- revitalization.asax
Creative Financiniz
Ref.: htta: /www.mrsc.orL, subiects /econ /ada- afdfinancinL,
-17-
51
52
Appendix A
Seismic Study Executive Summary
Seismic Study Evaluation Summaries
-is-
53
54
Appendix B
Architectural Assessment Summary
55
56
Appendix C
Cost Estimates
57
PW61
MW
Appendix D
Floor Plans
59
M-1 1
Appendix E
Plan Schedule and Related Articles
61