9d - Joint Use Maint Facility Site SelectionJoint Use Maintenance Facility
Site Selection
Public Works Department
Parks Department
7/5/2022
1
Policy Question
Should council select the preferred site for the
new Joint Use Operations and Maintenance
Facility and authorize $250,000.00 in
expenditures from unallocated capital
improvement funds to advanced preliminary
design?
Project Need — Size and Function
Inefficient
Multiple
Existing
locations
ash- Point Sate
ark Ranger Statmr-
z k�
O&M Facilities and
Storage
-WK' -L
r4L'J-
I:L,:,- 00d Li,!rden
Ana'
Lakeland
� North
S LakyRrk
a-' L
KI I}LtiIlY-�1
fi
PacifH: eonsai MOS.eunn
West Hyl+�hos
Wetlands FFark
Q4—Wild Vdaw� Theme t
and water Park
ell nl•r L•�v YL'4' ',i
f
Goc gle
Project Need — Size and Function
Equipment
and Material
Access
LOSS OF UP TO 1-
HOUR PER CREW
MEMBER PER DAY.
(PRE-COVID)
P rn -1 F
=us
•
d d
777
At
_._y=�,��,\ `mot,,; • �iw_
t
r
5
Project Need - Security
• In the past 3 years:
—17 break-ins
— Over $250,000 equipment lost /damaged
— Estimated over 600 crew hours lost due to break-
ins.
Project Need — Asset Protection
• Materials and equipment left uncovered /
unprotected.
— Theft and Vandalism.
• Catalytic converters; batteries; fuel; etc.
— Maintenance issues.
• Hydraulic systems — freeze damage; sun damage (e.g.
cracked hoses).
• Rain — water getting where it is not supposed to be (e.g. fuel
tanks, filters)
— Reduction of lifespan estimated at 5% to 35% (higher
reduction for smaller equipment not designed to be outside when not
in use).
Background Information
• May 2021-Briefed council on programming results.
• Confirmed criteria for site selection.
• May 2021 — February 2022:
— Finalized site evaluation report.
— Completed due diligence on potential property
acquisition.
• May 2022 —Update on final site selection report and
outline next steps.
• June 2022 —Select preferred site.
Current & Future Staff Count
STAFFING TABLE
0112M 1
Des0 Lion
Current
Future
Streets FTE
10
15
Streets - Seasonal
6
6
Traffic - FTE
.01
4
SVVM - FTE
I
10
SWM - Seasonal
6
5
SWM - Inspection—
3
4
Parks - FTE
16
32
Parks - Seasonal
21
30
Fleet - FTE
1
Operations Manager'
0
1
Admin Assistant":
0
1
Construction Ins ectors"
5
6
TOTALS 75 118
Programming
Current Vehicles and Equipment List
Mane
Monr06
Monroe
Pelee it
Pmgm&IL
PaUemit
Scbr Tgdi
Stier Teal
Sobr Tgdi
Sorer Tacit
SWr Tcr*
rl
Sd�r Tacit
oranaon
31cr1ng Mark
Swenson
$Wnnwn Spr+
Swef*on spro
Tenon
Ti{1er Marren
Ford
SP1*8der
I 213M
PW
ST. SL
2
N4
WA
V-Hopper Sander
2013
PVP
5T- SL
2
NO
WA
V-Hopper Sender
UO 5Yd Dump
9d4 SYd Lump
36r id YD Dump
M82-!L,R-1548
2015
PW
ST- SL
2
NG
WA
20GB
Pyp
ST- SL
2
NO
A6274D
2009
PW
ST- M
2
NO
@75WE
2006
PVP
ST- SL
2
NO
A510D
2015
FW
$T- 5L
2
NG
589W5
MB2-0W 548
2015
PW
87 - SL
2
NO
539640
'd924L1?o1 W
20115
PW
ST- SL
2
NO
589mo
M62-0,1648
2016
PW
ST- 9L
2
NO
58W65
M@21R-1 }I$
201$
PVd
ST .%
2
NO
.59741ID
M62-LR-1548
2015
PW
ST- SL
2
NO
507820
boat
A11950ppvn11;
EX-10D-ld-54 SS
1994
PW
ST- 9L
2
NO
15920o
200.1
PUJ
.ST -SL
2
No
125541D
1993
PW
ST- 9L
2
NO
WA
Sgirbcw
2M
PUJ
ST•51.
2
NO
WA
Steel
26172
PW
ST- 5L
2
N4
I"
TC-12"-42
2002
PYv
ST- SL
2
NO
WA
Bengal Brute
2RW
PW
ST- SL
2
NO
WA
CPS195K04T4
20%
PVv
ST- SL
58"b
F-4504)A
2013
PW
sWM=SL
55D471D
Net Area
13,500
5,280
5,280
5,280
2,800
2,800
2,800
2,400
Programming - Summary
• 10 —12 acre site (assuming flat site)
• Operations and Maintenance Building
— Staff offices, crew rooms, lunch / muster area,
training /conference room space, locker rooms
• Shop
• Parking
• Covered and Open Storage
Programming — Summary (cont'd)
• Identified Needs
— Fleet maintenance
— Fueling
— Traffic Signs
— Traffic Signals
Property Search - General
• Criteria
— West side of 1-5 and centralized to City:
• Between S 304t" Street and S 348t" Street
• Between 11t" Ave SW and 28t" Ave S
— Land use — ideally compatible with surroundings
— Property impacts— minimize impacts to surroundings
— Opportunity Cost (Tax impacts)
• Existing site
• City properties
• 10-11 acre parcels —hard to come by.
• Consolidate multiple — hard to come by and more
costiv.
Property Search -Boundaries
r�� 7
Fred Meyer
v�r�tia�,ds = t:r
PowelfsWood
Federal Way
Lakelar��
!Noah
peeI
L� ePark
�h;IldWaves T
and Water Pa
15 minute travel
time west city
limits to 1-5.
15 minute travel
time south city
limits to north
city limits.
Site 1— Existing Site + more
PROS
-Existing Use
-Minimal natural
environment
impacts
-1-5 one side
CONS
-Property purchase
($8-$10 M)
-Site is not level
-Construction
sta
-Apartments to
south.
~r __FT
12� FUTURE EXPANSION
j 810 F �f / S13 AREA
so
Al
C�
If
1 1 + + 1
s. f IF
1 r 1+ 7+ f B2 EXPANDED SITE TO
j 1 + yy� + f r 12.0 ACRE
NEW SOUND TRANSIT
r !wLi0mT RAIL ROUTE
i B3
64
-! 0
76— ! +-T I —I
A3 $B
81 0r ij
Pi
_FXISTING SITE
[El AQARTMENTS LANDSCAPE BUFFER
Site 2 - City Property South of 312th
• City owned
property
• Flat site
Compatible
surrounding land
use (school to
south)
CONS
Mitigate loss of
park amenities.
STEEL LAKE PARK
LANDSCAPE BUFFER �r
ALONG STREET FRONTAGE } S. 712ch STREET
(E) HISTORICAL
SOCIETY BUILDING I I \ d I E!1Y
Pi8P2
ICT
q+` PSI � ae BH
4WNE OF8D FT. I I � HI
TLANO BUFFER FiS J I I w
I f 1 I jM n (E) SOCCER FIELD
am
AREA REPRESENTS A r ,
NACRE SITE.
• I ; P3Hi"
sis i
I
I _ I 82 I MF��,
---
�
_ I
Ise
1 I I 511 PS ------ 11
l\ 555 A I
LJ Li Li Li C— si s? ss �___I 5-. '
Site 3 — Undeveloped Private Property
PROS CONS
• No impacts to existing developed
• $16+ M property cost.
use.
• Wetland mitigation required.
• Residential use surrounding.
• Good arterial access •
Loss opportunity for other
development.
Pi I IAd -J C--_-- Li Li Li LI
_ HH '
.B6
a1
vF � 11 �
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
E_________________-----------------
:L_� C-----------=--
:S I
GAWN
A3 38 - - T TSi� y 31 iREIJll7
S13 I I��'�I I 11
111 1 I I �
i -
.... .......... ..... .. ... .......... .. .. .. ... _.. -...._ ... i20T
......-_�..y..� ... -_ ._.-_....._ ... ... .-.. .. ... qyF—..- -_ ..--..._... -_ ._ .... ....._ .. _ .-... ._.....-�
H r T
Construction
— Current
Program*
SITE 1:
Existing Site —
Expand to
North
SITE 2: Steel
Lake Park
Annex
SITE 3: Private
Property
U ndevelope
Nit 1 11 CA 9M
Land / TOTAL COST DIFF.
Mitigation FROM
Costs PREFERRED
b6 ALTERNATIVE
17
Preferred Site — Site 2
• Least cost — city owned property.
• No property acquisition / displacements.
• Level site.
• Easy construction staging away from existing
operations.
• Compatible surrounding use / buffer.
• Mitigatable park impacts.
Alternative Sites
After last Council meeting, heard concerns about the preferred site. Since then have looked
at acquiring alternative sites. All costs are acquisition only, not mandatory relocation of
businesses, negotiated concessions, demolition of existing improvements, etc.
Previously reviewed private property (not available)
• Sold for $15 million = $31 / sf
Site east of 1-5
• Bank appraised at $29 million = $40 / sf
Eastwind Area (Parcel Combination)
• Parcel combination appraised at $22,123,600
• Expected combined sale value $73 million = $119/sf
3361" Parcel Combination
• Bank appraisal $28.7 million = $44 / sf
All options would escalate the
total project costs to $60.7
million to $106 million
I �00 0��� �
19
ir
Proposed Mitigation
LANDSCAPE &UPPER $. ]12ch STREET
-r ALONG STREET FRONTAGE
k HISTORICAL S T P2 gam+ — �-
SOCIETY BUILDING
P18.P2
gs a71 H
OUTLINE OF 80 FT. I
WEYLANIT BUFFER Fi3 I U I
II I
+ I LJ I I I I 04 IE1 SOCCER HEW
�t¢ AREA RESENTS A
IID ACREEPRSITE. 1 I I I I B3 I I II
�* �► ,I s03 I I I I !
II
1 1
- 1 1 1 I i ER ! I II
LJ
JI � — ,- E --
1
ISd 1 j k11
STEEL LAKE PARK 1 �' I I I I IF
IIII Stl I a3-------� II
ICJ J ii J E _ _ J�
�..� .. — •- — — — — — — — --� —•
S15 `jl Al r
LJ Ll-W �_ Si 52 53 �55� 512
,)
�J
Parking
Maintained
/ Added
Skate Park
Replacement
Perimeter
Walking Path
Baseball Field
Mitigation
Proposed Mitigation
• Skate Park Replacement
• Tentatively proposed across street to
���• minimize impacts
• Upgraded to current safety and design
_J
standards
Perimeter Walking Path on)
Improve activation of the area
Provide a Park amenity that doesn't exist today
• Baseball Field Mitigation
• Consolidate field maintenance
requirements
• Improve lighting and features to increase
Proposed Mitigation
Field Usage
$3,140.00
542
M�
7
$2,890.00
512
$1,815.00
321
w
0
0
$5,324.00
621
2021 —Revenue
increase due
to regional select
March — May teams paying the outside of Federal Way rate
• Steel Lake Little League has been the historical user for Steel Lake fields 1 and 2.
• Decline in numbers, and use of South County fields, has led to a decline in usage during
this time.
March — September
• Tournament overflow — Weekends with youth tournaments at Celebration Park we also
reserved Steel Lake Park.
• Averages five weekends a year that Steel Lake 1 and 2 are booked for overflow.
March — September
• Booked sporadically Usage fluctuates each year based on needs and user groups.
OcI1156r — February
• Fields Closed
Proposed Mitigation
M
• Approximately 110 proposed,
public access, spaces
• Frontage improvements
along 281" to increase safety
-Am�
• 56 existing parking spaces
• Overflow parking for soccer
occurs, illegally, on 28t" Ave S
and creates safety problems
LANDSCAPE BUFFER- S, ilt[h STREET
IFI HLSTORICAL
SOCIETY BUILDING-
tL
�P2TJ6
t�
!
{
II
C= a P2
— ��P1
�.
a+LAP BO FT
5P3i I i
E.
B7 t I � l I lT}IIJE
fl 11
W FTI AND B4 Fr FR\
�...«
I I !
95
UI
!
I / I
SOCCER HELD
ARFA REPRESENTS A
IZBACRESITF.
•I $13
+
- -- i P3{---I
I I
.
I E +
III+
-
H2
! II 7
ILA-_—
Options Considered
1. Select "Site 2" (SW corner of S 312th Street and 28th
Ave S) as the preferred location for the new Joint Use
Operations and Maintenance Facility and authorize
$250,000 in expenditures from unallocated capital
improvement funds (Fund 401 and Fund 306) to
advance preliminary design.
2. Select alternative site as the preferred location for the
new Joint Use Operations and Maintenance Facility
and authorize $250,000 in expenditures from
unallocated capital improvement funds (Fund 401 and
Fund 306) to advance preliminary design.
Mayor's Recommendation
Option 1: Select "Site 2" as the preferred
location for the new Joint Use Operations and
Maintenacne Facility and authorize $250,000-00
in expenditures to advance preliminary design.
Questions?