Loading...
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?