The URL can be used to link to this page

9 a&b - Joint Use Maint FacilityJoint Use Maintenan%0%., . %A%0111%. r Site Selection Public Works Department Parks Department 3/7/2023 1 Policy Question Should Council approve an ordinance selecting the preferred site for the Joint Operations and Maintenance Facility and authorize related property acquisition? Background Information • June 2016—Project Needs Identification • 2018-2019 — Site Needs Review • May 2020 — Authorization of Planning and Feasibility • May 2021—Confirmation of site selection criteria • May 2021— February 2022 due diligence on potential property acquisition • May 2022 — Update on final site selection evaluation and next steps • July 2022 — Selected preferred site, initiated due diligence Background Information Site Initial Review Work (May 2021 — February 2022): • Reviewed City owned parcels and both on and off market parcels • Ranked findings and determined there are 3 viable locations • Completed initial review of parcels including: — Analyzing a Title Report — Analyzing recorded documents and covenants • Presented ranked findings to Council • Reviewed additional locations identified by Councilmembers • Selected and advanced a preferred alternative Due Diligence of Preferred Alternative • Began looking at environmental constraints: — Wetlands and wetlands buffers — Geotechnical requirements — Utility needs • Began working through outside Agency requirements and constraints • An unrecorded site restriction was discovered • Project is feasible, but would add both cost and timeline to the project • Evaluation of if preferred alternative was still the best choice Due Diligence Updated Base Cost Summary: ion — Land / Mitigation TOTAL )gram Costs i I $32 M $13.1 M $45.1 M $34 M $7.6 M $41.6 M All options include space for fleet maintenance, fueling, and future expansion for a decant facility, signal shop and sign shop. Above budget is for base program. Fleet maintenance and fueling are included in all program sites. Alternative Site Selection • Re -reviewed the previous site selection work • Re -reviewed the previous Council suggested locations • Reviewed if new parcels had come to market • No new viable alternatives identified Site 1— Expansion of Existing Site King County 22 17 917 tj�p749243 9dKo 9 95608 44 rn • 21102n 0 0 l.! ¢ 2. 62 �2 0 s .93, 0 5 47 i231�48510P 160016 '43 L�66u1910 0�4 0 0 rr 96 P 339Stee ake02Park p o 0(Wo19 0495 to i / ao 6{) y 2) DW2640C a Q 17 563,4�a 1 - o5o0i30� 5 1B[17p1 pB.D1 IB_fi7831 a 60�62n1�Q�6TI 71-. �' IDg�b 31fl DD oa Proposed Expansion Area 01= i i Jff !3 `3�1D1$31 30 1 453106162 9 N !!o o 013 �� E9 01f15 ]a .1 �.Q! 1. u 3 0YI_.,y.��Y i3 0os ^� 20 01:j61 0le,i�b0 1 91 1 31165� 3 ANZ0 0 0143R411 - 9P2 01 Oslo §i1•?3� 2� G 932410 �3 3 Existing O&M Facility 0 312�0 `31220 � f `2645 0i 12 20 122 I 9022 rWIG 120Q ,�i King Cwnty sse sgp�S'C7ffYLq King County IS Center, King COLInty, King county 9171 Assessars0 ce, in Cou. GIS me ntormauonIn weon— map Ins Dean oom0lae oy-gcourm snnhpna ra-lery o1 source sale Is 4-m-0n xiVa[uinotice. King County maNesm rePesartativna or xafreai%, 6nprc66 orlmpiea,asbdcuJrdcy wmga[en6ss,[mefn%s, N a yeas roae wee aecn.m.s�.rl:s avNreaa �m ine�aea ra eee was rveaw+-K;,ecw^N sv�a tie iabeL9 W ary general, apa<xai, narect imeaaal, ercnixaryaenoai aamag� �rruaarq, bu na rmlmem, ioa� rareivaer nn pmAn reWaryr frem u�a use tr msu ea dtb3 iMormervn rm�aima m rv:s mom. tby sate d tts m� orin�mationonrl.s mep �a pMbM escephyw�aee--dKegGwNv- KmgCoumy Date: 31112923 Site 3 — NE Corner lst Ave and 320th King :..:.:...........:.....■■............ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ mom ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■iitaI■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Proposed Location oQ r2032 �3 21pp51 0010 9459%20UI .0320 `32 70 �«4�17 3 2Qp° 32 301105 CL 421 0P}0 �32114 � 12 r�P4z1*S416a t3 t12 3p11�' 3 020 0000 312s17�4T5O6u104 0A 'aw at3p2,St112 412123 King County Assessor's Office, King County GIS Center, King County King county i429 r431 S 120 t A Sb5'S47H�C�, KiS�ErnmtP�lattnte brndlon inm.dao on rna map nda seen �amarae pv wngcmrnr marromn a ��rialy m amy�a ar,a ie swam n m�rga xilhalnnace.%ing CouMymakezmrepaeNatimsoru®neitiae, depress or'imri'iai,asbmwacy, mnpdaraes,imefm�e, N a rgrys 4� 11� yse d sYSM1 INprr19§M. TM1s dow�N a nd inentlea br use as a ewe/ ➢rc4u2 �re Cw+Ry shall net be ladeLQ In arty general. zpemal, ndr.ct IndaeNal, armreaWenttal danaBae inmudr®, D V net fMlleab, {ozl rxerues or hd pmfiR iezdGrp frwn Na use [r meuee d the irtormetun cwdarea m tliz mep. Any sale d Miz mep orintameGonon INs mep is preM1bael deep trf wnHan permstimW IGig GwNy. uaW: 9n12023 King County Comparison of Options Site 1 Pros Expansion of -Compatible with existing use existing -Minimal natural environment impacts -1-5 / light rail on one side -Simpler relocation of existing facility Site 3 1st and 320t" -No impacts to existing developed use -Good arterial access -Centered in the City -Proximity to City Hall Cons - Site is not level -Construction Staging -Apartments to south -Increased number of parcels to acquire -Wetlands impacts -Residential use surrounding, increased neighbor impacts -Lost opportunity for other development -Significant frontage improvements required Options Considered 1. Option 1: Adopt the proposed ordinance selecting site 1, expanding the existing operations and maintenance facility to the north and authorize related property acquisition. 2. Option 2: Adopt the proposed ordinance selecting site 3, relocate the operations and maintenance facility to 1st and 3201" and authorize related property acquisition. 3. Do not adopt the proposed ordinance(s) and provide direction to staff. Mayor's Recommendation Option 1: Adopt the proposed ordinance selecting site 1, expanding the existing operations and maintenance facility to the north.