HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-29-2007CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
WASHINGTON
October 29, 2007 5:00 PM
Council Chambers
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION
I. AEP/Green Zone Presentation by Mithun Architects
II. Downtown Redevelopment Update by Berk & Associates
III. Jail Task Force Recommendations
IV. Retreat Format
V. Sound Transit Parking Spaces
OTHER ITEMS MAY BE DISCUSSED BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.
NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL ON ANY ITEM DURING A
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING.
Page 1
�
Y b .14 : �� �I
� ' J ��(a�„ '.�t i r �
' � 'VA �� � 5 i{ i � t .:`'� Y ,
�- F'` c���� �a , � 9�YHr ���' �0 � � ,�� � �._ ' � . �� � � �'�
r �
�4[•s ��r���' ������ �C7� ,� ��� '� ���� ��� �. �. . �# � � ����9. .t�"`�� � '.�i . .,�`.
!�n �;(T �t� l .. �'i' ` i S i�j 'i .s�. � i: � j� - >fi t J:'X
� � Fw � g-� � � ,� � -� ,� �
� � . > e t � -�r s � � -s�c: � ,
.� ` ' ' >� �L . t /.r 4 � cv i .. � +',d '� 4A,'L r
� Y � Fl �a -.r � d�e^� a� !'ILY��: __ �! .
I � t � S �� �V�� �� ��
! y �., ' �1 {� �`��� �°' Rt 't�', . . +e -. ^i..
I i�(� . ti�':'S � .=� _ _ � � -_�_»
-j5-'�4`.'� y���,. -- 5 �,�s�,�b_^ "� ��� � - `;l� � `�� �.i p. .
K � � -�� — > � fil i ' �- .i � � �' rx
� � �
-1 ._$, �-s' < i.-`. � � � � ' � ' �
e-,� � � �' � 1 y - � � �� ��, ~ � � . ��� - _
�« -+� a t I � � � , s � , ���'�
!' j � ��
, �r� � A� .��t x i .;� ���� ia , � - }°tF�F 'r F: �i�` � �_ �` B�'�:
.
� � �" !I
t,Z� �-,� � � ,..�� � .r�;,� . i�� , � - . " �� , ;� `'� _��
�` - � ?_ ��t_ � �;'����1�d y , �i � � � i,�i r - � �
J try�Y�
u� J r ti 1 < t ` � �� �� � �. � �-� �.��� � .
� � � . ��` � w �k- � ���
- �� j y : � :'� ,a a .�a:: � !� , r'.�i � �4�� YY� .'
l -�� � �����'{h � `�i' 'rts _��� �� -y�.�p�i Ili'_ � t. }.. � YI xc '��'��.
�, ��? ;� i vx�� ��.� . �• _ ,..S4,+sw '.if�;'9Zg$1-'a��'s� � �� t
1
i .:� :'��t � ~ -{`-�e , � - -'� A � .. �" t;..
��:_1 ," -f'}''/�. .$,ys�� __� � ��l �,.''i- -a _ . . .. _.
�G` . `�;iCK` af^i* !'„c,p• C`� ! nnn,liwa�,_ ��-.
0
� ������ ��'�1��� T. � - � � � / ' - ��'
C'.�, � -f .-`✓.�e. � i`� '� Cr � u - - x _ � i / _ .—____ il
_� 6lit�!' �ya �-�n �� ��u ,�_� ; 4� u �;GtlV`ii �:ekiu � u�:a���� �°�ia";^; '����1"ICt , - , ;,_�
, ,� �.o :
m��n� PrQ���c# �res�en#atiQ�
ATuBu�v
-
W.�H�N�TON M I T H U N
City of Auburn ��noF , _ ,
Dave Baron, Economic Development Manager /�T T�T Tn �T
Aaron Nix, Environmental Protection Manager l ll� L� 11LV
Ashley Riggs, GIS & Database Manager wnsxwcTON
Design team GVA Kidder Mathews
Mithun
GVA Kidder Mathews
MITHUN
-����-� _-;._
,
- ;. -
l � .�.il �� - _ '. d, i�r�l. 4- '� . �M�
, �.:., � a . ♦µ � � � •,1d a
_ �4 '+ ,t'i R.+� �' {�'yl�� r 1• ��
`*' ,.. � i . ,r�;r � � _k.'��
•, yy �
I �`�,�� 4''�te$5��. , V!`` .._�4�y,
� w/ �� x1 b � 1,�1
. �" � • ,.. w ���p` .
. . \1 A� � �` �y� ;'�
i
�k�1 ::I� t '. " iY ia ..t�� dy�
t
�r_ -7 � �f'�� .t
� r d. \�. -� 1 � ` ' k � I � 6�� s . :
�y'� �.- , -.� .� .. �, ` T 8��g-i •�.
" �� �s t ., ,, if ��`� �� � i .. ` p ",T1F+f,�� ,� '��� _ �Y. `�' '� � �� '
�� 1 `:`+ � Y�. -!, r '
5, a f` �� . �4. Y� tA � 1 l'.l'��' ,_ IRf� � ��A �'��t �� ^ .: $�s�f'
- A � �
I�. c P . . � Y, I�P � �°T �� y`� P yt,r ° �.
. . . ' �
i�� � - - �,'�: ��,
�> - - - -- __�n:..�= ' }
R�!— �
_ :__�uw� _. f _ ��� �! rfityFea..l
X � ` � ��(�
+!{!�.
+\tit'
Acknowledc�erneiit
'
R��k�rour�d - .;,;
1'he €nvironm�rnE�F�erk �Sistrict(�I'b)wae edopted ky the ' F ' �
city in August, 200�. :{�. �
L'. .''�!
EPp objective&: ='o�r.
• Guide th� redev�lopment of uses in proximity to the A� �" ; ,
that benefit from that location and will oomplement tMe -��
park and its environmental focus.
•Allow use� focuaed on medical, biotech and "green" ,
t�;chnologf�s; including energy conservation, ' . -
progressive engineering, water quality, and similar
issues.
• IncorRoration ofi sustaineble design antl green � "�
construction pracklces. t
. ,; ::
�It� �,x�
.�
• 270 acre, EPp located west of AubUm's downtQwn area. � �'
�� . f
• EPD bounded by State Route 167 on th� W��t, �t�te - ,� �,
_ T••.:.
Route 18 on the South, 15t1� St. NW oh the North, & the
Union Paaific Railroad fracks on the �ast. `'��M1 , � �"
• EPb ineludes the Auburn Environmental Park, several r
industrial parks& warehouse/manufacturing businesses, •{
& single family residences. r� • �'
;�
�.a �
� ,�. ���.
Mithun team tasks ':�. � I� ' t '
,�.
• Identifiy redevelopment opportunities ���<<
• Site selection for Interpretive enter
�
• Interpretive Center Conceptual Design
' Introduction
1 MITHUN
;Xx,�.�.:�.' '
Mix of commercial, � � �l� � �= ,� ; ,i�' '
light industry, & �� r + � � .` " , '
single family residential � ' � �' �- � z ' `
< < .-. . ..�,......�..
�.. , �-. �
� �: �
_��� xY
,�
� �.`�:�
< ir
� i � � j a � q .._.
yv`����`�'�-. ' ' � ' � �
Ll.i� .�. y,e .
'}`' .� �aS:,., - .� �i -
,� i�`'
��' � •a�',� - . � �
�t+, Y�A: _
4 °� � �•�` � _ _
��tr�. . _'�'�
`/+�J"y,>c; I � ..�� ��. .. _
I� •5� • 1�
K
�� ! ;�
I l �Y �� � � 1 j1'}�� ���:.
f ` ( }
� � E � • �
Light Industry � . �-� *� �`�':
R �� ,e
��� �
Sub Station �`�`�t . �i`
l��.F,��, -
f � , i
r ._- , ,�.
Residential ��'� •` � (
,s<.�`y'� �', ,,,�� .;�
Public & Quasi Public � �
Ooen Spar.e
� •
i -
i t� � "
�.� ���a
�^ i; ' 4�_ r 4 '{`�
� ".�`�'.40'�-��y''•"aw��e4'✓+Y ,�:.i �yy�I�'1' -x"''�w�-~ �'��y 3,�I�p.?e�-r � � ��j,,� �G�I
� ��`.�
u e; � =i' �o
, r-
�� ,�,��, � - ���t� :�,. . ,:, . , 'c` ��.' a.�.�.�._.� ::ar ,� a
.,
�"�k�. . :x'.0 .'�,a«_. . ..,.,na , r..;.�:,.:�,►. .. .._.. : � � _ . : '_. :� .'. . . .,':i . . '}_ ,. .
_ _ �
� 'a ; ' . 'y1, .s .
iw. ,. ..� . . -. ' . . . . � �,
• ' _ . r . . �'3� + ,p . � .a � P � '+
.`� "�.U� ��� k �j,� 1'33'
� _ x 4 4 �- � �°^�c
4_- � �4nbc ���,. �.L : � k �;h .� '�:. `,`� r " " t .�r�$�; „�� ��" �'s
- ' L:� . r ' �v'��'S j�� �
�.� . . w9cF �: �.
''�� §'�1'-'.`L E ' S IY � �Y +�
., ��5 a� � � _ . V�� � :. ... _ . .ya� _ �+'� .�
._ . '_ ,.I � �il�'�f4�-� � ^Y� ��.� 1 �,-+"r�-- � __ ���yll�
�
�ti
* . ; _x�.l: e
I � - ='� r
�''ICf� .. . ,..Y .�.� � +'f� '�tr . C. '� 1 ,� [. Y.J� '. h-�
�� r,+y
_�' � . . @� i ._� . .
i ���_ " �
y �;� 4���4'. � �� - :�'. . �_. �- _
. —. ___—_ ._� ���� l4�� r — � .�li±��l�_�`..�
Auburn Environmental Park wetland Railroad and interurban trail at East
� e s r
� `�
i'� �i
-- �..,. � ..�. yi;�"r' ' �;,� :�� u� `. . ` . _,. ' ��n9����� �- s,��.
� ,�� +' � � �. .
.�, :� �
:�- +�-� �� �a�,i� � _ _ � . C ^ t e .:� ��.
�.------ 'r
�;
. �. . =
_ . .t'.�. � _ .� °�'�'' �� -'---
_., e,, Y�IC' .� .. . _._ ' .- _ � _
. .}, � _ ���'
a
.
� ,
�. '� I r--' ` . . � - _ -- -� - -
�
. , k.: ._�- .
�` ��
� = � � ��" �- i �.�l�u �, � - � _
� . � ,
.
_ - _ � _ -
_
�"�•• ,-I _ . `� :ct+
_ _ ,�.
i�._ �
Existing industrial parks and warehouse/manufacturing business
� � • •
, ,.
:.� ' _ 'r 4:'
F I�i•. �h�f.-`�i _.. � � � �' -� Y � .. a� I ,
__�1��� � ���� � � � ���. —.� � � � .r.� '�� _"
� ' -�- . � - �.
.
� —\ ... � . - . - �. . o '"�a.. ,� ,
-- ����' --.r
�- :i cr< R- ._.. �
�.�.s=::_ -
♦
x �� . ���' `
r
� ,�1a ��. ` �� � ��
�'�l =� _ r
: �'�;., ��.,��T �����. ,' . � �:� �::� ,
i _� , �` =i • innu�r� � ,
���;+-; ��' j �('' _ _ i'� - .'M.''t'�'.-..►�_ . h. ! �_ .�'-_. ., - .
���. r _ Q-� � �_� _
' s' \ r - -4
I � � f
�I � , . •�� L�-
. . - . . , i. _f_..:F. .. �. . . L J�� ..
Single family residences adjacent to existing business and vacant parcels
- " • •
� • � � . ' •
Purpose of the Assignment I E ,
Evaluate the development and redevelopm R � ' ,. , i'" � -i? ` ,
� , '._ .
o p p o rt u n i t i e s f o r t h e A u b u r n E n v i r o n m e n t ,,. ; � � �;,,,;, �,,, �"
# i
Park District. R{M1, ` `r ` ' i - . ..
R, : '` ' rrr, i�' �
� � INiGRUR6-U�TR.41L ,
. 1� , R'� •m'.•• tiR-Ih' � ��l'llll'U�IU� R�11 0.��\1� .
Auburn EPD overview R• - ` � ; 1 � aybW�' . m :. �t' ...
— r 1 � ,,�T,. ,i.�. ._._ _._. ...,
— Current market conditions " � ' °
_ � , �'.— � � � . ,
_ � ay I TARGGT •A.•, �� � ` , ^„ �
_ EPD redevelopment potential , � ���u�ve�orh�eNr.,��zi ,�- ��=f � �� '� s ° : m �
�,, ,�,�.�, t � • .
� # .
�
= aj a , �� r .,�.:s �OWNip)5'NAUIfIJRN
_ Conclusions R. ;�' � � y ; _ _ : e � � s � F :
� _ � $ � � ; �
r � i ' _
_ �'� , �' � . a
— �a.� � ,� ' — ' _ - - _ .. i ..
• • -
� • � 1 . ' •
��. �—�.��.t�' I' ��+Y r��A'.II�dlB�� !
Area Overview ` ' �I��" ` �4`�` �'"" ��
� . , 7 h -. ��s�� '=3 �, ;:
'� ,� I. �`� ,
����+�y . ..aaa r S:P •� .i.�
�"' � � „� IN#.+r �3.k � _. � . � " .. �r��
. � ,� ,� . p ,�,
Cursory, on foot, based on ' � t� ;� �� ' ; -'�» i �` E
knowledge ofzoning, trends, �1, �� � � �, � ,
and activity ;, �;`� ��L:�NllS ' °� RE:SIDE\TIAL �
�.��r
= EDP is defined by three � � .` � �N�U�T�'
— ,� i a�k"= . � �..,.
_ dominant characteristics; '' � � � � � , � ;. ;�`;�„�,
�`f��1
- wetlands, major � '� .;t:�'�� �1 �� � ; � " c�':`'', t ,7y�t-
� �V k 4ul�uriiy � . . � �� C.r�'* w,�r.�
transportation infrastructure, � � � � + j ` ��'� �,.�- ' '�_
�TL:11�US' RHti.,1 �`,�;�;'"� , �, ����a�� r �
and industrial development �i , ,; ° ''t ��"� � , `; ���" T� ��. ,�. � �
��,�.' -s INt)ti � ,�, �, �,[" .,,. �I��;, ,. ,�:
, --- ._. Ir '7 � i1l�,i�'r��$ �s�Ll , w,
Two thirds of the 270-acre ,�,�.-; , ,, I � ,��,r ,, , .�„ I �
EPDiswetland. "'f'��i;'� ' � t RN;:� , . ,�
a � �. �r�i'�
.i, �' i i � .Y7 f_ , -,, .. f �
Industrial nei hborhoods ��j� IN�1ld5 L s - � ,�'�
— 9 , .�?I i � , _ , �k , � .�f11�4;\i.�'l?W�kA1tB����.;
— flank the EPD to the north, -„ � ,;, �, :.� ; � � �'.�
east, and south. �- - �� ` � , '�` " ", a• ;. '
, ... � .
�
_ =°`' - 1�i��f'�•: `�S�1W � "«,�4' � '�t`�
�' . �T 41:; �" ' I�
�e s �;.r r �ry�`„� _ 'Y . t
- , �y i �..y �.1����i�t'ia ;rY�i�:C� �
s
• • '
� • � � . ' •
Redevelopment Potential . �F -_-, -- �' --y-
[ � �
F< 1�^ � .a '��l �'� �� � v ���� !�`�r j�
_ R ,,�� r � p ,._ � 1 �, E`_.
� . I �S 1 , �� � 1�.411 F.
� � ��� � I il
_ North of West Main Street _ ��, ��;_, ���,�<, i _�:,, .�, � � L��' :, ` ,� � +
— 43 tax parcels, roughly �:: .���a �`,,..� �,�,� _ � ��'�� : � �' � �_� ���� ,
, �e � ,i� •�: . � �..
39-acres = � �� ' �F� � ;,i � -�� , � I�� � � � � ,�S�
,`-, q , � ..,I� E�.'• � I ` �(s�Av
- South of West Main Street ,:� �, �� �'�%"� '��I �� ' �1 �' � ��I'�.� t
24 tax parcels, 92-acres •��1 .� :� , � . '� ` `
� �}:�Ht.t,rt'HLI�S+�S�.
_ ;��`ry!u ,,, , : �- � ; � , : '
Target redevelopment area .<, , ,�; . , ,. �r � � IL ��
� 'Q�,/' �`1 � � t s�aw�.v
= 26 tax parcels, -'�£�� ��}V ���, ��I,��i I" ° �# ��'.�'JrE r.��
_ �«�;�,_ ,:,• , ,�,�: �� tl� :� , � � � ��
_- approximately 20-acres -�lr���� ,,ry � �': � " n� „ � , , e �,s�,
— - r,h�.�r . �� �,� � I �� �,�' �"� ���{ ��� � �Ru�r
�.�.c l :; 'i i . � �i��` i�s
— AssessedValue �f �`,yw�, •�� ' � • i _. -"��`.� ���� jjM11 ' �' mm�,
= Green - $0 to $6.00/sf � � a,,
e... � n , �.'9 i� ,.� ?'� �� .� � '�� � !��- I�i' b�� �• . ,�+ u e ��^
' -s d�, 'p - i ivi � � \ !n r �n � .
Ww � t �� '' J e� !�'� � - � � C .�!. � t �': � .r i��iii
Yellow - $6.00 to $12.00lsf r-i ' " p� W ���
� ♦F.�f� t � '�� � I f
= Red - $12.00 & Up "-`�```����,'�;�i ` r.�"' e�.��; . '� ° �tl � _�; ��'
.,�, . g� , w� � ���• � � �I� ���' t�l �i.�c_ � aii ��.
— Target redevelopment area ;�"k ��' ��»�� �'!��� � -�p ' �,'"�. �� ' ..' '� �' '� ;'=
_ — Assessed value $5.64 � w �'-'`' " ,, ' �,� ; ; �e; � � �� ' ;;'�; � �i =
million. ' . �� +�y�!`,� !'' _�,�� �! sn� '- �" � ;,�,; � " _
7.�J!„ i � '
•d1�i.`I�f ri � �`�P'����� _; � ��
— .d k{ ' �� � ����Ie 'r
r �t tu
— '> _ _ � a .�',��.:.:
• • - -
� • � � . ' •
Alternative 1 — Wetland Creation
Class III Wetlands — 2:1 Ratio
= 3 Acre Mitigation Site Costs =
= Land Acquisition $8/sf or $697,000 -
- Demolition - $1/sf of land = $87,000 =
- Restoration - $200,000
Monitoring - $10,000/year/10 years = 100 000 -
Total - $1 ,084,000
. . -
� • � � . ' •
Alternative 1 — Wetland Enhancement
Class III Wetlands – 4:1 Ratio -
= 4 Acre Mitigation Site Costs =
= Rights Acquisition $50,000/ac $200,000 -
Restoration - $400,000
= _ Monitoring - $10,000/year/10 years = 100 000
- Total - $700,000
� . . - . -
� • � � . ' •
Alternative #2 - Commercial Redevelopment
Current Market Conditions
_ OffiCe - Chronically high vacancy in the Southend Industrial Market EPD.
Retail - Removed from commercial center.
= Industrial —
Puget Sound: 276 million sf, vacancy - 7.1%.
- Southend: 108 million sf, vacancy - 5%.
Auburn: 23 million sf, vacancy - 8%.
Flex -
-- Puget Sound: 31 million sf, vacancy - 10%.
— Southend: 6 million sf, vacancy - 16%. —
- Auburn: 612,625 sf, vacancy - 7%. —
Southend Proposed: 39,000 sf -
. . -
� � � � . ' �
Conclusions
- EPD Redevelopment Area is predominately industrial
_-- _ Auburn industrial market is strong
— Aubum zoning code provisions encourage flex space use
— Land assembly in EPD Redevelopment Area may be appropriate
- Highest and best use calls to hold until demand for flex space
warrants development
. . -
Au ; �rr� EP� N�ark�t Study � � , ,, _.
,
�. � �� �� �� � � � :
- ���
-F 17.. ' t`Y ��'r1 +"c'4e};. '� � `� ' '/.�'y . ' �
� � � - ' } � � �f . ,•�-p� �, �w
T' s i3 • � , 1 f ��
1 •Yi _ ` � �
�� t a , • II ��A 4. {�F��1� . .
4 'T ��n a . � Q. �j �; � .��• �.
n y y. [
� � �,. �.r� R�� 'y � i��� ,.s;•• • � 7'i � ��y. � P P�
t�' �R � R
' ,t.•. �- � '' .r , � . ' �,. �II �II , ,1r � �.. ,�-... �.
... � ` . 1, `>y� . i c �,:', " . ,.�.��II 'i���� I��.iIN�'�F �f ��'I�II I �` s
� � r i�. .�4 o�t.
h
t `` t • _
� s h"� �f."�!,,I �p� �
� �"t�... a�� ° IiVL_ �.�YY .. ���1
�j � ' �• . �f. �.:
, I ' i._� �.�yl• .
"' ��
�
�
� + ` � 1: I
' �
♦ I � a �' I . �� f � .t. .
� I � _
'� K.i
— � , r�• '�y � f "� � � y'� ' ♦
•w �,'� , _ 4 y •. �
= h
�,
' f .,
� ' � -s`:' - . :
�
^'�e.
a.•� �.t - .. .
,"�..� _ < ' _ _ _ .. . " _ t
V�4_ L.•
. ' _ .� • __.. .�_. - . . ��: '-I�
� � . , - y:� � �i
T
_ — _ _ '�� �.y��
_ _ _ _ ' �. . -,-��'Ih�i A
_.: .. - ' . � .. .. ,. i
GVA Kidder Mathews
� • � � . ` •
''#i � ' �— ': .
7� " ' ,: �►� _ _ `�I
' . .y, `�`� y y� � .. w ' � .a �."i
� �,. _ � . .. . s r �
.� „ - . .,� . _
. �. . '' F _ -' � �'�r���� ,
�w��� ',, � r:" ���,� y;;� ��y �'�,�, �� --
�� � .. —
. '
N �YY
'• 4 -� � � : �'� � i.i�� � _
. ! � � #,� ,r�� � . <� �� h . �� —
- `r�,�� r ¢� '�C —
.. , � _ _ .��' �r �'� '
4hi� � ..' � —
, ��
� �:^. . - -- � >7PY° .,�st << . , . •L —
' �
i •I ,� �,�. , - �.�- . �., _ J�.r .. ,�^"�.'r` ef :� � .d4. —
i �' a � 1�, ' � � � � ��• ` _
` .
'v,� � a t �
� � � �Y i�, ��' +T'�' .a 4,��. �*
. � , ► _ �
� �' ` ` � _
Y , �' � � ✓~ 6, ^ ' �t ���� ��t —
, �.�. ~ ��i��l�l� � rt -
; `�,. _ ��'•, / _ �� �{``'�i =
�, _
� � .,., . 1 �R: y,��
- � 1t i =
"�y
� 'N ,�, ,,,, , _
� _ �. �— ��r _ `+"` —,-_.. I , —
,�t-—= —
, �< � '
,
' �� _ • — '
� r' � � _
� ..,
X^ ��a� ,y� �t, � :,,'
�;:, �jA� r �j�-" -
���y,�' *�� ' ' � ~��I)���'� -�'
� 'il� � �t�!_�� . � a-.
�.•`_
Y '
- . .. .. _ . .. . 'r �
� �
� • � � . ' •
— Incentives
= Process incentives
Green building Incentives
Others
. . -
Land Use & Interpretive Center
Site Options
�, � ,�
� '�
� � �
. .�� ;;.
[-: , - A . �., i�
�i; � •l.:. 1: � `��,
�''�.,� ��.'� ��.�«!; � � ���'�
�,:�w��_- � , .. . . . _ • - , 1. . ! . .
„��. � i _:- 1 . � . , . wnt �iif' _�As� ., ',
-- Interpretive center on exsiting IBS building site , ,�- �� i= ' , ; ` ,��, , '` ' r r ,�,y t ""�.,
. -f-c '-i+i.�
-- Business park development on existing single � , ,�9 �, ,;, w�� , , _ -
family house area �'r•, � y'� ` ' ✓r �y`�� � I ��
4 ! v7Rr .—_� 7{,� - _
Y � t � � �
(� { j 1{ ,' . � '� :f�.
�.✓�p�� L41'1�lRC.�. � i< ���1-t'4. . 5 � {�.. � �� � . . ._
Interpretive center: Wr � . ���R �
� i' �
• Use existing building/dry land site t � 4 �'" - � ' �� ., -
•Adjacent to wetland park trail head '. , , {� �:, � �°���a " �
• Direct access from Interurban bike trail ` , ; i,�. 1:-� �; , ; �
• Possibly locate parking South of city stormwater � � ' � . � � j
treatment wetland, create wetland trail/arrival �"�`��'�, +� ' - - '
. ,,�, r �,
experience to the Center �}`� �� a i'� " _ � _ C i Interpretive
• Educational opportunity of stormwater treatment X����, rF� ?`-�� I"'% ce�,cer si�e
wetland ,�,��'�r���'� " `
• Recycle concrete from existing IBS building on site i��'y�-n,��^��' � � h • ` �
Weltand: c�`r���^,�� � �
� �r�- , `b�. � � I
• Potential for improved stormwater infrastructure r ��,• r
(LID) adjacent to wetland , � � �
I ?,`T r R
1 f't ` �.• ., � � � �,� � _
� . _
Ghallei�_yes � � ;",k��.. f I I I�, � k ,
Interpretive Center. � � '_ ! 1 t �
�' , �,: �
• Location hidden, Light Industry � „��,:;;�r�� d?` - ' — I � .4�,4 � '-
not visible from city street �ji� ' t ci�u�+`��' ' �=` ��"' ��t ',
• Vehicular access throu h ��,��s'+`� "� � ' J r
9 Sub Station ► � �:�. � , I�'�i�� � � '� �,' ,,
industrial park, 4��.,,�� � � � y,� ,'�i � �. i r;�„
maybe not very desirable � � ; " I � ' ` d: � � �" ' i `,' ��"
� �. � " �' + +
Wetland: Residential + 1 �k� .�,���' �H �+ � �z� .�ti r �F� °1' ;l�
� .. ` ., � � � i' � � � i � �
• More intensive , �� f.� � �� ��� � h ru � � � ;--
land uses , ';:� � t.. �r ,'� . e '"- 9 � � � � �. :r,:
within closer Public & Quasi Public r ! °W'� ' I ' ' .
proximity to
mitigatfon site Open Soace ���
. • i • • � R •
��ri .�..._r� i j __ - —7yr r: '�: .._� i - -' -'
r '-'a' � � '. , ....��- �e-irt����' + �� �� �
�
-- Interpretive center fronting W Main Street, " fi �- � , �'��,��;�, , � ; ��'0� .
next to Interurban Trail � . ��� '�.1-- � ,•; `'�-
,� . . l I ti ,;.. .
-- Business park development on existing single h � ' � i' c- � '"
family house area ,; � r, �,�, _�r,;...�.
� � � �� .�� , t� II� ��
r - --- I
(Jp�c,rt:unitfes . ' .' � ,
; � ,.
Interpretive center, ir ` � �''� � � ' '
l ' �+
• Street presence, visiblity, °Front Daor" of EPD ; �, �,�• �; . i �I '��� :�I:�
• Urban center, stronger connection to downtown, � � l,r, ` r.�; ,rt ' ;
more cornenient r ,,�C= ' , � t ' � , '
• Direct access from Interurban bike trail ,+"�'�`�?�S`,�"�, �"� �.: ' � � �
• Use Interurban Trail as part of experience to y� � , -;:,� , `' �'" � . ,w' � , '
et to wetland trail head ° ;'-� °
9 �' �.r,�,`�-�t°:y � '
Weltand: �1,��;�' �,��. � �'
V1
• Potential for improved stormwater infrastructure f i�;fa�e�4xf,!�•' � F ' f + -
LID ad acent to wetland �,`�� �"' `�
( ) 1 , a�' �+ t
� � k,�.. _ �
if ( �'
i_ � � � ti_ � � ;r,:
[ahaller�ge� ' +� - � � :
Interpretive Center. � :�'+'�;. ` , f'
• Not next to wetland � t � � _ �
Light Industry ���?,��:�� '�.' —
� . - t � _� fnter retive
WEt�811Cr: y� ' i�awh�." ,- . _- P
• More intensive land P �,,- � �^ ; i = - ce�ce� s��e
Sub Station , ., . �
uses within :,,� r,
� .
closer proximity rs ' F .
��� �
Residential �< r � � 'i ` � �: � � •'� i*1'
to mitigation site �c , d`� � �� � x •_, 4, �
a �E_ � � � �,� l 1 �
: C�� ' ' �� �' ` I . /
Public & Quasi Public }"�'' ���'c - � °5 �'i • ''1 .-I 'i � ,
�,:
Ooe�� Snace �%
• ' i ' • - - � - • � • •
- . �, � ' I ...� . y. .4 . r�'� �s. � . � I
. r v�l � '-ti� .. - Me�l �'{� .�v_e��4t-� : .
-- Interpretive center on the site South of PSE � ,� ��--.Yy„., ��' , `.s, � ` ,, ��w .;;� �. �
substation, next to Interurban Trail � � � '. � ' [ ,L''s
-- Use stormwater treatment wetland for mitigation • ' ' `` e ^' I � �-
;
-- Business park development on existing single ' � ' , ' � '�' •=��
�i � e � � �l:-:.-.�'iit,k.:.....,
family house area , �, `., " , � � �r' ; � �
� '� � -
� �k
C�pportunifies `xi � u �{ �: ' �� '
Interpretive center: �' V � ; , �,`, •; • ' �� � � �.�
• Direct access from Interurban bike trail .r� ,� �� ,�
� 1 , , ,, .
• Use Interurban Trail as part of experience to �,, � � �
get to wetland trail head i���'�, ;"�`'�if+ �p , - ` �"� � `�:
� � e ':' ,+ s . � i,i ,
Wetland: �, �, .r� �'��' � I ��
• Increased mitigation area and habitat � c �� ���',ys � ' ' �.,
• Potential for improved stormwater infrastructure ���j*`•'' ` �` ':- Y
s.' , - :.
(LID) adjacent to wetland 4ui�'�`��"'�� � ,
�.`Fi ��st�
��18��P.i1CJE?S � r'� ��"� • ' ' � � �_�- Interpretive
t . �- �,��-1+.. . CenterSite
Interpretive Center: `.rr :; �,^� -
4.�4
• Location hidden, not visible �' •�-• : ti�
1R'.�- t 4 .
from city street ` . � ' I
• Vehicularaccessthrough Light Industry � ��s�'r,�Y +a!�; _ � r� ; r ) ,�., � -
industrial park, maybe not �a'� ' � �'��• ` ` � �� � � �„�,_,� t ,� �
very desirable Sub Station ���y'�+� � � : .; , , z�`.� � � � � ;�� ' i
�� f . � �p j 'xl 'R , � 7 ��y�4r .
1 .� .'i i # � � °'r- �� � � �. i t�. .r f C-'P
Wetland: �fi�t . • ` ' ' , " :
f2051d011t18� 'a � ���r �� ��� � x ��i �' �E ' � f �� i I
• More intensive ` tY�'�fi , ,��/� i a � a;;, � �s� ', x '`.�o�� ' l
landuseswithin f`,�-s'� ��,�, ` -.� s :Y:�{� ��� . � � �"
closerproximity Public & Quasi Public f ����� ' ���� � '� r �� � � � � � ', •, �
to mitigation site
Oner S�ace
• i i - • � • •
� �,. ! .1 ,,�. . i :J�- �. '�. .. j � i _ � . - '�
r �S 1 .= 3� .� �'{� ��•� �liq� �i ..V
-- Interpretive center fronting W Main Street, �,� � a�' ?;� ' �"+,
next to Interurban Trail � t, . „ � � ,� `;` ���';���- � ��""` -
--Allow regeneration of wetland north of industrial � M ' ' '� j-" '; �'
uses �' ' ' �, i- . . _ r, �� ,
,t t r ` x, _ ....., . . .
i �.. � = c��- � ,� � � .
. .4.r.. Y � � l .'
p��psartuni�kie� " ' �,1�. � � � '� �
Interpretive center: k ; �h • ' �'�
• Street presence, visiblity, "Front Door" of EPD ~ � : , �,f �, , � � � � +i:�
• Urban center, stronger connection to downtown, < , r � ?,k ,�r ,� �
more convenient � ' , 3 � � (#•_J �
• Direct access from Interurban bike trail ��;�.�'r`y 4!"� ��„ j 14� (. !
• Use Interurban Trail as part of experience to � �` .{ ,.- � , ,',: � s ' � , , � i, i; •,
get to wetland trail head �, f -+ �
�/��� .
� ri� �i��'f •�'� ,' __'
Wetland: ��r�: � r - ' �': + 4s
• Increase buffer between industrial uses and �,��"¢ ���} �� �� � f �"' �
core wetland �����g.' F�
• Increased habitat & recreation/interpretive � f �.x'���, �i � �
opportunities � f��; ., ;`� : � � �s �:'
Retums land to native cover ' -�- ` '
6-1{t � �
• �f�.�[��G04 . � _ .' q r"'.
!
i
Gh�iln��t�c�s Light Industry ���`�� :„ � +? __
�T ;,.��ti`� � . - I ,� Interpretive
Interpretive Center: � .�• � � �. . , - cen�e� s�ie
• Not next to wetland park Sub Station � '`F' , �,�` .
• No potential revenue from �s:`r '"
industrial development � � �� r�
Residential ���'��r�r3`',/r, , � '� ' + ".� � p��� ,� (
Wetland: � � �. �3F'� {,d ;, ` -2..„ �I#1 ' �.�`", �
.t,_
• Less potential for public & Quasi Public � � �' 4� ` + ' . '
improved stormwater
infrastructure (LID)
adjacenttowetland Ooen Soace ,
• : • - - - • • • • �
�in�nea�a�s5ereea � - � :s�, - -----�� .— . - - .' _ '�1 . _ ---. —
g �, �, , „�, �';� °�� , j`
I�f ( �. r� r . �� ,t ' - Yr�' . •�_ ,r ;�; i ', ' s
�_ �� F i'� � i ..i ��. f � �
� ' i � q► � ;� :p... '� � ; � ,
;�- �:
_ '�±.� _ ��� „ �:. ' _` ,
„ �,� � In erpretive
� "`C nter Site
i �z�= -- � -�� `� `
�� - _ , , : ,
: � f� ' ` � i r-3 - , , � �
� ! . ` � ..t� f_
� . ���f :. �^.'' � . .. � ,� .
i � ' � �• •�I� ' ..� i.
� �z. t� � �. �il� ;c,,Y - -�;I 4�1���` ..ii
j.� � i ON� � `� i:
� ���i . � �} �:�i �•�, . . + ' �• �i ..�jy� r H' ;� �.
�� u-. � 6
� �;. � i�
`� .3. �+�. �' ��. . . � I � ���4 11 Y.f k .Z� -
i Y }�j�
+���� � t.� � + � . � �r;i .. �� � �� +I�y 'r�y,y'�'` . �' ' .�I
t
� � � � .� r� , .t. '��_ \ 7
���-*r � !� _ ,��fi�,�...... � ���- � '��I. � � - �.•- r � P. Y:.
� �' �!-�d+�'�.. - 'M��_, * . �. � �.:
'�� ��.. �. ��
'T' , i� Z � , ` � � ' � �
�'� t1? �'�'��. * �-- - k:�`
'' . . ^���1.. 1.
3� ' . . . . � �,.�' f _ �, Y . � � ��
� � tr *� _ ' _ . �� •r . ' �.�tt� ,���„�' ' � I� �� d
Site Ar�a: 'f .43 ���;re. F225(7 sf.
. - �, - • � - • o . •
I
Sustainable Project Vision
-.' N �. _, 4Y 4. �_.µ �14 'L .i . I: .� � �' �. �� _� -. .. � � ,_. �� ,_ . , .- . . . .� ._ ... .. . ,� � _ , . , .
{
RFGFNFRATIVE SI �E APPROACH PROTECT WATER
, f„y site + building integration ;� enhanced site water quality
�;, '„� ; native plant communities I , stormwater capture + reusel
� , �;� i ;,f:9 pervious surfacing �� r��mbQ low-flow fixtures
��;�� ;`�,� vegetated roof systems � ground water recharge I
�����' � � �n�atershed protection � `
,�:���,� composting toilets
� ' lirnited develo ment im act I - ` I
,:-��,I �' i p p � �a arey�vater irrirrati�n
�; �� :elebrating site character I �s.. t:�:��,, - ••' `, ;.;��, - I
���� ���.`_ � �abitat restoration 4 , s,`� �,r - ',,i,- �,{ F '�:
'� ���� i<Tht ollution reduction ``'�' ; �'`� - � ' '� I
r �.�: �'�-.� ,� p �; , �-- . k.c�xR _..'-.�, ,� �(3ure+�-- , ..
�'. �ewshed protection -� ��--y--fi�-� � �_ �' "�" -
� .. � � ;R I
� ,,, _- - _
y �.,� � �.�� I
�,,,�,s ' _ _,� - �" �,_
. ' '� 's"'�s ' �" y`'�.�"
.,. r -,
4.� . '.�. . {
r�,a nr , � � ' .e . � � '.+►� . �'����
t 1r�e�` °�` ` . \ -( e7�
�. � . 'S f, + �s� �. :�-<. , �..;� h�-,.;�. , .
�;' - � � - . _ i:
�.
�� '' '� �-' �"� "�11
j �y w � � x- � , ��
i 1'/�.� �' r �� N' .,� '_'.,"'7"- �R 4 . � - �- . ,.
,� " ,�'� ��,, ,�"'• �' Y '{�.,y'y
Yy�� �, � � ':� rrw �r,'-� � � �+L.ra�t 'an� -���� �Pi�'�'�$�.•: _
. ._ . . . � � .. a .
_- �„ �-`�� _ ,. :�,:. -
�
�d3.�. ��c
��•��'r . , �
� • ' • " • � ' • . • � • •
NF.T-:: i= RL� f� IVCRGY t; UlLulf�lC. i��l /��� f- ftlllV_S i li �AV Wfl_ I I_;�Sl
� �
�f �ergy demand reduction � `':� high perfomance + durabilit�
j„M�, _`,, ;,h performance envelope I regional + local origin �
��` :f '� � iotovoltaicenergy I � reflection ofcultural history I
' ~ ± ���t water solar collection ',igh recycled content
'�' � in shading + screening i `' ,-,aterial use reduction I
�� �irth tubes , ��w embodied energy
' ° ;iste heat recovery � ; , �- '
��� ' _,c wood I
�othermal heat pumps I ,ite harvested timber I
�ssive solar capture �ocal artisans + craft
� ,�tegir_ natural cooling I �'�;='� salva�ed material use I
��� �. �� � �. ��� :.
� � ;� ,` -r', �� _ � �
__��,�,:. >.,,,-- ,.
.'.
� ��� ;-_
>
� ._ ; '� -` ''0,:_' ��`
�
,, -..:
. ,� _`� - ` �
• • : � � _ • . • - ' • •
HEALTHY SPACES INVEST IN COMMUNITY
r zero v.o.c. �Yi� �+,, ����j,;� personal responsibility
I � �nhanced ventilation I , �.� '� regional identity
� air filtration ' " :�S , `�� celebrate local culture
� co2 monitoring I •� ��ngage local artisans
I � operable windows I air trade practices
� green housel<eeping onnecting users to the
I .� `,� occupant health I ,, ': ��� ;rger whole
� ,�
� conriection to outd�or ; � �' '� t-� ':�a ' t
r ,.�
� _ i � . � s�a : t �
I �"�I r�� `' �� �i - v�J• � I ry, s n G.�,_ } "_. �aC3`� (� a �+ Y"'
I ; _ I I I � 'c�e .:�,r� ��� � �`,�+;. : �.�
r� '. [, S '. .`. i �` .
//e� (�
LY�...? ' ` . .�� 1'� +f!il+���
J �' „ ��"�
. ,
I —.._ __ I � ; r �' ` �
� t � � � " i�. � r�_:
h ..a. ,�
�. �� .��: � � �. _
I',.�/ �� � I �u � � ..�- J�
' F � ` � �_��, �
U � I , � � ���'
,
K
` . . � v`l, F; �� 1
_._ . 'T-�' . ' 1 • . . � rr . . I .1�` .
._. �..... ,� „ � .
I � - - � + - / �� 'i
�
. � . ., �� ' � ����, � ~
� � ' i � � ` � s � $ � �
Existing Adjacent
,�'.,�i.� Bui�ding
Y"�
� . � ��'� °; ` ��
; �_ _ ��., �h.�� '�� �1
,
, �
e I
x�� ,
I � K,.. � .
R, �.�;' �k,
I f t �,� �i�;`a�A� � I
•4 � } 3 �_ � � II
. . . . - . ��^., � ?'-
� I � . �� � ' �—� — � .
z 1 � � 5 ' II IIIII 5 . ! I ' I
T I H � I
� �� `z : � � I�
� , �
�
_ . �� �. . �� - -+, / LEGEND
�. �� : I ' �I7 1. Interpretive Center
� ,y�"'. � ''-� � ' . 4 �: 2.Parking Bosque
� .. � . , �,� 6 ��:�i� 3.Bike Parking
I f - I t� t ,� .� 4.Orop-offlSlaging
� 7 � -� � 5.Wetland Crossing
q •- I y 6.Solar Sculptures
_ ���.y�. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J m 7.Wet Meadow
�-R� 8.Wetland Buffer/
�---�—�� �—�_� � �. _. ____ Restoration
��_ �— .. � .. _ . __ .
N
W Main St iti��
� 0 70 20 30
• • ' • � ' • �
�M�'[ .� �a� �..
�y�.:.., ,. �liL .. �r...
#4°�_ l.'. �d�� �'"�. ...
/
'���_ ,�[�r 1� � �..,: '
�' � �sE�`.',
� '���� �����: � r�s,�;�;:: 1 _ �
_ 3 , �} �
�
E Wetland Bufler I Interpretive Center I Wet Meadow �, W Main St �
# d
a
L Y
� .� �jg i�`d.�,i. ., .. � ..ri ,�•t.:� ;.�
� ;� ,?�: � .^ ' "� _ .,. � .
. < ' ;' :r . � .�iF.c���� ;ia .`�.�"�,
�� � � TE —' ��� � � �
%+` ` •.�� � - i � �.� �� - � i i �y6 - lr_ 7.
s
i` " I �` ` r. ' 1 `.^' '�. p I I � ��I� .-A,� � '�'' .
�y, ��Lt 6� �.,�_ -
We�land Buffer Parkin Bos ue Wetland Crossin Inler retive Cen�er We�land Crossin I Bike Racks
lay Sf NW
• • ' f � _ • •
r' I N
5�� '.'� .� ��
`:.- <� �.�"`� �I ' ' �'j 1
�, , ' �
.�� �� � `�Yi
i � � � •+V F ` .. g f,� r' f ' �
t`, � �`ry��$ . r. r 'y ti*f{ � y �1�t1`.: ' _
N � �-. .� �> ,.`i
:�' � _' f �;� �a �
A 3' j: �� ` , ' i r •�,y„
� � ' t, a ,,,�� t���
� ��ifp:l WI �„� •,�J y ,_,,,"�+�� ��� � ����1 � �
:� 4 .z � _ _ �
' � — — --
_ f �
. . ; �.� � ^`�--1
It8s�� 's`' ,,� �-�- 'A.�, I •s, ' ` 4_ o+s ,
r '�� ,� �--i.�t?' - '� k
' . � 'v��y� y �
' - � �l� :
1 t'
i �.r 14�1 °2 i
t .�P �'� i r�
�— -.. ti.:�.��� ;;u-� � i � ��� - ' ._ ry :'n �
. , �. . . :_- p�
e;i
I � '
.
—� � — -� --� --- ..___ . � '__ +�� ' ; '' i . ,' �►. . .. .
�-'ti.��p x ti' ._
t,.�
M 9u.� ? a�
- -- - _ �� .. ,�_ ,� � . � 1 i. I I ` „� _ J , �- kP� aS
� I
�-r� � I ' '{
t
- �_ _-� �- .��,� � � ��\��� � - "� �
�--c�_ f� � r I � �!� _ F
� /��! �, \�.\
W��� - —
' _ — ,�-
. . _--„_ i � . .
_ - . � � .' �+e
e
f�� 'i
• • �• � � • •
Part 1_Interpretive Center Op�ion 1_Interpretive Center only
Multi-purpose Exhibit Hall 800 sf Total building area, 1,680 sf
parking required by code, @1 per 250 sf=4 spaces Total parking required by code, 5 spaces
Reception Desk/ Beverage Kiosk/Gift shop/ Kitchenette 300 sf
Office/work 100 sf Option 2 Inteipretive Cenier+ reuse of I�S buildiny
for 2 staff for o�fice space
parking required by code, @1 per 300 sf= 0.7 spaces Total Interpretive Center building area, 1,680 sf
2 small ADA restrooms 200 sf Total parking required by code, 5 spaces
Mech/elecicomm./etc. 100 sf Existing IBS building, 48,670 sf
Circulation 180 sf
Total building area 1,680 sf Option 3_Inter��retive Center + Gon?inunity space
Total parking required by code, 5 spaces Total building area, 2,880 sf,
Outdoor features: outdoor viewing deck, covered porch, etc. Total parking required by code, 10 spaces
Pan 2 Comin�inity space Option 4_Interprein�e Center + nFvv Offic�llab �p_ace
Community Room /Classrooms, 900 sf Total Building area, 3,480 sf
(with 1 movable partition to divide into 2 classrooms) Total parking required by code, 11 spaces
for public meetings, educational uses
parking required by code, @1 per 200 sf=4.5 spaces O�ition S_Interpi eiive Cr�nlpi � �;��,pip�infiy Space ���
Mud Room, 100 sf new Oifice;lab space
Mech/elec/comm./etc., 100 sf Total Building area, 4,680 sf
Circulation, 100 sf Total parking required by code, 16 spaces
Total building area, 1,200 sf
Total parking required by code, 5 spaces
Outdoor features: covered porch for kids' backpacks, fire pit, etc.
Part 3 Office/lab space
Office space, 1,000 sf
parking required by code, @ 1 per 300 sf= 3.3 spaces
Low-tech lab space, 275 sf ea x2 = 550 sf,
parking required by code, @1 per 300 sf= 1.8 spaces
Mech/elecicomm./eta, 150 sf
Circulation, 100 sf
Total building area, 1,SD0 sf
Total parking required by code. 6 spaces
Op�ion- reuse ox-�slinq iRS iii�iidi�•y, 2-slory 4£3.670 sf
• • ' • � ' • i • • � � • • i � • •
Building Program Option Selected By City
Optiuri 9_1nte�pretiveCenteronly
Total building area, 1 ,680 sf
Total parking required by code, 5 spaces
Building Design Concept
• "Front Door" of Auburn Environmental Park
• Tell Story about Wetland
• Civic Identity
• Community Space
• Connection to Interurban Trail, "Comfort Station" for Trail users
• Demonstration Project of Sustainable Design
Building Concept Diagram
Support Space
Connect Connect to
to site Boardwalk Through Building Interurban Trail
Multi-purpose Space
• t - • � - • C • • ' • • : • ' • � . •
�`_"_.,- . � . . �n-
I ' - G �~—�-
N L � K J I H F � - -� —:
� � � ' �� _�
_ ^ _ _ , _ � �:
i � M 7.
i A --,; � B
� -�--� ��I���I��.;� �
_ _ ,� . _._ �.i..�� � ... . ..... . .. ... . __ � ,
_ • p
�—
-- , _._ _ .,.-,
—y E ;; :; q :: . .. �.: '�. � _._ . � _ � _' _"
. —___' _. . _ . �� j_ .
. __ __. . _ ___ _ . . _. __ _. _ _
...�_--_._'—'—_. . . .
_ _—_ .
'— . ___ __— _ _._ . ._. . . . .�.
_ —__ �'_ . . .
_'._. . ._ __ . _ .__ . _. . . 1
__ _._ _ C .. t
i
'.��_ — _ 11 _ _ _ .. H .. _ .N. ta . " _ _ _M_ ' _ _ _'H_ _ _ _ _M
A. West Entry E. E3everaqe Kiosk J. Storage
Covered gathering area Accessible from outside of building
Covered area K. Women's Restroom
B. East Entry Overhead door above counter
Covered gathering area L. Men's Restroom
F. Reception Desk
C. Covered Outdoor Deck Area M. Drinking Fountain
G. Work Counter / Storage
D. Multi-purpose Exhibit Hall N. Mech./Elec./Comm./etc.
Multi-purpose space for community & H. Gift Shop
educational use. meetings &
school prograi�is efc I f<itchenette / Storaye
• ` • - • � - • : • • • - • '
Skylight
Green Roof Wood Entry Door
Glu-lam rafter Wood siding
Me[al clad wood window Steel canopy
Z-_ P 'l'�a� ^. Fnf f S�,E .,.
j� � }." .�y�-311 Y
:. �(t � �- yp �� �:�� �.`
F� lir,+' �' tn '.� ,� � 1� j.,f:' r'�7 u ..���,'' a,,
� `S�b ps � :f �f�' t�' �" w
' �u �: t d
��Sv ,..,�' __ _ � i� '�gjr.�,., �
+.�.'�`J�� ji I I �a -_ __ . __ —_ :,}y�,Eyf'+'�� r �.+_
eYY c
� 1� _ � v. , � ' .
���i'V't,�iyaYh r �� �p�.��.4 _ — _ is .1 .�� � �'r
Y,h�� `.r� - ��� t�� ' .. � , .-. _ �� .
�.� j ��'�`'� �� � �'� � ` .
1 ? i a_ --
4 � � !-
�� � L , r_ . � -_ _ – - - — �
� . - �
,�
�. `�#: `ai�'.� :ir, ' s°7`�'ti:'�,
East Building Elevation
' • ' • ' • � ' ` • e • • •
I
Skylight
Green Rooi
Multi-Purpose Exhibit Hall
Wood en[ry door beyond
�� Kitchenettel _
Srora e
.
. 9 , ii , '��t':-
„z � � ' � _ � 3d- �� � ,
� ,. � T .
'" �,; +: `. ; ,� �n :
a,� ,�i �,, t ?, ,�'�
� • � , � a
,,
� �° . � �v .��. "' ...' '� .`-f�`iu�
,: y�F_ F� '�.p .:
"� �y�� . . - �� � ( b�•
I Y ���
T�`� .. 1 _ '. 1� "s s� d
y } Xr4i�'`� .-�. � � Iq .. .I �I ,.. t �y +��+';
,�:� a#y��� A fl_ i �"- ;
. �� . . �. . . . 3�
1.
"� Ik }I
/
�'I , (��� ------,:.-� - .--e — .l. .�:;_----�--- ---- - - -_—_ _ — I ,� .
�
' . . -'r� . . .
I
. ' �-
Building Section
• • - • � - • : • • •
I
r,.�r�„ - . _ . _ _ _ ." _-_ _ . - __�
�� ��-
i
I .
-- _ -_ � . . � v� .
� � y - � �#- i
«n'�/ � ` t•�� l`ju, ��:.. �' v :� .s,�vi" 3 �,`''�- r� i I
� -��, �,-�f �'Yl� �i � ,rc �y iff'} . i �f� '� va '3 �+. �.aM, __ `�,`� .r�' ,€ �I ��� �
. � r!_e� . � < �, i,.' a- ��£ �- F-. � r
�' i / i �i � " -F 3 v 4'�l° S � x °�� . _ . . �- ...'T RE � t � I
� ..
�f � ,hl��P ���r'r' , , �� �� �� �` � ` � _ ' =- �"' I, � ' ,�
�s.
, , , x
� � $: � �l>. ,M1- i ii �� ( �, � < �.-�4,��'tq.� . ��"s. S`�-1"!
�Jl � \ d -d <' / � i .,; � �� , ' <�� ;�+ . _'� I� �� N� :� ;
"*� i �.#!GA�.Y��'q1 �-�. �
�� �i'+.�. � ��� ° � � n � 9 . -�. `� 1 f-.�
y . ]� � � � /� . K � 3�.14G0� , �
p 4 � , r �.�ie c �u�r.i ,.�i -. tiO1' "�. - � �y� ����I
> � � . Z - r ��1 ' C
�� lJ�t r/ j 1..i� � �� ws �'t ��� '*��� �� �`ZS�a � l� � � .
`� i .Y? } y �' � ,�� o �{ —' ��� � )
�'�'J`, ���i� '�� � ��� ��k�l���`u� �� ��' f �, �- q a �� {Kf:. �� � �� �I `� � f ; y � t il`'
� � =�=�{ y� �" ' � i� �.. _ i� l � � r ar
f=; F1 ,p�
! '�.�l�'� r � �t' �� c2' r. � ; �` ��ii+�,� � rrp ��1+� 1 � � � M �j��r i�i , � I � �. ' (.
� �'�s�� �'��j'. �.€+ `i4l 1i'� � {j' S ' ' `�__ i II ",��' . �� ���"
i r � r '
� ��� c�'i�:a r � �� . �� � �'�i )b- i � _- a� �o 'E` `"`�,. ' A _ �I
•� J . i SS �.� i� . �"+t<1. :F"dlJf� Il�- ' �,+ � ��, ' � ��;�
�t' i i � � i � 7� `��
f� �, — �,��,����`_ a ��.,����#,�r,.'r,�;. ., ,, i � - ' , ,,f � ��,il_sa� z � � �
r ` * -� � �, �
r �� r . � ._�.'�. �_ �.•c . ' r�` , .�: •. �yI .� �. �SW-__£. - '
`r� y u � yv
� __3�. ������Y,�S��Y�r�..�� _:. y-_,� � _ l3 , II'�'�i I �� �('�� I ���f �. ' �r��
.
� l6- �� � {R -y�.
i � � � �}¢�� � ._ ` �� y(.r� ' _.. �4�'� 'Y^ .A..
�i� �+�IS� _ �
ti . .. f i��..,
��-+� � �i �- �� f � ^ :. _ -�
� .t.nf � � \ . �"5 > �" � . � "�+-
y. - r 7 •-���`r'F«��iy '..•� � � ''n _ 'F"�- '� J �����
��� �Fa-� Ss.7 _ 7 Y.-91 . �
� "E'� t.�4' �� � �- -- �� � - � _
� � - ].� > :�4't.� _,iF':. _ : ��-�` ' �, '` _ � � _ -
Building Design Concept • "Front Door" ofAuburn Environmental Park
• Tell Story about Wetland
• Civic Identity
• Community Space
• Connection to Interurban Trail, "Comfort Station" for Trail users
• Demor�stration I�roject of Sustainability Design
� - • - • � - • ' � • - •
A
�
BERK Fiscal Impact of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area (DRCA) - DRAFT
Briefing to Auburn City Council 10/29/2007
Purpose:
Support the City of Auburn's ("City's") ongoing evaluation of potential development in
its Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area ("DRCA") and begin to assess the potential
financial implications of potential city investments in infrastructure or the provision of
development incentives
Perspectives:
I. Financial Impact of Cirv Rcal Estate Activities: The City has acquimd
many properties in the DRCA and is actively working with developers to
accomplish its downtown rcvit�lization goals. By doing so, the Ciry has
acquired greater control of the development process to ensure that the type
a��d scale of development is consistent with the City's vision.
2. Fiscal Impacts from Development and On oing Onerations: In addition to
value fi�om the sale of land it has acquired, the City will derive a tiscal
stream of benefiu from development and ongoing operations from the
uses that are ultim�tely coustructed. These benefits are incrementa] and
measure the net gain/loss due to the composition, quality, and timing of
development
3. Financial Imp]ications of Investment Choices: The City will likely need ro
make investmei�ts in infrastructure or to otherwise offer certain
development incentives to help catalyze development that is consistent
with its vision.
�
BERK Fiscal Impact of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area (DRCA) - DRAFT
Briefing to Auburn City Council 10/29/2007
Framework:
�
LAND BASE
(Currmt City and Focus Araas) �
IdenbVy vacanl md redevdn�bl�Im�d bmKl on perrd- .
Ievei rem�vv ol zoni�,land uu and�urrent values. 1
I
Scrnariox bm.cd on par<ol grm�vthpnd redrvdopmenl �
nrtrml�y
COMMERUILL RESIDENTIAL
Squarc Fuotngc,Typc,S<alc, Hmrsing Mix.Typc
LminR,Trnant Mix and Densiry
I +
6mploymml Naisinp,Llnits ,
N�wv H�•Ind M Irvity PnpuL�tion
I
_ TAX BASE � , SERVICE DEMAND j
_.._.___.J
;,,x,},��n v,�,�,� Direct Service Impacts
laxatle f:elaii Sales blimate dirrct imp�it�Laxd a�
�usintss Iniomr k�y utrvi�r drim•o(pr.pulaGon,
Ul�hiy Llsagr einploymena,Iand ar.�a, otlirr)by
Population-baseA depatment.
Employmeni-bu+ed
OPvrlopmrnt-relatni � „
n�ber IndirM�Service�Impacts
Etilirtinlr indin•r1 impacls based
� un rpinOt�nship�u dvrn nnpaAs.
Set Ta:and Fee Policies
�
Set Levelrof-Service Policy
IREVENUES � '
SERVICE COSTS (
�
I
��
.
BERK Fiscal Impact of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area (DRCA) - DRAFT
Briefing to Auburn City Council 10/29/2007
Approach:
• Two redevelopment sce��arios were developed: a minimum ai�d roaximum likely
development scenario, with d�e anticipation that actual development of downtown
will fall in between these two scenarios.
• These two redevelopment scenarios differ in their adjustme��ts to the following
variables:
o Scale of Development
o Magnitude of CiYy Costs aud investments
• Additionally, in both scenarios, sensitivity �nalysis is pe�forn�ed to account for:
o Quality of Development
o Timing of Development
• The a��alysis considers impacts over time in year-of-eapenditure dollars. All
values are calculated on a Net Present Value (NPV) basis in 2007 dollars. The
NPV covers a 30-year timeframe.
• It must be emphasized that the assumptions used in the developme��t scenarios are
completely specu]ative. They are nothing mom dian our best guess today as to
what likely would be developed on each block. These scenarios are certain to
change development proposals for each block mature, in which case tl�is analysis
will be adjusted accordin�ly.
Summary of Findings:
• Minitnum: City sees a sligl�t benefit over the course of Cime due mainly to revenue
generated from the one-time and ongning operations ii•om the developments.
($2.88 million aud indudes all capital invesCments a��d incentives).
• Maximum: Yields substantially larger net tiscal impact due ro the �reater ca]e of
residential, office, and retail development (�6.27 million and includes all capital
investments and incentives).
• Both scenarios include infrastructure investments to d�e Promenade, including
utility upsizing and a complete rebuild of Division Street.
• The Maximum scenario includes additional costs for a pavilion and construction
of some structured parkin� to support development in the DRCA.
DISCUSSION DRAFT Fiscal Impacts of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
• ,' �
DATE: Oci�,l,�. i - �, - - .
TO: Shelley Coleman and Dave Barron, City of Aubum
Jim Reinhardsen and Doug Larson, Heartland
FROM: Michael Hodgins and Morgan Shook
RE: DRAFf Fiscal Impacts of Auburn Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area (DRCA)
OVERVIEW AND APPROACH
The City of Aubum wants to understand how redevelopment of the downtown blocks might impad
city tax revenues and support its long-term fiscal sustainability, as well as its vision for the downtown
area. Specifically, the city would like to begin to understand the range of potential outcomes from
redevelopment of the catalyst area of downtown. Toward this end, two redevelopment Scenarios
were developed: a "Minimum" likely development Scenario and a "Maximum" likely development
Scenario.
A key issue for the City is how the flow of fiscal and economic benefits stemming from
redevelopment on these blocks fit within the context of a concerted effort to revitalize the downtown
urban core. This memorandum summarizes the results of a preliminary fiscal analysis of the Minim�m
and Maximum development Scenarios. The purpose of this analysis is to support the City of Aubum's
ongoing evaluation of potential development in its downtown area and begin to assess the potential
financial implications of various city actions.
This analysis is intended to support a decision-making process about the optimal mix, sequencing,
and timing of redevelopment on these downtown blocks balanced against strategic investments in
infrastructure or the provision of development incentives. Specifically, this analysis explores how those
investments might best enhance redevelopment in a fashion that supports the city's vision for its
downtown while being fiscally sustainable. The fiscal model used for this projed is flexible, and can
estimate the fiscal impads from any number of different Scenarios. This analysis, however, focuses
only on the development of Minimum and Maximum Scenarios for the downtown catalyst area.
The city is actively engaged in promoting downtown redevelopment that will have long-term
economic and financial benefits to its citizens. The overall financial impacts of the city's
redevelopment efforts in DRCA can be viewed from three perspectives listed below. The overall
financial analysis combines these three perspectives to provide a framework to evaluate future city
adions and negotiations in the DRCA.
�i� Page 1
.
DISCUSSION DRAFT Odober 2007
1. Financial Impact of City Real Estate Activities: The city has acquired many properties in
the DRCA and is actively working with developers to accomplish its downtown revitalization
goals. By doing so, the city has acquired a greater control of the development process to
ensure that the type and scale of development is consistent with the city's vision.
2. Fiscal Impacts from Development and Ongoing Operations: In addition to value from
the sale of the land it has acquired, the city will derive a fiscal stream of benefits from
development and ongoing operations from the uses that are ultimately constructed. These
benefits are incremental and measure the net gain/loss due to the composition, quality, and
timing of development.
3. Financial Implications of Investment Choices: The city will likely need to make
investments in infrastructure or to otherwise offer certain development incentives to help
catalyze development that is consistent with its vision. Currently, the DRCA is assumed to
require investment in a "Promenade" along North Division Street in order to create the
environment for the quality and scale of development in envisions. The city may also consider
incentives to developers as a means of facilitating redevelopment, such as exemptions from
impact fees.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The preliminary estimate of the range of potential ciry financial impacY is summarized below in &hibit 1. The
analysis considers these impacts over time in year-of-expenditure dollars. In order to provide a common
comparison, all values are calculated on a Net Present Value basis (NPV) in 2007 dollars. In other words, the
stream of future cash flow is converted to a single 2007 dollar value for each component of the analysis to
simplify the adding of components together and comparing the relative contributions of each. The NPV
analysis covers a 30 year time frame (2008-2037).
Under the Minimum development Scenario the city is estimated to see a slight benefit over the
course of time due mainly to the revenue generated from the one-time and on-going operations from
the developments ($2.88 M). As expected, the Maximum Scenario yields a substantially larger net
fiscal impact due to the greater scale of residential, office, and retail development ($6.27 M). The
Minimum is buttressed by the provision of lease parking lot lease. The Maximum indudes additional
costs for a pavilion and the cost of additional parking to support the additional demand generated
from the DRCA. Both scenarios include infrastrudure investments to the "Promenade° include utility
upsizing to meet development capacity in the DRCA, a complete rebuild of Division Street from 1"' to
3"' Streets, and hardscaping elements.
The summary table shows only impacts of the Baseline assumptions for both the Minimum and
Maximum Scenarios. A key driver of the eventual fiscal performance of the new development will be
the quality of development. In order to address potential variability in the quality, a sensitiviiy analysis
was conduded on the key fiscal assumptions in the analysis. Given a 10% plus or minus range on
property values and a 15o/o plus or minus on taxable retail sales from new establishments, the net
fiscal impact for the Minimum would range from $2.42 M to $3.34 M, and $5.42 to $7.12 M for the
Maximum.
�i I' I I, . .. i !
Page 2
DISCUSSION DRAFT Fiscal Impacts of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
An additional sensitivity analysis modeled delay in the start and execution of construdion estimated
that a one year and five-year delay would result in a respedive loss of $0.53 M to $2.51 M in the
Minimum Scenario, and $0.81 M to $3.94 M in the Maximum Scenario. Only the constructions of the
projeds in the DRCA are included in the delay analysis (e.g. acquisitions/dispositions and
infrastrudure investments are not delayed).
This is a preliminary analysis designed to give a range and magnitude of expected outcomes. The
figures are subject to change given updates to development specification, investment costs, and
policies decisions regarding developmeni in DRCA.
Exhibit 1: Summary of Fiscal Impact Assessment
Financial Implications of City Real Estate Adivities
Minimum Maximum
Land Closing -$L24 M $0J9 M
ParkinR Lot Lease $206 M n/a
Fiscal Impad from Development and Ongoing Operations
Minimum Maximum
Operations $8.03 M $18.26 M
REET g130 M �2.85 M
Financial Implications of Various City Investment Choices
Minimum Maximum
Promenade Infrastructure -$6.41 M $6.41 M
Pavilion Construction n/a -$0.83 M
Parking Consiruction n/a -$496 M
Property Tax Abatement -$033 M -$0.87 M
Traffic Impact Fee Waiver -$0.53 M -$0.98 M
Net Fiscal Impact
Minimum Maximum
Total $2.58 M $627 M
Sovrce: Berk&Associates
Exhibit 2: Fiscal Impact of Construction Delay
Net Fiscal Impact (Base Quality)
Minimum Maximum
No Delay $288 M $6.27 M
One-Year Delay $235 M $5.46 M
Five-Year Delay $037 M �233 M
Source: Berk&Associates
� ._ , i� ��. i� i'�5 .`, �.; _ . , . , '
Page 3
DISCUSSION DRAFT October 2007
FRAMEWORK FOR FISCAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
This analysis estimates a range of likely outcomes, acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in development
assumptions.There are three main determinants of the long-term fiscal impact from development:
1. Scale of Development
2. Quality of Development
3. Magnitude of City Costs and Investments
This analysis focuses on varying each of these three axes in order to present a range of possible outcomes.
Scale of Development: Two Development Alternatives. This analysis examines two
development alternatives based on Minimum and Maximum Scenarios developed from floor area
ratios derived from the Downtown Strategic Plan.
Quality of Development. While the baseline assumptions around development quality (Assessed
Value/unit and sq ft; retail sales/sq ft) are based on reliable data from the King County Assessor and
the Washington State Department of Revenue, it is impossible to predid future development quality
with complete certainty. To address potential variability in the quality of development, a range of
quality adjustments are considered for each of the Scenarios.
Magnitude of City Costs and Investments. The City of Auburn has choices around a number of
different cost, investment, and fee policies. This analysis will look at the incremental impact of a few of
those policies on the range of fiscal impacts associated with each development scale-and-quality Scenario.
ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK
A municipal fiscal model was used for this projed to estimate revenues and expenses for the catalyst
project area. In this model, factors in the land base (such as population, employment, and commercial
adivity) drive both demand for seroices and the tax base. Depending on a jurisdidion's scope of
services and choices regarding level of service, demand for services leads to costs, and depending on
a jurisdidion's choices regarding fiscal and taxing policy (limited by tax laws), its tax base will lead to
tax and fee revenues. Exhibit 3, on the following page, is a schematic representation of the model.
Proper Calculation of Future Property Tax Revenues
For the most part, this analysis focuses only on the fiscal performance of Auburn's DRCA and does not
consider the future fiscal outlook for the remainder of the city. However, due to the nature of the
calculation of property tax rates, it is necessary to projed Assessed Values (AV) citywide.
Initiative 747 limits cities in Washington to a maximum property tax levy increase of 1% over the
previous year's levy (plus additional levy revenues from new construction), unless a Iarger increase is
allowed through a public vote. Because the assessed value of most property increases at a rate
greater than 1% per year, the result of I-747 is a lessening over time of the property tax yield of any
individual piece of property, and a gradual lowering of the tax (or millage) rate.
The catalyst projed area will be taxed at the city's millage rate, so it is necessary to project how the
millage rate might change in the future in order to reasonably predid property tax revenues generated
� Page 4
DISCUSSION DRAFT Fiscal Impacts of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
by the area. The future millage rate depends entirely on the future assessed value in the city and
Council direction regarding levy increases, and that assessed value is projeded by taking the average
rate of construction in the city over the past four years and assuming a continuation of that trend
through the end of the planning horizon.
� Page 5
DISCUSSION DRAFT October 2007
Exhibit 3: Long-Term Fiscal Model Schematic
I LAND BASE I
� (Current City and Focus Areas)
Identify vacant and redevelopable land based on parcel-
�, level review of xoning,land use and currenl values.
Scenarios based on pace of growfh,and redevelopment
intensity
� �
y `.
i COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL
Square Fuotage, Type,Scale, Housing Mix,Type
� 7ming,Tenant Mix and Density
I +
Employment Housing Units ��.
New Re�ail Adivity Population
I
_.—
TAX BASE � SERVICE DEMAND I
_---_ _._ _
� Assessed Value Dired Service Impacts
Taxable ketail Sales Fslimale,dlmcl impacts based on
BUSIIIC>S IIICUIIIC key servicrdriven (pnpiilalion,
Utility Usage employmenl,land area, otl�ier) by
Population-based department.
Employment-based . �
Development-related �/ �
o�her Indirect Service Impacts
.
`�;' Estimate indirect impacts 6ased
on relalionship to direct impads.
Set Tax and Fee Policies
��/
Set Level-of-Service Policy
REVENUES \�''
----- — - --- -� �� SERVICE COSTS �
�
I _
�
Source: Berk&Associates
� i Page 6
dI5ClS5S10N DRAFT Fiscal Impacts of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The map in Exhibit 4 shows the DRCA (outlined in red) and the surrounding area. The area consists
of eight "Blocks" where the city has been an adive participant in facilitating the development process.
Exhibit 4: Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
��'�
, �,
� -----------------
i �
� �
� �
� �
� �
� � ,
� . , ' � , , ,
��������� ' - . nROMEN��'.-.._ '. 1��������^
� . __..____—
� �
� �
� . • 1
� 1
I �
� I
� _'�_''_ /
{' 1 � I
� 1 '
1 �
c � /
� � i
� ' ( I
� �--� r
- �-----"-----------"
� _�STVDYAREA
Source: Heartland �
Current Conditions on the Catalyst Area I�
Estimates of current population, housing units, commercial square footage, and assessed value in the I�
catalyst projed area are based on GIS analysis of King Counry Assessor's data extracts. Current retail
sales tax estimates in the catalyst projed area are based on Berk & Associates' analysis of the
Washington State Department of Revenue's spatial analysis of taxpayers in the area. The catalysi area
currently contains few dwelling units and limited population. It does contain approximately 100,000
sq ft of retail space and 14,000 sq ft of office space; however, the produdivity of this base is limited.
It is estimated that the area currently produces approximately $2.7 million in annual taxable retail
sa les.
�' Pa�z �
DISCUSSION DRAFT October 2007
BASELINE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
Basis for Development Assumptions
For each development Scenario to follow, units and square footage assumptions are based on the
Minimum and Maximum Scenarios developed by the City of Auburn and Heartland. These residential
and commercial assumptions are based on permitted floor area ratios and within the context of the
overall vision for the downtown area.
Assessed value per unit assumptions for condos and apartments are based assumptions derived from
the most recent King County Assessor Report for the Auburn area. It is important to note that the
AV/unit assumptions modeled in this report were scaled upward to meet the city's guidelines
regarding qualification for the multi-family property tax abatement incentive.
The commercial AV/sq ft figures represent the full assessed value (including land and improvement
values). In the model, these full values are added to the assessed value pool, and the current full values
of land and improvements (from the King County Assessor) are subtracted. Therefore, the net assessed
value added to the AV pool is the incremental improvement value of the new commercial space.
Because AV indudes both land and improvement values, and construction Taxable Retail Sales (TRS)
should include only improvement values, discount fadors are used to translate AV into construction
TRS. For residential, this discount factor is 65% of AV; for commercial, the fador is 75%. Operating
TRS/sq ft assumptions for restaurant and general retail are based on the 2006 Dollars & Cents of
Shopping Centers, and reflect a discount from the Western Median ($386 restaurant, 8289 general
retail). The discount reflects the assumption that some of the retail spending currently taking place in
Auburn will be redistributed to these new retail centers in the downtown area.
Construdion on all eight blocks is assumed to take place in 2008 and 2009 based on guidance from
the DRCA Strategic Plan. The fiscal model factors in the addition of residential and commercial
impacts on a unique schedule for individual blocks once construction is complete. Exhibit 5 details
that development assumptions used on a block basis (in the Maximum Scenario, Block 7 and 8
impact fees are considered together as one block, Block 7, since these are considerer a single
development option).
� Page 8
DISCUSSION DRAFT Fiscal Impacts of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
Exhibit 5: Block Development Assumptions
Minimum Scenario
Block Condo Apt. Office Retail
Block 1 0 0 54,600 10,400
Block 2 0 0 4,554 3,000
Block 3 0 57 0 3,600
Block 4 0 0 28,300 0
Block 5 50 0 0 7,560
Block 6 50 0 0 5,250
Block 7 Z3 0 28,080 5,400
Block 8 0 0 0 0
Total 123 57 115,534 35,210
Maximum Scenario
Block Condo Apt. Office Retail
Block 1 0 0 80,360 10,400
Block 2 69 0 0 4,600
Block 3 0 159 0 I 3,200
Block 4 0 0 28,300 0
Block 5 127 0 0 14,400
Block 6 77 0 0 7,800
Block 7 20 0 24,960 4,800
Block 8 20 0 24,960 4,800
Total 313 159 158,580 60,000
Source: Heartland Development Scenarios
The full development production assumptions for each scenario are detailed in Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7.
� Page 9
DISCUSSION DRAFT October 2007
Exhibit 6: Minimum Development Scenario Assumptions
MINIMIlM TOTAlS BlockMl� BlockW7 BlackM3 BlockNd 0lockp5 BIOAi6 BlackR] Bio<k;Ye
n n� nl Ma n rsaR e t Pitqn lot
UeveloablaBlockSF ]23,150 >>D55 5],G00 28.800 'l3,J8'J 28,BOG 90p�0 �ZC15 162C0
FAR
Basir,Permisseble ZO fi4fi.300 92]10 It5100 5].fi09 146T6U SZ6D0 'b0G00 83.030 "s2A00
Max Ferrnissable 50 �,615,]60 206,]IS 288.�00 i4a,000 366.900 144D09 t W.OW 235,0]5 81.000
ACWaIFAR 2.15 695393 ]]950 i3,310 BZ3]5 �3n.000 53,42] 92]]5 i50,356 �6200
C�eck OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
_ _ .. . . _ . _ . .. _ __ —_.._.___ _ _ _ . .
S�ories 3 2 4 3 4 4 4 0
Re�aiiNSF 35210 10.4�0 3000 3.600 0 ].560 5,250 5400 0
ORice/Cor•nm NSP 115,53A 54.6�0 d.554 0 2A.300 0 0 28,080
Conms
Units t22 D 0 0 0 50 W 23 0
NSF 1300 �59p28 0 0 0 0 64.62] 65025 29,3]6 0
Apts
u��is s� o o s� o o a o 0
NSF i000 s�.s�s o o s�,s�s o 0 0
rxa _
Total Covmetl
ACIuaIStaC=_ 939 3� W2 ]5 302 fit 64 2W 4t
RelzeOnSVeelCredi� 66 �B 6 ] 0 15 9 ti 0
Leasetl SIaCs 86 0 0 0 0 ]± 55 0 0
SF(tloesn9lncWtlem�-stree�stall 350 32A216 iL950 35,]58 26,400 105.�W 21240 22500 81.500 16?09
NetGaunle0 1D85 55 t08 83 302 11] �1B 261 <1
Requiremen�
Im�iaiRequlremen� 4B1 130 15 65 5] 65 61 90 0
Le55�.30005FRetailEKampUon (3fi� (6� 16) (81 0 (8� f6) (6) 0
Less:25%SM1aretl PaMing Retluotion (22) 0 0 0 0 0 0 (22) 0
Atld.T0�Demantl �00
Atltl�Fxiging Ci�y Hail Demand �49
Atld:EzisOnq Hosp�tal Demantl 96
Ne(Re uirement I68 12d 9 59 5] 59 55 61 0
Surplus(DeFlclp 316 169� 99 24 245 58 6J 200 41
Less:Parking los! (29�) �35) 0 (911 (`J0� (667 145� (301 0
ACNaiSurplus(�eficp 'I9 ft�f) 99 p) �55 (8) 18 1�0 ��
COmmE��' SaSEtl on RFP BasE-0 on curt2nl NSSumeS�Ilal only�Fe Ba5¢tl on PSF TSC"Half Block TSC"Hdlf 610Ck TakEn(lom RFQ ASSUmPs�M1is��s nol
Re50onse. 15tFlom. staWsoiwfiatisibere SouN�ali agreement Densily"TSCLuys�M1e Density"TSCSwa05 Response.250slall tlevelo0etl 465tallsis
8d003FReaYauranl. w.390565F2slory �SlracM1amGiry7piace Qyparkmglotend GntesauroBodyfor gerageonhalll�e t�esreofNecurrent
25005F Relai1.4500 paAing garape,1554 es forwartl.3 Gevebps t�e nortM1 M1alf C2ne antl 9evelops property,ot�er�alf M1as parkmg lot
SPKeyBank.Key SFvawnlbank.3000 smrlesola0�sa1]5% ot�M1eblodonly [becorrespondingEasl gNlloorralailvAtM1
9ank relans use ol SF parM1p6M1Op an� LC Retall along Man�pulaled LC ro ge� Ha0 Block only. offce�eM1inE,2nd floor
sudace parking on lartlware store Division only to 50 unI(s.wtiic�TSC Mampulaled LC lo get olfice.3rd en�atM1 floor
CavanaugM1 PmpeM clalms Is��e doa�le l0 50 unils.wM1lch TSG esitlenFel,onw5r-
2n�Ooov 25.300 NSF unl bW we don I claims Is tM1e tloable ou:c0�etl as rea 4 by
CIIyONme.'.�dfloa� hnowV�ei�azsumed Bmnunl.bulwe0onl ftFd
G00 NSF Ciry Office, uni�6iZe nghl noW NnOW(M1Pir a55umetl
1600oNSFMeOical Re[a�lalong]0%of mil5izerigMnow
OfF-ce Drvision Fonage an� Re�aii along]OYe of
Mainfmnlage Olvisionfmntage
Source: Heartland
� Page 10
DISCUSSION DRAFT Fiscal Impacts of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
Exhibit 7: Maximum Development Assumptions
MA%IMUM TOTALS Block#1 BlocM#2 Block#3 91ockR1 Block#5 BlockM6 Block#]88
�^ � MMx ACE ChnnDMNembini MMC MarveVAmbrsak CMef7NUR MaPyLy up�
�eceio�abieelocv.SF 4+1,030 55955 5].fi00 Si.30t i'a.386 s'].5W 5],230 �3.500
FAR
oa=cVem�=caci= 20 322,p60 i019ID it5200 t1160� t4o.]60 ]0.928 �iS.a69 i4Z2�0
MaxPermissab'e 60 2.GSS.t56 2o9TI5 2H8D00 288.505 36690U 189.320 286J50 368.000
AquaIFAR 3059 129294 103.�t0 W.1�5 21252t 209.J00 165.29A 2099W 265.344
C�eck OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Slories 3 5 � 6 5 � 6 6 6
RetaiINSF 60.000 10600 4600 13200 0 14.600 Z800 9.600
ORice/Comm NSP i5B.580 80.360 0 0 28,300 o e 49,920
Contlos
Units 314 0 69 0 p �2p �� q0
NSF 1000 325.829 0 68925 0 0 t2],330 ]].3W 5222a
Ap�s
Units 159 0 0 t5B 0 0 0 0
NSF t000 �59.120 0 0 159.120 0 0 G 0
Pallh� .- _.
Total Ceuntetl
NCWaIStalis 1,62d 3] 68 115 500 6� 399 439
RetailOn-S(reelCreOit 91 18 g i� p �g y �y
L¢a5¢tl Sldlls 0
SF(doesnlindutleon-slreelstall 350 553,]fi5 12,950 23.650 40?01 115.000 23,564 124.800 153.600
NelCounted t,116 55 ]1 132 500 86 408 4$0
Requirement
�nitialRequiremen� 910 182 ]8 t86 5] 156 93 159
Less�.3000 SF Rateli6empllon (36) (6) (6) (6) 0 (6) (6) �6)
Less'.25%SM1ared Parktng Retivction (407 0 0 0 0 p 0 (40)
Add TOD D¢mdntl 100 �
AddFxislingCityHall�emantl t¢9
Atld Exis[ing Hospi�al Demand 96
Ne1Re uiremen� t,180 t]fi �2 1B0 5] 1W 8� 113
Surplus(�eficiq 536 (121� 5 (48) 643 (64J J21 345
l.ess:Parktng Losl (aa0) (35) (W2) (31) (90) (68) (45) (30) (at)
NCWaI Sur Ios Defldl 96 156 9] ]9 353 1J0 216 315 (41)
Commenl: RFP R=sponse L�ut qssumes an open am tlevelopment of iwo Assuming 2 atldllional TSC Maximizetl TSG Maumizetl Assumes Mefs antl
alsoassum�ng pevllionwtl�1000SF �aliblocks.retaJalonq �oor�togaragw.100 �ensy20'ROWIor pensiYy.20'ROWfor GilyParkingLotBiock
CavanaugM1's(li2Ge is ki6Sk On l�e nol�h�al( division PnJ fip00 SF c�aIIC/�por proTNldtl¢.dlva5on PlomenatlQ.BdS�hdl! qmbined,willl
mc1u454 Sot�etfi oft�eblockandafi WeMu 60V5LCol no�arquiredres�of of�IocFretleveloped rep'dslreetsvaca�ed.
surtace spdces on story resltlen�ial es��entiel.5 OqpS Mock is tlevelo0e4. wpM1 reta�l along yiel�s Owelopa�le
Cavana�ayli s remain. property on ine soutn Retail along pivision tlihvo�and 5 floors of tlimension o13W X x
ExistingSVuuWre M1all.w�t�relailalong anCalongMain 5 resiCenlala�l0%LG. 260ft(1s1antl8sl
r¢4¢v49pOtl,I�Pn dVls�On RBSidenfiAl (loolSO(!¢SidBnlidld� W¢6��a110(blOtk ROWncwlnLl)
oR�cem�arenaoo�e �nry�sdeeoon�ooe� �o=�c eocomasaasrory
IM1at sicnes Darkrnggarage Plan
skelches sFiow E2
surtace Dark:no
spaces Nel
repuiremenl of 59
suaces-az��p�n«e=
z�more�eeeea
Source: Heartland
� Page 1 1
DISCUSSION DRAFT October 2007
Range of Development Production
Assessed value per unit assumptions for condos and apartments are based assumptions derived from
the most recent King County Assessor Report for the Auburn area. It is important to note that the
AV/unit assumptions for apartments modeled in this report were scaled upward to meet the city's
guidelines regarding qualification for the multi-family tax abatement incentive. Thus, the value of
apartments is set equal to condos; done so to account for the uncertainty of the adual housing mix
that will be construded in the DRCA.
For each of the two development Scenarios to follow, the fiscal impacts are presented as a range of
likely outcomes. This range is related to the production of block development impacted by the quality
of the tenant mix, as well as the market for residential and retail space at the time the development is
completed. Exhibit 8, shown below, presents the development characteristics for the base
development quali;y Scenario. The fiscal impact ranges to follow will vary from:
. A more pessimistic development-quality assumption (10% discount off the AV and construction
TRS figures in Exhibit 8; A 15% discount off the operating TRS)
. A more optimistic development-quality assumption (l0o/o increase over the Av and construction
TRS figures in Exhibit 8; 15% increase over the operating TRS).
More of a range is assumed in the operating TRS figures because these figures vary more widely and
are somewhat more difficult to predict.
Exhibit 8: Base Development Produdion
Residential AV/Unit Constr.TRS/Unit
Con o 8260,000 $162,500
Apartmen[ 8260,000 $162,500
Commercial AV/Sq Ft Constr.TRS/Unit Operating TRS/Sq Ft
GeneralOffice $175 $131 $25
General Retail $160 $120 $225
Source: Berk&Associates
Some key assumptions for the two development Scenarios are:
• Property tax levies are assumed to increase only by the amount of new construction (the 1% levy
increases, allowed by law are not induded in these baseline Scenarios).
. Multi-family property tax abatement is applied to both Scenarios.
• Transportation impact fees are waived for a seledion of Block Areas (Blocks 1, �, 3, 5, and 6).
. Promenade infrastructure improvement costs are included. These include utility upsizing to meet
development capacity in the DRCA, a complete rebuild of Division Streei from 1" to 3"' Streets,
and hardscaping elements.
. City investment in construdion of parking and a pavilion for the Maximum Scenario.
�i Page 12
DISCUSSION DRAFT Fiscal Impacts of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
Revenues Included
The following operating revenues are measured as part of the baseline analyses:
. Property Tax. As noted above, the catalyst project area would be taxed at the city's millage rate,
so it is necessary to project the future of that rate out over time in order to reasonably estimate
property tax revenues generated by the area. The future millage rate depends on the future
assessed value in the city and Council direction on levy increases.
Because current Council diredion does not include increasing the city's levy by 1% of the
previous year's levy, the amount of new construdion is especially important to the City's ability to
avoid erosion of its millage rate. A typical measure of the level of new construction adivity in a ciry
is the percent of a city's total assessed value that comes from new construction in a given year.
The baseline Scenario projects the future rate of new construction in the City to be the same as
the average rate over the past four years.
• Sales Tax. Of the 8.9% sales tax currently collected in the ciry, a 1 o/o local share of the tax
accrues to local jurisdictions. The city receives 85% of the 1% local tax and the County receives
75o/0. This tax is levied not only on businesses in the area, but also on construdion activity and
some transactions that are related to housing, such as certain online purchases and
telecommunications services.
• Utility Tax. The City of Aubum imposes utility taxes on telephones, eledricity, and natural gas.
. Other Taxes and Fees. Other taxes and fees indude: Criminal Justice Tax; Cable TV Franchise
Fee; Liquor Board Profits and Excise Tax; Grants and Other Intergovernmental Revenue; and Other
Miscellaneous Revenues.
The following capital restricted revenue is measured as part of the baseline analyses:
• Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). REET revenues are used by the city to finance capital projeds.
Incremental Costs of Operations and Capital
• In general, no additional service costs are currently assumed for the DRCA. It is assumed that
current city staff can absorb the relatively small increases in population and commercial square
footage that will take place in the downtown catalyst area (relative to the entire city).
• While there may be additional staff added to handle permitting and land use applications related
to the development in the catalyst area, it is currently assumed that these staff members will be
fully funded through permitting fees with the possible exemption of traffic impad fee to be
considered as a policy option.
. The city has secured a condominiumized interest in some of the spaces in the parking garage on
the Block 4 (ARMC) and office space on Blocks 1 (Annex), but these are not induded in this
analysis since these investments are driven by overall city needs for additional office space and
parking. While these are significant investments and of a non-trivial amount, they are primarily
done for a city-wide benefit and not diredly tied to development impacts in the DRCA.
� F i� � Page 13
DISCUSSION DRAFT October 2007
. Property acquisition costs are included in the analysis and refled the ciry ading as land developer
in order to facilitate and catalyze development in a fashion that is consistent with its vision.
Infrastrudure costs relating to an investment in the Promenade are included since these
investments are considered necessary for the desired type DRCA redevelopment to occur.
Promenade investments indude utility upsizing to meet development capacity in the DRCA, a
complete rebuild of Division Street from 1" to 3"' Streets, and hardscaping elements.
�i Page 14
DISCUSSION DRAFT Fiscal Impacts of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
FISCAL IMPACTS OF DRCA DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
Financial Implications of City Real Estate Activities
The city has acquired many properties in the DRCA over the past 40 years. It has sold or is currently
negotiating the sale of these properties as part of its downtown redevelopment activities. Exhibit 9
shows the year and price of city acquired and disposed properties (many of properties have yei to be
sold and are assumed to be sold in 2008). The acquisition and disposition of properties is similar in
the two scenarios but differs as shown in Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 10:
• Minimum
� Properties 6, 9, 10, and 14b are excluded as the assumption is only a half block will be
developed
� Properties 24, 26, and 27 are not sold, but instead ground leased to Straiford for parking.
Ground lease rate is based on property value at 8% of the disposition price at the time of sale
with 3% annual increase.
Property 27b is not acquired
• Maximum
�, Property 14b is induded on assumption it will be first acquired from Washington Mutual, then
eventually sold for full block redevelopment
o Properties 26 and 27 are not sold; instead, the City will use that and 27b to construct a
parking structure
� Property 27b is assumed to be acquired from Stratford
Estimates for acquisition and sales prices were developed from property assessments (at the time of
acquisition) or actual purchase prices; and from estimates of when the property might be sold in the
future assuming a 5.5% appreciation factor (or substituting that actual sale price if the property has
been sold). The net present value of land acquisition costs, land operating income, and closing
revenues (using a cost-of-capital discount rate of 5%) was found to be:
. -$1.24 M in the Minimum (2007 dollars)
• -$0.79 M in the Maximum (2007 dollars).
The negative NPVs mainly reflect the exceptions cited above where properties are acquired but not
sold.
In the Minimum Scenario, Properties 24, 26, and 27 would not sold, but instead ground leased to
Stratford for parking. Under the assumptions cited above, the city would realize $2.06 M in lease
revenue over the time period (2007$).
� ��� I . ;.. ��. � I � Page 15
DISCUSSION DRAFT October 2007
Exhibit 9: Summary of Land Acquisitions/Dispositions Assumptions
Nomber 11ddr�fi IIN SF Qnw(S�P��) w^� YMw9n�M WN bfmN M�11uA � LM DM(11 ���� S�N W W
. .-. ._. . ...: . :. . ,. � .. �_ . . .. .. . _ , �� . . . :�,i..
-. ��- yio�� n' bry i,:.� i 1 . .e� iu�.-��; - .- , .. � - ,
� , . . . . ,..�,�. j,i� v
Ki9k.0 04�IX�05n�� GryolAuLrn PHCFa1.n�Loi A'4(r3 P,.�c+i+ yF�i:.: �SfHi AV�ilqv F3(.J9
. r i., a^i�. ;rti5irr �;.. vcla,¢�.n b,. c.�nci�n �ds.. . ,. , . . cp��in�+ nin
, - � �i0 - � �I . __ ,_ . _ ... :.�,� -. '- .I�v'
.. - TIJ11 � �iCY " ' 3l 'I S L-3'�_ ' . �1 . .__ � �� �u: $I_I i�
- I 1515[ lfi19(H /�Mi G.yc 4 t ambM , S C�^: �. �.•� SSfPn 4pid.M dfi559
IG 615[StSE �BISJ00290 I,]W GryGA tivn Camb�ni P3.v Sep-(ll A p avon 5-SWo Apnl-08 O.S $6559
ii q250ivisionSt �tli5�IXi5tX1 �]W GryolHUGum Resident�a�lhiplex 86Y4a 4ngL5 Acquivi5on SSONo Apnl-09 LS 8�525
p 92nd5t5C /OIS�OOSf15 /,)(X1 CMolAubum Va¢mCvnmc¢i�l $6q.lA S.�pOI 4cq��iisitio� SS(Pm Apnb�iP OS 569.99
iS�JStA �F�?irflcin i2IX� riry�Jpiitum ayLm�z :..a.w 5,_p(q n,..rc._ s«r�„ n�ir�p nb �oo
iS .
�" StSC .t5)i :rtY �T,��� . . . . . ,. .- -_ .. .
I<b I -FI�i�F> A6iAlull�f t �4f....� r(. I 'I -i:Y�
I�LdStI.N O1C<(h i � II.`€D rlFP6C V mLcr.uFlhull _!�b lehuS C ��. . � I . 1'n aJS(Yi
. . r/1 a. � . � ,.�. . ,i.
IS , ,pl: I'.I1 u�fl'li I..� L 3d]1(i
� I]UiS��.W �.�-04'l✓ IIIEU PRMC FLI f '4ny,lil .�5 .. .. I I �'.�5 lan
c �
I-/ n/a ' 1-:,- i�l(� cFMC . _..�.I .ii I..�bUS .,� . I . . , li�. 4Y_.(9
.o � .. - � ^-4�dC � I'.n-I , i.l-i,�, . � - i• 3=iP:�
:
._ il�. . r.; t �� .- . i ... ai1.1C 3,i�.=�! . I . . � - � . � - . 5o3U.!
, . . .. .r4 � . _ . . ,. .
. . _ -. wK .� . _ � . , . . �. . �
� Il.r._n li-'P dFAM1C C :..MGI�- Ca=[Vl
� AhMam<r I�11 I . /fHJ GN:IAnLrv:i H�. 4 � i,. . i l�',1 ... .�. '�,•lu, . . VIHe
�' i .i � .s r,.
�
. . i :i - /-i �I .rn. p
��I - :p6!�. Iial!' Cip.•iA��l.-i L .
. . ..n4. �:�__i_I �'. �rv,. A� I[�F. �� .]f.�:il
= r . �. - . . - �.. .. . _ .. - ,_. .,.:-.
�. , >.. . .., , .. , , . , ,,. . _:_• • �,:�. ::.,i.,.
?Ib I. �C_ti:]1 4 � ' $Sh1A
"' ' - - Allli
II�?C:n..l' . . . . . _ .. .l _. CiJ.li
�vr t
111 f�'�'{ �.f^E.�]i. . .. . . . . . ... _
MIN SCENARID:
�roperties t,,9,l u,and 146 are eaduded az fhe acsumption I5 only a haN blr�c6 uhlll by developee
vro�ciry?/bivno!acquLed
<<oocnka�y?6,and J/am�ot wkl.bn insteaJ R�a�^d Ieaud to ShaMwJ br paM1�Mt Gra�M I¢ase r3re is base0 un pmpeM�eWe.rt"zalc dme"times e�m,with a 3^b annual bimp
MIU(SCENMIO:
Propzrry i-�b ie mdudcd on azsum0�on n vnll be H�st a<Quirzd hom'NaMn�hen rvmmalH sdd k�M1AI blak redavelopm_�n�
"mpamac]n and 2)are nbt sold;inm_ad,the CiN will n�c thm antl 2�6 w conacutt a OartmF rnucn iti
Properry J i b Is assumed ro be acqnimd fmm RrarforrJ
Source: Heartland
. , �t ' . , . . .� � . � i -.
Page 16
DISCUSSION DRAFT Fiscal Impacts of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
Exhibit 10: Map of City of Auburn Owned Properties
� - -- � — – --
i � I � CITV OF AUBURN
� �C__ . .. . ..
,; FisrnL Ir,npnrr
� —�_�-- � ANnlv�.i;:
' '. ' ' i���==--� PartdsCvrrendrorPreviously
� �i Owned hr Ciry of Aubum
— . I I
I__ � '—_. r i--�-� ..� ��___' 9/12/07
� - . .. i
_ �
� C �.� " i
-i �
---
. _ t.___ i � �-.
. �� .�,� r/ � � �________�l 1 If�VOY1IREA
$illp\' APEA f:�A(Y. IDENi1fICA1�ON ' FVTURE
I � .J �' _ -- - -- STVOY 11REA
l '�� ' -Clh'oI11uO1nn
i r� <`.� ',s I • �tsc a�+w..:ua..uq
� i�`.. .... . . . He .. '�. . .... ` _xeEemG�vunuC
. ' 1� _ �F�eahrom>LLC
_, . � + � � I �.�_` ��..... �'. _.— ' �WWWO^^Mutwlli�i
' � I
I���s�n�ce LLC
f . i' �� ' � Il _ -- a 1 � � —7 KCHA �^A
' ' � -�`��.:r:._�J . .. . . t: OW^n$v�[bn�51�
i.. . . '. � lf .
, ,_-__.......1 --- . . ��,��,��,�
' r+��w..�smU
I � a �� i: � � I�;g- � ��� �
�.1�. SwnAhamh
i� i _ � • `� =�T '`�' ;, ' • _ ���bvn Imemmrt�LLC
I I . � .. - k � I� �__� ;� 1
y - ' �v,� ' _ � . r�ppunyAubum on lu LLC)
. I 1 : � it a « I �
ii �
' . .`.: ,.._� �_ ..__. �.� � I � � ...... I . r _Ma�nnFwlrc
i I 1 {
1 , i j _CFK HdMnp llC
i � te � i� � . '.. I i ' �Ma.n�,d r4Jo�Caea�
. n ii � �Ir � lh�wanaiHdASe.ncn
�. � e [ . � . ' �� _RoekLw
�
. . 3� .__.� . . ''. . _Key6WdW�
_.._. A .�— � - -- I
� �.��.... '( i_1 L10�6$dll DRn-0uuan
" . - . r - �ti I I I :A R i I .-1 V I1
Source: Heartland
��i "� ' i' I` . ��, � '` � I ' I ��� Page 17
DISCUSSION DRAFT Odober 2007
Fiscal Impact from Development and Ongoing Operations
For each of the development Scenarios below, the results are presented in terms of a 30-year net
present value. Net present value represents the value (in today's dollars) of a stream of future costs and
revenues. It is important to note, however, that the fiscal benefits of the DRCA will not end after 30
years. The revenues generated by the project could continue well beyond 2037. A 30-year net present
value is used because long-term public debt is frequently issued in the form of 20 to 30-year bonds.
Minimum Development Scenario
• This is the conse�vative of the development alternatives, and the charaderistics of this
development scenario are presented below in Exhibit 1 1.
Exhibit 11: Minimum Development Scenario
Residential Units
Condo 123
Apartment 57
Commeraa Sq Ft
Genera Office I 15,534
General Retail 35,210
Source- Berk&Associates
Exhibit 12 summarizes the revenue breakdown for the base Minimum Scenario. The 30-year NPV on
operations for this base is $8.03 M. The main revenue source the sales tax with sales tax on new
construction playing an especially large role during the 2008-2009 construction window. Other
important revenue sources are the property and utility taxes.
� I Page 18
DISCUSSEGN DRAFT Fiscal Impacts of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
Exhibit 12: Minimum Scenario Revenue Breakdown
s�,zso,000
$1,000,000
$750,000 - I
$500,000
i
$250,000
$0
2007 2D10 2013 20'16 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037
❑Sales Tax m Property Tax ❑Utility Taxes �Other Taxes and Fees
2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037
SalesTax o.00 o.is oie o.is o.zo o.n n.�5 az� 0.30 o.sa o.3�
PropertyTax o.oa oio o.io o,ii aii o.iz o.iz o.�; o.i4 o.i4 o.is
Utility Taxes o.00 o.o� o.o� o.on o.oy o.i i o.�z o i a a i e o.i a a�i i
OtherTaxesandFees o.00 o.io o.ii u z o.i3 o.is o.ie o.ia o.�o o.�a o.zs
Source: Berk 8 Associates (Table shown in Million8)
The range of fiscal impacts for the Minimum Scenario after conservative and optimistic adjustments to
development quality is (30-year net present value at a discount rate of 6�-n):
• $8.74 M to $9.92 M Total
$7.57 M to $8.49 M General Fund Operations
81.17 M to $1.43 M Capital Restrided REET
Maximum Development Scenario
This Scenario sees a larger scale residential, office, and retail development than the Minimum
Scenario. The charaderistics of this development alternative are presented below in Exhibit 13.
�� Page 19
DISCUSSION DRAFT October 2007
Exhibit 13: Maximum Development Scenario
Residential Units
Con o 313
Apartmenl 159
Commercial Sq Ft
GeneralOffice 158,580
General Retail 60,000
Source: Berk&Associates
Exhibit 14 summarizes the revenue breakdown for the base Minimum Scenario. The 30 year NPV on
operations for this base is 818.26 M. The main revenue source the sales tax with sales tax on new
construdion playing an especially Iarge role during the 2008-2009 construdion window. Other
importaM revenue sources are the property and utility taxes.
Exhibit 14: Maximum Scenario Revenue Breakdown
sz,soo,000
Sz,zso,000
S2,00a,000
S�,�so,000
S�,soo,000 —
s�,zso,000
s�,000,000 �
s�so.00a a �.
5500,000
$250,000
i j
$0
2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037
❑Sales Tax 0 Property Tax ❑Utility Taxes �Other Taxes and Fees
2007 2010 2013 2D16 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037
SaiesTax 0.00 033 036 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 O.fil 0.68 0J5 0.83
PfOPeftY Td% 0.04 Q20 0.21 022 Q13 Q24 026 0.77 029 030 032
UtilityTd%25 G.00 O.IC 0.18 0.21 OJa Q27 031 035 0.40 0.46 0.52
�th2f TdX25 dfld F225 0.00 0.26 Q2& 037 035 D39 Q43 045 Q53 0.59 0.66
� Page 20
DISCUSSION DRAFT Fiscal Impacts of Downtown Revitalizatioa Catalyst Area
Source: 8erk&Assoaates (Table shown in Million$)
The range of fiscal impacts for Maximum Scenario after conservative and optimistic adjustments to
development quality is (30-year net present value at a discount rate of 6%):
• $19.98 M to $22.25 M Total
�, $17.41 M to $19.1 1 M General Fund Operations
$2.57 M to $3.14 M Capital Restricted REET
Baseline Development Scenario Results
The Maximum Scenario yields the greatest net fiscal impads of the two alternatives. Because the
Maximum Scenario involves greater scales of development than the Minimum, it is not surprising that
it yields greater long-term fiscal impads. Adjusting for quality of development does not marginally alter
the findings from their respedive base Scenarios since the relative increase in mix and scale is fairly
uniform between the two Scenarios.
�ii I; I �' I< 8. � _- � ` �, � . '�. � 1 '�
Page 21
DISCUSSION DRAFT Odober 2007
Financial Implications of Various City Investment Choices
There are three principal categories of city investment that have been identified to date: infrastructure
needs in the catalyst area, in particular the Promenade projed, pavilion, and parking garage
construction; the cost of multi-family property tax abatements; and, the potential of the city offering
exemptions from transportation impact fees for development in the catalyst area. The potential costs
of each of these are examined below. In addition, the cost of delay accion on the start of the projeds
is considered.
Infrastructure Investments in the Promenade
In both Scenarios, the ciry is �ontemplating funding improvements for the Promenade, either in part or
as part of a negotiation with developers of DRCA Blocks. The Promenade is the centerpiece street and
utility infrastrudure investment needed to facilitate an environment conducive to the vision for DRCA.
These improvements include utility upsizing to meet development capacity in the DRCA, a complete
rebuild of Division Street from 1" to 3'° Streets, and hardscaping elements. The current estimate for the
investment is in the $6.41 M (2007$). This estimate includes:
. Acquisition of land from property owners for right-of-way needs ($033 M)
. Promenade construction and utility relocation costs ($SJ M)
• Promenade hardscaping ($0.41 M)
Infrestrudure Investments in a Pavilion
In the Maximum Scenario only, the city is considering paying for the construction of a pavilion. The
total cost of this investment is estimated to be $0.83 M (2007$).
Investments in Parking Structure Costs
In the Maximum Scenario, the city is considering the contributing to the construction of 148 stalls in
the Crites/Huff Garage and l00 stalls in the ARMC Garage. The total cost of this investment is
estimated to be 84.96 M (at $20,000 a stall in Z007%).
Multi-Family Property Tax Abatement
The impad of the multi-family property tax abatement, which would exempt property tax payments for
8 years, is measured when the abatement is applied to all multi-family units. However, property taxes
continue to accrue to the commercial components of those properties that are multi-use. The analysis
assumes that the abatement is applied to all multi-family units constructed in the DRCA (as defined in
the development Scenarios). The tax abatement is applied in 2008.
• Minimum Scenario (Base Quality): Cost of $0.33 M (123 Condos, 57 Apartments)
Adjusting for development quality: Cost of $03o to 8037 M
. Maximum Scenario (Base Quality): Cost of$0.87 M (313 Condos, 159 Apartmenis)
Adjusting for development quality: Cost of $OJ9 M to $0.96 M
� ` I ; I� �. � � � � � Page 22
DISCUSSION DRAFT Fiscal Impacts of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
It is important to consider that the city requires a minimum investment of 8200,000 per residential
unit to be detailed by the builder and approved by the Finance Director as part of the exemption
process (the $200,000 figure is in 2006$ and must be adjusted for inflation). This investment refers
to the ac�ual cost of construction. The value of these condos/apartments would need to be in the
range of 8260/sqft in order to return an appropriate rate of return for the developer. Assessed value
per unit assumptions for condos and apartments in the model are based assumptions derived from
the most recent King Counry Assessor Report for the Auburn area at $250 and $175/sqft for condos
and apartments. However, as stated earlier, these assumptions were scaled upward to $260/sqft to
bring the value assumptions to qualify for the $200,000 investment requirement.
A separate modeling exercise (not shown) demonstrated that the net fiscal impad of properties not
meeting the 8200,000 threshold would have a negligible impact on the net fiscal position of the
DRCA. In the instance of where higher value properties would trigger the abatement, the short-term
property tax revenues are forgone due to the abatement. When lower value units are constructed that
do not meet the abatement requirement, the city is able to realize the immediate property tax
revenues since the abatement is not applied.
� Page 23 i
�
DISCUSSION DRAFT October 2007
Exhibit 15: Revenue Breakdown — Abatement
Minimum Scenario
s�,sso,000
ai.000,000
5750,000
�i
I
E500,000
i
E250,000
SO
2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037
❑Sales Tax O Property Tax ❑Utility Taxes �Other Taxes and Fees
2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037
Sales Tax aoo o.i s o i r o.i a o.zo azz o.zs o.n o.30 o.s� o.s�
PropertyTax ao4 uoa u.o� aos c�� i� c.iz o.i3 o.i� o.i4 0. s o �h
UtiliryTaxes o.00 o.ob o.oi o.oe o.oy oii o.iz o.�� o.ie o.is o.zi
OtherTaxesandFees o.00 o.in o.ii o.iz o.is ais o,i6 o.ia o.zo o.zz o.zs
�' I�; l IZ h, �; '� ; �, � ,; � ��, � Page 24
DISCUSSION DRAFT Fiscal Impads of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
Maximum Scenario
sz,soa,000
$2,250,000 -
I
sz,000,000
$1,750,000
51,500,000 — - -
$1,250,000
$1,000,000 -
$750,OD0
5500,000
$250,000
$0
2007 2010 2013 2016 20'I9 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037
❑Sales Tax �Property Tax ❑Utility Taxes �Other Taxes and Fees
2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034 2037
Sd�25TdX 0.00 033 036 0.40 0.45 OSO 0.55 0.61 0.68 OJS G.ft3
PropertyTax nn�� o.nr o.oF o.on o�a o.ar, n.�� o.z9 0.3o a3z o.sa
UTilityTaxes o.on o.ie o.ia a�i a�4 o.z� o.;i o.3s o.40 o.4F o.5�
Other Taxes and Fees n.00 o.ze o.za o.3z o.3s oa9 o.as o.as os3 os9 o.a�
Source: Berk&Aswciates (Table show in Million8)
Exemption of Transportation Impact Fees
The city has granted the waiver of the traffic impact fees on selected blocks in order to catalyze
development. However, the exemption will sunset in the June of 2008 and could be considered a
future policy decision for the DRCA under the likelihood that projeds on those blocks would not yet
be construded.
Exhibit 16 summarizes the traffic impact fee that would be waived by the city. This estimate is the
value of the traffic impad fee less any impad fee credits on the property. Impad fees are added into
the model based on the 2008-2009 construction window (in the Maximum Scenario, Block 7 and 8
impact fees are considered together as one block, Block 7, since these are considered a single
development option). In the base development Scenarios, it is assumed that the transportation impact
fees would be exempted for certain Blocks (Blocks 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6):
� , : . . . . .. ` ` , I ,
Page 25
DISCUSSION DRAFT Odober 2007
• Minimum Scenario (Base Quality): Cost of $0.53 M
• Maximum Scenario (Base Quality): Cost of 80.98 M
The extension of the impact fee waiver for all blocks would cost $OJ8 M and $133 M for the
respective Minimums and Maximum Scenarios (base quality).
Exhibit 16: Traffic Impact Fees
Minimum Maximum
Block Name Exemption Fees Credits Fees Credits
Block M 1 Annex Y 8662,703 b26I,484 8968,989 5466,729
Block 82 ACE Y 80 SO 8162,847 3181,073
Block #3 Chamber/Gambini Y 5134,437 816,637 b368,566 582,741
Block#4 ARMC N $171,781 852,287 $138,387 $52,287
Block#5 Marvel/Sunbreak Y 8178,854 8245,558 8424,739 $331,779
Block#6 Crites/Huff Y $155,759 $18,786 $247,131 831,722
Block M7 Mel's Hardware N $242,866 876,154 $372,856 $76,1 54
Block #3 City Parking Lot N 80 80 $0 $0
Total 87,546,400 5670,906 $2,703,515 81,222,485
Source� Heartland, City of Aubum
Projed Execution Delay
An additional sensitivity analysis modeled delay in the start and execution of construdion estimated
that a one-year and five-year delay would result in a respective loss of $0.53 M to 82.51 M in the
Minimum scenario, and 80.81 M to $3.94 M in the Maximum scenario. Only the constructions of the
projeds in the DRCA are included in the delay analysis (e.g. acquisitions/dispositions and
infrastrudure investments are not delayed). The impact of delay reduces the benefits of operations of
the DRCA by pushing out the impacts into the future where there are less years of benefits and are
discounted more heavily.
The net fiscal impads are shown in Exhibit 17 and Exhibit 18 for a one-year and fiveryear delay
period. The estimates do not consider delay in timing of the construction period, that is to say they still
take place in the timeframe assumed from the strategic plan with the respective delay added in (i.e. a
project slated to be constructed in 2008-2009 is construded in 2009-2010 with the one-year delay
assumption).
� I; I It I�� "�. -- ��� ti � '� �: I ���� � Page 26
DISCUSSION DRAFT Fiscal Impacts of Downtown Revitalization Catalyst Area
Exhibit 17: One-Year Delay — Net Fiscal Impacts
Financial Impliwtions of City Real Estate Adivities
Minimum Maximum
Land Closing -$L24 M -$0.79 M
Parking Lot Lease S I.90 M n/a
Fiscal Impad from Development and Ongoing Operations
Minimum Maximum
Operations A7.63 M $U37 M
REET 81.26 M E2J7 M
Fnancia� Implications of Various City Investment Choices
Minimum Maximum
Promenade Infrastructure -56A 1 M -$6.41 M
Pavillon Construction n/a -$O.S3 M
Parking Construdion n/a $4.96 M
Property Tax Abatement -$0.29 M -$OJ6 M
Traffic Impad Fee Waiver -$0.50 M -$0.93 M
Net Fiscal Impact
Minimum Maximum
Total 5235 M 55A6 M
Source: Berk&Associafes
Exhibit 18: Five-Year Delay — Net Fiscal Impacts
Financial Implications of City Real Estate Activities
Minimum Maximum
Land Qosing -$1.24 M -$0.79 M
Parking Lot Lease �,137 M n/a
Fiscal Impact from Development and Ongoing Operations
Minimum Maximum
Operations S6.I 1 M $14.04 M
REET S1.IG M $2A2 M
Financial Implications of Various City Investment Choices
Minimum Maximum
Promenade Infrashudure $6.4 I M -$6.41 M
F'avilion Construdion n/a 50.83 M
Parking Construction n/a $4.96 M
Property Tax Abatement -$0.15 M $0.40 M
Traffic Impad Fee Waiver -�039 M -SOJ3 M
Net Fiscal Impact
Minimum Maximum
Total 5037 M $233 M
Source: Berk&Associates
� Page 27
What to tlo about...
MISDEMEANANT JAIL
BEDS
IN THE FUTURE?
Interim report of the Jail Task Force
�..�.m, ,
This presentation:
• Jail bed needs now and future
• Cities planning cooperatively
• Findings so far
• King County's interests
• Jail Task Force agenda thru December
• Feasibility study-the next step
• Twelve-year context
�.m,�, >
YYho's YVho in jail planning
• JOA Jail Oversight Assembly
Eleded representatives of the 37 King County
citles collaborating on jail issues
• JAG Jail Advisory Group
Policy and law enforcement statl of Ihose cities
• JTF Jail Task Force
Electetls and staff of Ihe JAG cities,appointed to
the Task Force 6y the Assembly and Ihe JAG
aim.�m.ra�� a
1
JAIL TASK FORCE
Appointed by Assembly to further review report
and make recommendations
Gties diredly represented
aunum oesM^'^^� Rea"'°"a
�u�Le FeGeralWeY Renlm
9urian lueyuan ���
KiMInM SM1MlNne
Others welcome to participate
a.�,,. .�, .
� Tlmellne . . . to the present ,
„o. �. �, ��, ,�. �,o
�:C In(Illn'no wm.IIM dhn��11 aplloiu
NrvRCCm�b�n E�V�m�I
ConlrMwIlM1V�ilm�[nunlrinrMilM�l� m�
�ec�ew.�.ny r�d�.a M�•�.�M.�nN«m.m
c�i�miacum�.am,a�..m,mmRwno.. �I
i �.e..acn r�n rtwn ea�..rea
M�M�:.�rmb1Y�PPa^M1 I�II TN�Fem
.Cu�nn11Y1TF�1�Gw�IwlinF�ryX�om ��
Clties' jall bed needs
• 1,000 beds available now
• Where are the beds?
HInB Co.conlracl=�90' Yakime conlrxl=440
•Cllle9 rsp ie u�2]0:KL curmntly ellowmp up lo J00
Ronlon munlup�l=50 lesapueh munitipal=82
AUWm munitlpel=51 Klrklend munlGpel=12
othar cmiracl beJs=85
• 1,175 beds needed by year 2011
• 1,450 needed by year 2026
��.�, fi
2
Charge M the JTF
-By ihe end of 2007—
-Examine and update jail betl options provide0
by Ricci Greene
�Narrow range ol options
-Make recommentlalions ro Assembly to include
in a feasibiliy sludy
-DraR sCope lor feasi6ility study
-Outline basic govemance teafures
«wxe xunr �
Planning princlples
of th�Jall Task Foro�
• Beds must be available by 2012
• System must be complete&effcient
inteko I bnokinq I matl-psych I speclal nea�s M1ousing!
Iranspotlalion
• State-of-the-art facilities,philosophy,
management
• Control&responsibiliry shared
• Bed access dependable
• Fees 8 charges prediccable
ame.m.eoo, e
Pr�ll�ninary findings
d tlr Jall T��k Fore�
• Contrect beds won't be available
• New jail or jails must be built
• JAG cities will partner
• Alternatives to incarceration reduced bed
need by 10°/a
• Cities together need 1,450 beds by 2026
���, a
3
What about King County�
• King County contracl expires at the end of
2012
• K.C. needs 511 more beds by 2024
• Build-out at Regivnal Justice Center(RJC)
may meet K.C. need,but still no beds for
cities
• K.C.open to partnership with ci[ies
• JTF and K.C. now discussing
am.n.zuv� �o
Parallel planning
• S.fAR.E.(Sovl�COlinctions Entltyl-cities ai
ReMon,TUMwiIa.F�enl Way aIW Das Marres
-plenninB lor a new 500-700 EeE lail In soW�Ki�County
-5181 K lor a IeaWdlity stotly lo begin Nis year lo analyze sNos.
(�B6�AII.f.OlISINCIIOIIdfV10(�BfB11q13�L49(S
-Nrn�-S.LORE.saNh cilies inviled lo�om S.CORE.,II conlnboie
financlally 10-22�0]Aubum M1as asketl to joln IM1e S.COR.E
feaeibillty eWtly
• Auburn
- ay re0�ew curtenl lail lo mcel iheir beG neeEe,
e1aH is tlevelopl�g propoael for a 60-15�betl laeility
-jan I�e 5 COR.E oplwn
• S�aMI�
may eulltl jelllw own uae or peMer w�h tiliealKi�Counry to
meel beE nee0
• KlrklanA
-revrevnrg petl neeC B replecemml ofjal,wnwnenl wiN
u"@n�t2vdiRin�wA ��
JTF wlll apply criteria
Does the ootion . . .
• Fulfill lona-ranae bed needs of the JAG citiesl
• Resolve the transport problem?
• Capture greatest economy of scale?
• Can land be found-right size,good locadon,
with roads and needed infrasfructure?
• What will it COST-for land,wnstruction,
operation,ancillary services?
a�.n.mo, ,s
4 I
Governance / management
• How to provide best regional service?
• Examine local models—
EPSCA ValleyCom FRCH NORCOM SNOPNC
Thinkinq so far:
✓"Full partnership"
✓Owners have equal votes, however,
weighted voting on prescribed topics
✓Owner/subscriber cities
oan.,�s.zn, v,
Broad range of scenarios
rianY K'���ntinP mnnYnwl G Lwllen]
um aurornr: �.— Mv•m
� 'SLONE �d:sNMIM� one WW..I�LIryn
�bXlll
,m •sco�wem..�a��a .�. ��m W
mr�pnixi
ii<.i rb.u.a.m..E.n M.ar.� e..nw.rann,e.n
nv�mcw�n •wm.K��a
c c�.M
vmmM������nv
JAG Feasibility Study
• Up�lale betl noeA pmlPclions
� Size mosl elficien��o opera�¢
• Acreage antl siliig
requiramen6
• Polential locations Ihal meel
requi�emenls
• Capilal Cosls
• Opetaling CosLs
• Ppasatl openings
• Operale metl-psycn or
conlracl for special services
• Bookinq and Iranspotl
5
h�ii111i�.-. . I��tNe f�uffi��-�
vm zaon zmw xma w�i mn
�c�.Tmir Ire9nc.,,m,u�x��vu��.
IJeaemM1m:ITF Jellv[n rt[nmmentl�llnnn lo Npemblv+nd/��nemFly
�ppmrrv xmre n!wo�k(m feaniblllh xlutly
Y�MYnaCOMnhOPlm�
Next Sfms' r
-UndenakefeanibiliiyemJy n . o•r,� v
-Derign govemance ntrunvrc
-Idenli(yjaf�+le(r]
-I)eciuinn pmcean in m�king parinemM1iplel
-Him ceemlive di¢clor
�Develop farility Iayoul,dnipf,arcM1itevhrt and
engineenng
-Axxemblefinancing
CumWtliun
-Hire+nd tnin etaft
Il�le 1LID b0 4d1i1Y1-inbpen,openlioml mtl poPultlN
I
Summary
• There aren't nuHicient beds for all cities
aker2010
• Gontractin 1or bed Spate info 4he fulure
wlll not(ul�ll majority o/need
• Cities need to mova(orward witA
planning ior conslruction M 6eds in
paRnershiD or alone
• Task Force narrowing options So include
in teasibility study beginning in 2008
• Seeking Medback-are we on the right
Srack7 Are we missin�optfons tha!
should Ee considered.
onourao.zoo� ir
Auburn Jail Planning
for the Future
60 Bed Facility vs. 150 Bed Facility
omi.�m.mm �x
6
Basic Assumptions:
• Consimclion cos�s based on year 2010
• Aubum's Jail must provide a level of inedical
care similar[o the K.C.Jail
• SuKcien�contract jail 6ed space will be
available given a 6�bed jail option
• 7he Municipal coun would be co-located with
the jail facility
• The jail would be buil[lo a recognized
standard such as the American Corrections
Association(ACA)
• The jail would be siletl locally
a�.z�i is
Facts Bearing on the
Problem
• Contract beds may not be available atter 2010
(Yakima)or 2012(King County).JAG has
concluded that conhact beds wdl not be suRicient to
meel rogional needs
• All madical and psychological services(basic and
enhanced)must be provided[o Auburn inmates
after2012
• Outside incarceration wsts are d'rfficul�to contml
intemally,cost inflator could be much higher with
new outside con�racts
• Aubum's Uetl space need will continue ro 9row
oum.n mm m
Jall Deslgn Envlsloned In
Planning
• 100% Pre-cast Building
• Architecture conforms with the existing
commercial surroundings
• Focus on necessities rather than elaborate
accommodations
• Jail design maximizes efficiencies in
staffng levels
• Jail facility includes Municipal courtrooms
• Potential for fu[ure expansion
oeaM.�e.zw, z,
7
F�cample of Jail
Architecture
- . ,�� i�o. . ,, ,� �„�
�
�
__,,.�.�
d'�Me�TI.3n�i Y1
n.�p.w.�.a ir«wM w�w ew.,.'u�
��
_._--..:e,;;;:
o"�i .
��5_
�,-,..^^._�' .
� '��
_'` l. ...._.:�-._,
Estimated Construction
Cost in 2010 Dollars
60 Bed Facility
• Jail and Court $ 8,63�,225
AllocatedroJail $ 4,788,800
Allocaled to Courts $ 3.842 425
Total $ 8,631,225
• SoR Cost(estimatetl at 50%) $ 6,315.613
• Total Constmction Cost 512.946.838
aroe�ze.zao. x.
8
Estimated Construction
Gost in 2010 Dollars
150 Bed Facility
• Jail and Court 814,252.858
AllocaledloJeil $10,470,433
Allocaled to Courts 8 3,842,425
Total $14,252.858
• SoB Cosl(estimated at 50%) $ 7,126,429
• Total Constmction Cost M1.379.287
GtlwA.]110� 16
Aubum Jall Pro(orma
_ p ......� .�-�'�-.-�::s� ,,iir::,-rai�.-r�iG�-mn—rwia
BO Bed Ys 150 bed Ja119
w ew a.�nm�.
Pron
• Easie�lomamlainslafAnglavels
• Lene conslmclion coe�e�St 2.9m vs.b2t]m�
• Fewarinmaloslatliracllysuporvisa
• Roqolros lesa acreage lo Dulltl
Com
• Doee rwl meel Ihe wrtent ar p�qecteE SeE epaca�eatla
• Rellea on adLty lo cmVacl xal�auUitle agencies Ip�atleE be0
spacc
• Higharannuelopera�ionelcoeis (583mvs.5.8m)
. IneHimenl use of inetlifal resources lor jall s¢e
• I.ves conlrol and access Iw AUEum Inma�es Iha�aro�ousad
9�4BW�BR
IXliln tY.NXII I1
9
60 Bed vs 150 bed Jall?
1b Betl Fxlllly:
Pron
• W III meet tM1e Immvtliute betl space neeCs In year 2010
• Per paE construclion msl is less vnlh a larger facility
• Less annual oPeratinq cos�(in B years Ihe Gily will pave matle up
ihe DiRemnce im m�slmclion msls)
• GrealerconirolandaccessforAubuminmales
• Moa ei(cienl usc of inedical resources lorjail size
Cone
• Hlgherconslmclionconls
• More diHicull ro Md qualifetl slaffnq
• More.inmale.slodirecltysupervise
• Rapuias mare aneago lo�uA�
OiMerf9.SW1 tB
JAIL Options
• Bulltl a new 60 betl Jail antl continue�o look br conhact betls
• Build a new 150 bed jeil Ihal will meel Aubum 9 immetliele Cetl
neeCs bul xnsum�M1al plans(incWEing luntling)aa consitlerea
forexpansion
• PaMe�anl�Ne JAG�o meel betl neetls
- Pariner wilh Ihe S.COR.E cilies lo Duila ane operele a(acillty
• GatlnerwilhoneormoreCilieslo�uiltlajaillargeonoughlo
meol com0inetl betl noetls
• Con�inue wil�Ihe slaWs quo,bul plan budget for baslc antl
enhancetl metliral seniws antl betl spaca�reetls In 2012 antl
beyona
aem.xo.mm ze .
APD Gun Range
Initial financial analysis on feasibility of
replacing the existing outdoor gun range
��.z�, �
10
Indoor Firing Range
Research
• Why
�community pressure or other entities/factors
may force closure of outdoor range
�[here are few, if any,viable altematives
(private, military or State)
�must maintain qualification training
OtloC�A 3N] ]1
Indoor Firing Range
Considerations
• The Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)
has been increasing the regulaUons(thus
costs)relating to the operation of indoor finng
ranges
• Military demand for certain armor used for
indoor range construction has increased
construction costs
• The City's GSA property may be the best site
for an indoor range and regional training facility
�.,� �, u
Indoor Firing Range
Considerations
• Indoor fring range must offer comparable
training opportunities that we currently
have with our outdoor range
• Co-locating a firing range within a Jail
structure is neither cost effective nor
practical
«„e.,p �, v
11
Lead Fi►Ing Range Cost
estlmales"
• 2010 Dollars-
�Construction Costs @$270 per sq foot
�6 Lane,50 yard pistoVrifle with Classroom
and support space @ B000 sq ft
• Construction = $2,160,000
• Soft Cast = $ 540,000
• Total Cost = $2,700,000
'frangible ammunition range will save$
aw..zs.mo� .w
Next Steps for Auburn
• Comments?
• Questions?
• Concems ?
_ . ,�.�, �,
12
;
_ - -- - *
crnroF' *�, `` *
a �Q Memorandum
r WASHINGt01�
TO: City Council, City ofAubum
FROM: David Osaki, Community Development Administ�ator
Rob Roscoe, Risk Manager
CC: Mayor Lewis
DATE: October 25, 2007
SUBJECT: Sound Transif Parking - October 29, 2007 Committee of the Whole
Meeting
ISSUE
Options for use.ofthe City_controlled parking spaces in the Sound Transit parking
garage (Aubu�n Station).
BAGKGROUND.
Tfie City of Auburn has righ#s to 180 pa.rking stalls in 4he Sound Transit parking garage
(Auburn Station:) The 180 spaces are located in the parking garage as follows:
15t Floor— 9 spaces
2"a Floor— 42 spaces
3'� Floor- 42 spaces
4�" Floor= .40 spaces
5th Floor— 40 spaces.
6th Floor— 7 soaces
TOTAL 180 spaces
Of these 180 total parking stalls, 42 parking stalls are committedlassigned
specificallyfor the Transit Center retail space, 80 stalls are "public" parking associated
with the Ttiitt Building Local Improvement District (LID, by "public" it is meant that there
may not be restrictions on who can. use the spaces), and the remaining 58 spaces have
no restrictions on how they may be assigned.
This information is summarized in the following table, which also describes how the
spaces are presently used.
• 4
NUmI�B�Of = � u �'�f' tC sa .- � ss N+r +� �it $ � ;'
t���, � u ���'tl �t�,.� �s y..Y�ni Y,��1 rA� �y ��.< T�W a!1 '1 5 $,� +k'fTi�.:
� 'Parkingk �s ���r'r ' , ' �r�-�;� "�' �, r"�t ��. N�rJrI kt ,y !7`Y��}rOi��;�t� � '+ V'a
<s�rS��BC@S�`** +:�f��w�Pr����Ltmitat�ons�x ��r�,.��`Yu�''���s.�����F e�ent�U @.f�����
42 Committed to the:Aubum Station retail space. Signed for use by
Auburn Station retail space
onl .
SO Public parking stalls associated with the Truitt Availa6le for publig use"tiuf
Building Local Improvemenf District(LID). The are almost exclusiyely
City retains exclusive use over these 80 stalls being used by Sound
with ihe Iimitation that they be available for Transif(ST)commuters
public parking (as that is how they were created (since ST commuters are
for the LID) the frsYto arcive in the
—_. _ _ __ mamin .
58 None. (The City maylimif users"and time of use:)� C.ertain stalls a�e signed as
permit parking for ttle
Aubum Downtown
Association (ADA).
Non-signed spaces are
• almost exclusiVely being
use,d by Sound Transit
commuters(since ST
commuters are the fi�st to
_.... ..._
arrive in the momin .
From a practical standpoint, only 58 ofthe 180 parking stalls are unconstrained in terms
of how the Gity may wish to use them. 1Nith these 58 parking spaces, the City may limit
users and may limit time of use. 80 additional parking stalls (associa4ed with fhe Truitt
Building LID) can be used for public parking, so long asthey are made equally available
to the general public (i.e. they cannot be "assigned" parking giying one or more
individuals greater access to the parking stalls than other individuals). The remaining
42 stalls have commitments associated with them (Transit Cenfer retail space).
DISCUSSION�
The following altematives present themselves with respect to the use of these parking
sPaces:
ALTERNATIYE:1: Lease 138.or_fewer.saaces to Sound Transit.
The City has a proposal f�om Sound Transit tolease back the Ci4y's available parking
spaces thus reducing the City's financial obligation towarcl the Transit Garage. Sound
TransiYs proposal is to amend the Master Lease Agreement (Section 3.2(b)), and
[emoVe the Gity's obligation to pay 40% of the parking structure's opera4ing costs
($135;000 in 2005) and instead, bill the City $550.00 perstall for each of fhe parking
stalls that the Gity retains:
The City coultl conceivably lease all 138 parking stalls back to Sound Transit as long as
Sound Transit kept at least 80 spaces open forpublic use (80 spaces are encumbered
for public use via the Truitt LID). The City would retain at least 42 parking spaces
(Commercial Retail Space) which would result in a minimal annual charge of$23,100.
2
. '
l'herefore the City could conceivably reduce its annual financial obligations from
appro.ximately $135,000 down to $23,1D0 resulting in an annual savings of$111;900,
ALTERNATIVE 2: Use Certain-Snaces_(uu to 581 fo Suaport bowntown Off-Street .
Parkin4 efforts.
In accordance with 4he Downfown Urban Center (DUC) Zone (Auburn Gity Code (AGC)
Chapter 18.29), off-street parking may be located off-site probided that it is within 1,000
feet of the use in the DUC zone which it serves. The off-street parking needs to be
connected to the property.it serves by streets improved with walkways or sidewalks and
then also fied to the site by a wntractual agreement approved by the Gity. -
Based on this, the 58 unencum6ered parking spaces could be used to support a
development project in the DUC zone if fhe project were located within 1,000 feet of the
Transit Center. That includes much of the DUC zone, extending as faY east to include A
Street SE. The 58 transit center spaces could therefore be used to support
development of blocks commonly referred to as the Annex block, Project Ace block,
Chamber of Commerce block, MarveVSunbreak block; and Crites Nuff block.
lJnder this alternative, the parking spaces could always be leased to Sound Transit,at a
later date'if it were determined that they were not needed to support downtown
redevelop"ment efforts.
ALTERNATIVE 3 - Paid Parkin6 Afrandement .
A third altemative would be to convert part or all of the unencumbered C'ity controlled
parking stalls in the garage to paid parking. This would allow the City to assess the
market for paid parking in downtown Aubum.
If, through this altematiVe, a demand for paid parking exists a.nd is demonstrated, fhen
this would provide a reason and motivation to the private marketplace to pursue the
construction of private paid parking facil'ifies 'in the downtown.
3