Council directs staff to pursue Mill Creek Commons feasibility for new public works facility

Mill Creek, Wash. — City staff and an outside consultant presented a multi‑year facility needs assessment and site‑selection study for the city’s public works maintenance and operations yard on Sept. 23; following extended discussion council members signaled they want staff to pursue feasibility and real‑estate due diligence for the Mill Creek Commons site first, with DRCC (Dobson/Remillard/Cook/Church property) as a fallback.

Public Works staff reviewed decades of planning and incremental steps the city has taken to store equipment and materials outside City Hall and on adjacent parcels. The consultant team from Maker's Architecture presented the space needs analysis and an initial shortlist of candidate sites within the Urban Growth Area. The consultant said the city needs a minimum of about 3 acres to meet projected needs for the next 20 years, and ideally about 5 acres to accommodate annexation scenarios and future expansion; building area needs were estimated at roughly 16,000–38,000 square feet of shop and covered storage depending on scope and phasing.

The consultant’s shortlist started from approximately 40 parcels and narrowed to five: Pacific Topsoil (Northeast Mill Creek), DRCC (city‑owned cluster), Mill Creek Commons (private), Mill Creek Self‑Storage site, and the Catman property in the Urban Growth Area. Topsoil and Self‑Storage were eliminated for size or operational constraints. The consultant presented “test‑fit” diagrams showing that both DRCC and Mill Creek Commons could accommodate a three‑acre program, though expanding beyond 3 acres at Commons would encroach into steeper slopes or wetland buffer zones and therefore raise construction costs.

Staff highlighted key tradeoffs: DRCC is city‑owned and large enough for a 5‑acre program but is being studied for a civic campus redevelopment (civic campus study could conflict with a large warehouse); Mill Creek Commons has a central location and strong access to arterials but requires acquisition and some additional construction cost to develop sloped portions of the site. Council members raised typical concerns — traffic and ingress/egress for large vehicles at the Bothell‑Everett Highway/Seattle Hill Road intersection, topography and wetland buffers, funding for acquisition and site work, and the risk of committing DRCC land that may be needed for other civic uses.

After discussion councilors coalesced around a sequential approach: authorize initial due diligence for Mill Creek Commons (geotechnical, environmental phase‑I, title appraisal and preliminary negotiations) and proceed with feasibility work on that parcel first; if the Commons site proves infeasible based on the due‑diligence findings, staff would return to further evaluate DRCC. Several council members also said they preferred staff to seek to secure the Commons parcel under an agreement or option before spending significant feasibility funds, to reduce the risk of paying for studies on a parcel the city would not later be able to acquire. Staff said additional funding allocations and contract amendments may be needed for appraisal and negotiations.

No formal acquisition motion or binding contract was approved at the Sept. 23 meeting; council gave staff direction to proceed with next‑step due diligence and negotiations and asked staff to return with cost estimates and, if appropriate, an offer or option to secure the site prior to full feasibility work. Staff also recommended that public works site evaluation be included in the civic campus study if Commons proves infeasible.