Loading...
03/09/2010 City CouncilEDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES March ' I 1 At 5:15 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding negotiations for the purchase of real estate and also pending and threatened litigation. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 45 minutes and would be held in the Police Training Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim and Councilmembers Orvis, Plunkett, Fraley - Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson and Wilson. Others present were Attorney Grant Weed, Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 6:00 p.m. The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Steve Bernheim, Mayor Pro Tem Strom Peterson, Council President Pro Tem D. J. Wilson, Councilmember Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Dave Orvis, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley - Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Gary Haakenson, Mayor ALSO PRESENT Graham Marmion, Student Representative 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAFF PRESENT Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services /Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Noel Miller, Public Works Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer Rob English, City Engineer Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 2, 2010. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 9, 2010 Page 1 C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #117510 THROUGH 117633 DATED MARCH 4, 2010 FOR $764,749.66, AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #49129 THROUGH #49163 FOR THE PAY PERIOD FEBRUARY 16 - FEBRUARY 28, 2010 FOR $638,466.75. 3. PRESENTATION BY WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - EDMONDS FERRY PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP DESIGN BUILD PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PROJECT. Community Services /Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained this item was related to the Washington State Ferries (WSF), specifically the WSF parking lot south of the Skippers site and south of Main Street as well as pedestrian connectivity. He introduced Jeff Doyle, Director of Public Private Partnership, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT); Fred Tharp, Innovative Contracting Engineer, WSDOT; and Rahim Delli, Project Engineer, WSDOT. Mr. Tharp explained this was an effort to inform the Council of WSF activities, share elements of the project and allow the Council to ask questions. Mr. Doyle explained three years ago the State Legislature provided funding to the Public Private Partnership at WSDOT to analyze all ferry terminal properties to determine which properties had the most potential for joint development; either property that was underutilized or planned construction activities where the participation of a private developer may achieve cost reductions, cost sharing or additional amenities for ferry system passengers. The analysis identified three terminals, the Seattle Coleman Dock, the Bainbridge Island terminal and the Edmonds terminal. He noted for Edmonds it was not necessarily the terminal as two years ago the terminal relocation project was moving forward but rather an opportunity to do something better with the lot across the street from the terminal which is currently operated as a parking lot. With the results of the analysis, last year the Legislature directed his office to pursue a potential partnership at the Edmonds terminal. He clarified although the presentation referred to a project, there actually was no project, no design, no project scope, no funding, and they are not compelled to do anything at the terminal. Instead they have a proposition: if someone, a private or public partner, can provide construction improvements that are of value to the ferry system and its riders in Edmonds, they would be willing to exchange the property for those improvements. That is the nature of the Request for Proposals (RFP). Councilmember Plunkett requested a map of the location of the potential project be displayed. Mr. Doyle explained the property is across from the ferry terminal, approximately 1 acre in size, currently developed with 79 paid parking spaces, adjacent to the Skippers site. Mr. Tharp explained when Mr. Doyle approached him with the need for a project by mid - January, it was clear there were several concurrent efforts. The project description is an infrastructure improvement that has a value equal to or greater than the value of the property. The proposal must address the following: management team, pedestrian capacity, shelter, security, maintenance and operation, aesthetics and community harmony. He noted there was a vision at one time of a pedestrian overcrossing and he identified the potential location, assuring that was not necessarily the project but it provided something for the team to write about in the requirements and specifications. There is no funding for a project; the entire project must be funded solely by the property exchange. Therefore, a project proposal must provide complete project management including quality control that would be acceptable to WSDOT. If no acceptable proposals are submitted, there will not be a project at this time. For example, even if a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 9, 2010 Page 2 developer complies with the requirements of the RFP but the community does not like the project, it will not proceed. Mr. Tharp explained all proposals are due by April 30, 2010. An evaluation process will follow with an announcement regarding best apparent value approximately May 21, 2010 although the dates are subject to change. Mr. Tharp described the design /build process and the importance of engaging with the City. He explained a design/build project was very different from a conventional design/bid /build project because it was all about communications and relationships. Effective communication begins early in the process with WSDOT talking with proposers as they develop their proposals. Risk management is one of the outset factors; risks primarily are the unknowns. Elements of the contract for design and construction services included qualifications and technical requirements. This project has a single proposal document that includes the qualification phase as well as a technical phase. In a conventional design /build project, an instruction to proposers is provided that provides an outline of qualifications sought; if a proposer passes those qualifications, WSDOT will review their technical proposals and evaluate it for the information requested. In a typical proposal development, there are three phases, 1) the proposers gather information and develops strategies and concepts, 2) completes the design to prove out the concept, and 3) pricing. During the proposal process the team has the opportunity to meet with proposers in a one -on -one, confidential setting. He envisioned the City would participate on that team. There is also an alternative technical concepts process where proposers have the opportunity to change the requirements in the RFP. He encouraged the City to participate in that process as well. As changes are made, a series of addendums will be published. Once a proposal is submitted, it cannot be changed. He envisioned the City participating in the evaluation of the proposals. If a number of great ideas are submitted but the actual project is not acceptable, before procurement is cancelled, there will be an opportunity for a best and final offer process. He envisioned the City participating in that process as well. Mr. Delli described the coordination efforts for this project. Mr. Doyle began communication with the City on this project before there was a formal project. Once WSDOT advertised it as a formal project, WSDOT met one -on -one with the City; with the City, Sound Transit and Community Transit; one -on -one with BNSF; and one -on -one with Sound Transit. During the meeting with the City and Sound Transit, it was recommended this project be presented to the City Council and to host an open house. An open house /workshop will be held on March 15 at 5:00 p.m. in the Library Plaza Room to talk about the project. Mr. Delli explained this project is on a fast track. Their conceptual design, in order to get the most benefit for ferry pedestrian traffic, would be a pedestrian overpass over the railroad tracks and Sound Transit tracks to the east side with a landing on Railroad Avenue. He assured this was only a conceptual design; a proposer could propose something else including an over- crossing, under - crossing or at grade crossing. WSDOT envisions a minimum 12 feet wide bridge with two elevators and stairs. Councilmember Wilson expressed appreciation for the innovative effort to swap property for a project that would bring value to ferry commuters and the community. He observed the value of the property owned by WSDOT was the limiting factor to what could be built. Mr. Tharp answered WSDOT could not execute a contract for anything worth less than the appraised value of the property. Councilmember Wilson commented for example, if the value of the property was $2 million, that was the limiting factor. Mr. Tharp agreed, noting that value would be at the lower end. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 9, 2010 Page 3 Councilmember Wilson was frustrated the Council was only being asked now for their vision for this property. If WSDOT had come to the Council and asked to upzone the property to allow additional height which would have increased the value of the property, the project could be very different. That intersection and how the landing would integrate with the Skippers property are critical to the community. He would have preferred to have an opportunity to consider a proposal by WSDOT six months ago for an increase in the height to increase the value of the property which would allow a substantially enhanced pedestrian overpass. He questioned why there was a rush. Mr. Tharp responded WSDOT as a State agency must be somewhat cautious not to be in the land development business and compete with other land developers. If there is an opportunity to increase the value of the property, WSDOT would consider that before any agreement was executed. The rush now is internal and in response to political issues. Either they identify a beneficial project or withdraw the proposals. Councilmember Wilson commented on the possibility of air rights on James Street as a way to add value to a project such as accommodating transit on the first floor with construction above. He hoped the City would have enough time develop its vision for the Skippers property to ensure the landing did not negatively impact development on that site. Mr. Tharp advised their solicitation was open to the City and Port. Mayor Pro Tern Bernheim asked who owned the property where the landing would be located on the east side of the railroad tracks. Mr. Tharp believed it was owned by Sound Transit. Councilmember Plunkett observed the intent was to accept ideas /concepts from different proposers for review by the City. Mr. Tharp answered proposals would be reviewed by WSDOT with City's participation in that evaluation process. Councilmember Plunkett asked who he envisioned would be "the City." Mr. Tharp answered it would be anyone the Council appointed; to date they have had a very successful relationship with Mr. Clifton. Councilmember Plunkett asked if several people could participate. Mr. Tharp answered they preferred representation; if it was necessary, more than one person could participate. The evaluation team was envisioned to consist of three people. Councilmember Plunkett commented although the Council has extreme confidence in Mr. Clifton, Mr. Tharp was suggesting Mr. Clifton would be the City's representative who would assist WSDOT in determining which of the 3 -4 concepts to pursue. Mr. Tharp answered there are evaluation criteria, although somewhat subjective, that would be applied to all proposals. Councilmember Plunkett was hopeful WSDOT would be open to more than just one staff person participating in that process. Mr. Tharp answered they would entertain any suggestions and have not yet established the ultimate evaluation committee configuration. Councilmember Plunkett assured he did not intend his comment about staff's involvement in the evaluation committee to be pejorative; he preferred the City's involvement be broader than one staff person. Mayor Pro Tern Bernheim asked if there was any decision required tonight. Mr. Tharp answered their presentation was for information only and an opportunity for the Council to request additional information. Councilmember Buckshnis questioned the timing, noting the RFP was issued January 15, 2010 with an April 30 deadline. She commented the RFP did not reference the use of funds available from the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) or other transit oriented funding sources or grants. PSRC recently made a presentation to Snohomish County Tomorrow stating they are on a funds distribution schedule of 2 -3 years. Mr. Tharp answered the deadline could be changed; based on their past experience, if a date is not included proposals are often not submitted in a timely manner. Their goal at this point was to introduce the project and work with the City to solicit comments and ideas. The intent of the workshop is to meet Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 9, 2010 Page 4 with third party members including proposers, the City, transit agencies, railroads and the public to answer questions in a level playing format. From that point, one -on -one meetings with proposers would be held in confidentiality. If necessary, the dates can be changed. Councilmember Buckshnis commented PSRC stated they have $160 million in annual funding. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether terminal relocation, the Edmonds Crossing project, was no longer a possibility. Mr. Tharp answered that would be outside his authority. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim commented the City's Comprehensive Plan still includes the Edmonds Crossing project and he was unsure how that would impact this project. Councilmember Wilson commented the City could be a party to the land swap. He asked if a three way swap was a possibility, a design /build firm would build an overpass for $2 million for which they would receive a property of that value owned by the City and the City would receive WSF's property. Mr. Tharp answered WSDOT was accepting any comments or proposals; a proposal could even be to build a bridge in ten years. Councilmember Wilson asked if there was anything in the vision that would make a public agency more appealing than a private. Mr. Tharp answered that was not part of the consideration. Mr. Clifton explained when WSDOT issued the RFQ /RFP in mid - January, information was provided to the City Council. Immediately following the issuance of the RFQ /RFP, WSDOT asked to meet with WSF staff, Community Transit, Sound Transit and the City to obtain an understanding of the issues related to this type of proposal. In a recent conversation with representatives of Sound Transit, WSF and the City, they agreed it would be good to open a direct dialogue between the City Council and WSF and WSDOT to address issues such as have been raised by the Council tonight. Councilmember Wilson commented it would be helpful to have a general awareness, possibly in Executive Session, of the appraised value of the property as well as what properties the City owns that may be available for surplus for use in a potential swap. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim agreed that could be scheduled. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim expressed the Council's appreciation for the direct communication with the City Council on this very important issue. 4. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim had no report. 5. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmembers had no reports. 6. ADJOURN TO CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned to Committee meetings at 7:45 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes March 9, 2010 Page 5