Loading...
PPW070919PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING July 9, 2019 Elected Officials Present Councilmember Kristiana Johnson (Chair) Councilmember Dave Teitzel Mayor Earling Other Guests Present Grant Haig, McKinstry Staff Present Phil Williams, Public Works Director Rob English, City Engineer Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director Thom Sullivan, Facilities Maintenance Mgr. Jeannie Dines, Recorder The meeting was called to order at 7:09 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Item 5, Amend Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 20.70 Street Vacations, and Item 9, Proposal for Personal Services Contract for Program Administrator at the Wastewater Treatment Plant were removed from the agenda as they were being considered by the PSPP Committee. 1. WDFW Contract for Fishing Pier Ms. Hite explained the contract for the fishing pier renovation with WDFW has expired. This new contract is to allow the City to settle with the contractor and to complete repairs of the fishing pier. The total value is $150,000. Questions and discussion followed regarding the timing to complete repairs, estimated cost of the repair, the settlement amount, REET funds allocated to the project. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda 2. Interlocal Agreement with Edmonds School District for Meadowdale Preschool Ms. Hite advised the City has had an ILA with Edmonds School District for many years for the Meadowdale Preschool program which allows the District to place students in the program run by the Parks Department. There is no charge to the families as the District pays the enrollment fee. Questions and discussion followed regarding the number of spaces the ILA reserves, how families qualify, and no significant changes to this year's ILA. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda 3. Frances Anderson Roofinq Request for Bid Ms. Hite explained the project was bid twice; both times the bids exceeded the engineer's estimate and bids were rejected. The specifications on the allowable roof systems were changed to appeal to a broader range of contractors in the hopes of attracting additional bids closer to the engineer's estimate. Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda 4. Waterfront Redevelopment Contracts Ms. Hite explained the Waterfront Redevelopment project includes the waterfront rehab, parking lot and the frontage improvements. The bids for this project were $1.2M over the engineer's estimate. This item is for discussion only, the City is in active negotiations and anticipates bringing three contracts to Council for approval to align this project with the Waterfront Center rebuild, 1) construction contract with WG 07/09/19 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 2 Clarke, 2) construction administration contract with KBA, and 3) design support contract with Environmental Works. Ms. Hite reviewed funding sources and expenses for the Waterfront Redevelopment Budget Summary, highlighting expense items that still being negotiated. The funding shortfall is $814,057; the goal is to reduce the shortfall to $600,000-700,000. The Finance Committee is reviewing a $500,000 budget amendment for this project from the following sources: reallocating $200,000 for land acquisition in Fund 126 to this project, $100,000 from REET, and $200,000 from the General Fund. Rather than wait for another committee meeting, she recommended staff present to full Council when more solid numbers are available. Questions and discussion included net improvement to the environment (75%), permits, reason the bids exceeded the engineer's estimate (technical difficulty of the project), ways to lower costs, this project separate from the work in front of the Ebb Tide, when construction will begin and end, work that can occur with the bulkhead in place, advantages of having the same construction company for the Waterfront Center and this project, artwork for the project versus 1 % for Art, preference not to use land acquisition funds and to identify other funding sources, construction sequencing, avoiding damage to the parking lot during completion of Waterfront Redevelopment program, and removal of trees on the site. Staff to research whether street trees will be retained. Action: Schedule for full Council 6. Report on Bids for the Dayton Street Stormwater Pump Station Proiect Mr. English reported bids were opened today. Two bids were received, the apparent low bidder was Boss Construction in the amount of $1,529,418, approximately $200,000 above the engineer's estimate of $1,325,000. The funding includes a $515,000 appropriation from the State legislature. Staff will evaluate the bid and the information submitted and determine how to fund the shortfall. He recommended presenting to full Council once the bid results are confirmed and a funding strategy has been identified for the difference. Questions and discussion included where flow from Dayton will be directed, impact of the project on the marsh, and the Port's oyster shell drainage system. Committee requested the presentation to Council include a key for the map and a description of the impact of the project on the marsh. Action: Schedule for full Council, possibly July 23 7. Presentation of a Professional Services Agreement with Frameworks for the Downtown Parking Study Mr. Williams relayed the successful commercial environment downtown has created more demand for parking. The most recent parking study was done in 2003. The proposed parking study would inventory the availability of on and off-street spaces, collect data regarding the level of usage during a typical weekday and weekend day, analyze the data and determine what the demand is, the available spaces, how to better identify parking, etc. If more than 75-85% of the available spaces are full, there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Once the data is collected and analyzed, a list of possible strategies will be developed, the pros and cons of the strategies evaluated and a report present with possible options and implementation strategies. The study includes several public meetings and presentations to Council. Frameworks' proposed scope of work is $91,000. Questions and discussion included the amount budgeted for the study ($40,000), requirement for a budget amendment to add funds for the study, funds required for staff time/management ($20,000), boundaries of the study, and ensuring the study is done right, 07/09/19 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 3 Councilmember Teitzel referred to other projects such as the Waterfront Connector, the Welcome to Edmonds sign on SR-104, Tree Code, etc. where citizens were not engaged. He proposed Councilmember Mesaros and he hold community engagement (ideation) forums early on and outreach on social media to get people engaged. Questions and discussion included the importance of doing public engagement first; identifying the problem and hearing from downtown residents and business owners before data collection begins; timing of the project elements; narrowing the scope of issues in the study area; paying particular attention to Civic Center, the Waterfront Center and downtown; parking strategies that do not need to be included; considering new technologies; making the best use of existing space; doing parking counts during the summer; residential and employee parking permit areas; not having the consultant create solutions without knowing the problem; ferry commuter parking; best practices in other cities; and how far people are willing to walk. Suggestions included: • Determine peak activity hours for Civic and Waterfront Center • Reach out to Ed!, DEMA, condo associations, Chamber, Civic Project Advisory Committee, etc. • Do ideation forums ahead of parking study process • Combine data collection with public engagement • Rewrite consultant contract to include increased public engagement • Public engagement at the beginning by Council/staff to identify problems, engage citizens and solicit ideas Action: Schedule for full Council 8. City of Edmonds Facility Condition Assessment study by McKinstry Mr. Williams introduced Thom Sullivan, Facilities Manager, and Grant Haig, McKinstry. Mr. Williams reviewed: • Overview and history o In 2018, the City of Edmonds commissioned a Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) with McKinstry. This effort supplemented research conducted in 2015 by Cardno, Inc. o Cardno Study was a high-level review of the existing conditions of facilities owned by the City of Edmonds. o In addition to the basic building analysis Cardno produced McKinstry added all the other assets in our buildings including HVAC, plumbing, electrical, and envelope issues like exterior finishes, windows, fire suppression, fences and parking lots. o In addition to assessing condition, remaining life and replacement costs and periodic maintenance costs were also estimated • Facility Condition index (FCI) scores o The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is a management benchmark used to objectively assess current and projected condition of a building asset. This is often the output from a Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS). FCI is defined as the ratio of current year required renewal cost to current building replacement value: Excellent 0-5% Good 5-10 Fair 10-15 Poor 15-25 Critical 25+% • 5-year capital expenditures Building FCI Score 5-year FCI Score Boys & Girls Club 6.8% 14.4% Cemetery Building 3.5% 14.4% City Hall 13.8% 19.0% Fishing Pier 11.7% 241 % 07/09/19 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 4 Frances Anderson Center 13.6% 18.0% FS 16 3.6% 11.7% FS 17 10.1 % 25.9% FS 20 3.4% 17.5% Historic Log Cabin 10.8% 24.1 % Historic Museum 3.6% 14.3% Library and Plaza Room 13.3% 30.0% Meadowdale Club House 5.4% 9.0% Old Public Works 6.0% 9.6% Parks Maint. Building 14.5% 22.6% Public Safety Building 5.5% 16.1 % Public Works O&M Center 20% 26.3% Wade James Theater 7.2% 16.9% Yost Pool House 8.7% 19.1 % • Deferred maintenance needs o $6.5M current deferred maintenance Category Amount HVAC & Plumbing $3,315,000* Electrical $1,200,000* Interiors (e.g. flooring, ceiling tiles or furniture) $750,000 Roofing $500,000 Exteriors (e.g. parking lots, fencing or exterior finishes $330,000 Fire, life safety & security $315,000 Other (e.g. specialty equipment or solar inverters) $165,000 Total $6,575,000 *Not in Cardno Report ** includes Frances Anderson Center roof which largely funded by State grant o $800,000 annual baseline budget needed to maintain facilities independent of deferred maintenance on existing facilities o Current funding level at $400,000-700,000 per year is not sufficient for sustainable facilities management o $9.6M of cumulative 5-year deferred maintenance ($6.5M +-$800,000/year for 4 years) o Top Projects 1. HVAC upgrades at Frances Anderson, City Hall, FS 16, Public Works O&M and the Public Safety Building. 2. Electrical investigation and upgrades at any buildings built around or before 1980 (e.g. City Hall, Old Public Works and the Library) 3. Fire alarm system replacements at City Hall, Public Safety, Public Works O&M and the Wade James Theater. 4. Aesthetic upgrades such as flooring, ceiling tiles, exterior finishes, and parking lot repairs across nearly all facilities. Cost of delay o At current funding levels, the cumulative cost of delay on deferred maintenance over the next five years will be: >$2,000,000 plus annual inflation costs on current deferred maintenance backlog: $260,000 @ 4% annually Summary of key findings o Deferred maintenance backlog is $6.5M o $800,000 annual investment is needed independent of deferred maintenance backlog. o Assuming $100-$200k in additional grants, the City of Edmonds should plan to allocate $650k-$700k to address planned capital renewal. o Backlog caused by historical underfunding, understaffing and gaps in the capital planning process. (i.e. $56,600/yr. for 20 straight years) Budget sustainability - paving 07/09/19 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 5 o Graph of percentage of city streets overlaid based on annual budget Questions and discussion included the FCI percentages, whether FCI is an industry standard, no environmental hazards found in the assessment, modifying the FCI rating system, policy discussion to address deferred maintenance backlog, looking at all budget needs in context, equipment that is outside the industry standard lifetime, ad why the City changed from Cardno to McKinstry. Action: McKinstry finalize the report and provide to Finance Committee. Schedule for full Council 10. Willow Creek Daylighting and Marsh Restoration -Design The following design costs are estimates based on the total project cost: Item Estimated Additional Cost Running Total 30% Design $ 500,000 $ 500,000 60% Design (Including Permits) $700,000 $ 1,200,000 90% Design $ 140,000 $ 1,340,000 100% Design $ 110,000 $ 1,450,000 Staff Time (10% of Design) $ 150,000 $ 1,600,000 Construction Contract $13,320,000 $14,920,000 Construction Management (15%) $1,998,000 $16,918,000 Mr. Williams commented staff, Council and the community are anxious to proceed. Unocal is not currently allowing access to the property and the transfer of ownership will likely not occur this year. In the meantime, 30% and 60% design could be done; the logical funders of the project, RCO and others, have indicated they would consider funds spent on design as a match. This option uses some/all of $1.3M set aside to begin design for the marsh; removal of the 180 gate would also be funded from that source. Proceeding with design is a way to make progress while waiting for real estate issues to resolve. Questions and discussion included there being no downside to proceeding with design, frustration with the length of time the property transfer is taking, criteria to be met by Unocal before property can transfer, the need for 60% design to qualify for grants, likely grant sources, advantages of moving forward with design, and a potential emergency at -grade crossing where the old Unocal property road was. Action: Schedule for full Council 11. 180 Gate Removal Protect Mr. Williams explained the valve on the pipe that keeps water from flowing into and out of the marsh requires 180 complete turns to close/open. Removal of the gate would allow year-round free flow of saltwater in and out of the marsh. Staff has been hesitant to remove the gate due to flooding on SR- 104 and Dayton. Bids were opened today on the Dayton Street pump station; that project should be finished this year and will address the flooding problem. The 180 gate is not the tidegate. Questions and discussion included the location of the 180 gate, agencies that will have to authorize the City to access it, difference between the 180 gate and the tidegate, the Dayton Street pump station also facilitating opening of the tidegate, removal of the gate removing a fish barrier, and the cost to do the removal in-house. Committee requested the presentation to Council include an aerial view of the location. Action: Schedule for full Council The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.