Loading...
Cm130806EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES August 6, 2013 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Dave Earling, Mayor Lora Petso, Council President Strom Peterson, Councilmember Joan Bloom, Councilmember Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember* *(Participated via phone in Agenda Items 6, 7 & 8) 1. ROLL CALL STAFF PRESENT Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Roger Neumaier, Finance Director Rob Chave, Acting Development Services Dir. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder City Clerk Sandy Chase called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of Councilmember Yamamoto. Mayor Earling explained Councilmember Yamamoto is meeting with his doctor next Monday. A leak was detected in the artery that was surgically repaired last year. Recognizing the work done by the Finance and Public Works Departments, Mayor Earling announced approximately $15 million in bonds were sold this morning. The interest rate including fees is 4.56%; an interest rate of 4.75% was the original estimate. The sale closes on August 21, 2013. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows: A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 30, 2013. B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #203500 THROUGH #203613 DATED AUGUST 1, 2013 FOR $230,524.56. APPROVAL OF REISSUED PAYROLL CHECK #60350 $610.08. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 1 AUDIENCE COMMENTS Susan Paine, Edmonds, expressed her pleasure that the Council was discussing the hiring of a Development Director. An employee of the City of Seattle Permitting Department, she cited the importance of a strong permitting system and leadership to ensure funding and regulatory mechanisms are in place. She commented on the shift in the old -school working environment where a handshake was sufficient; new regulations including stormwater regulations require strong leadership, permitting and fees. She also cited the importance of well trained staff with the expertise to do their job effectively. She noted the shift of the burden from private development to the public sector. Donna Breske, Snohomish, referred a letter dated July 22, 2013 from Engineering Program Manager Jeanie McConnell related to her permit application for construction of a single family home located at 9330 218' Place Southwest. The review letter states she must provide storm drainage control in accordance with the previous staff determination of a permit application for the lot submitted in 2007. Ms. Breske pointed out she was not able to provide her seismic, glazing, energy and structural design per the code in place six years ago. She questioned why she was being asked to provide the engineering stormwater design consistent with the previous code when the City's drainage code has been updated. She has the right and the City is obligated to review her permit under the current code. The review letter demonstrates Ms. McConnell's lack of understanding that current permits must be reviewed under the current code. Ms. Breske cited the lack of training and lack of leadership among City staff. She suggested the City hire someone, preferably from outside the City, with more robust training in harmonizing the GMA, federal Clean Water Act, Department of Ecology mandates and fundamental concepts. Mayor Earling asked Phil Williams, Public Works Director, to address Ms. Breske's concerns. Mr. Williams pointed out although the letter was signed by Ms. McConnell, the City Engineer, the City Attorney and he concur with the review comments in the letter. He supported the conclusions staff reached with regard to the Breske's most recent application, explaining much of it was based on previous court cases that were decided in the City's favor. Ms. Breske agreed the City has been consistent in their response. Although Ms. Connell believes the storm drainage goes onto her lot, Ms. Breske assured it has not gone onto the lot since 2001. She has discussed this with Mr. Taraday and suggested he, staff, the Mayor, and/or Councilmembers visit the lot, open the fire hydrant, let the water flow into the catch basin and see where it goes. She assured water has not entered the lot for 12 years; it flows around the lot. Randy Hayden, Edmonds, spoke regarding responsible growth in Edmonds. During the past six months the Council has discussed both the Harbor Square project and Westgate. He referred to comments that taller buildings at Harbor Square may not be developed for 30 years or for 10 years at Westgate, pointing out the discussion should be whether taller buildings should be allowed, not when they would be built. Many refer to what Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline are doing; he questioned whether Edmonds wanted to be like those cities. Many people move to Edmonds and visit Edmonds because of its small town feel. He feared Edmonds would lose its small town feel if big developments were allowed. Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Hayden's comments. He also expressed support for a resolution asking the Mayor to begin recruiting for the Development Services Director. The position has been vacant since 2009, more than 4 years. Recognizing it will take a long time to find a qualified person, he urged the Council to begin recruiting now even if the budget is not in place to hire the person. He also recommended casting a broad net especially to academic institutions. He recommended the City not invest any more money into the code rewrite until a director is in place to direct the rewrite. He suggested until specific problems were identified in the code necessitating a rewrite, the City was wasting money having outside lawyers rewrite the code. The citizens of Edmonds are not adequately served with regard to approval of short plats, rezones and Comprehensive Plan changes without a Development Services Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 2 Director in place to coordinate it. The position was left vacant to save funds needed during crisis times; that is no longer the case and the Council can budget and hire a responsible director. He questioned how the staff could enjoy working there without a director in charge. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented Council meetings have become boring because the Council continues to discuss the same thing, Harbor Square. The Council has discussed Harbor Square 13 times, plus discussion by the Planning Board and the Port. The Port withdrew their application and he suggested the Council get on with valuable business instead of boring the public. 5. AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT & RELEASE WITH GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. Mr. Williams referred to the Haines Wharf Park and 75"/76t1i Walkway project that resulted in improvements as well as difficulties getting the improvements delivered including a protracted conversation with the contractor, Precision Earthworks. Some of Precision's concerns were related to design documents, claims that they were not accurate or did not depict actual conditions in the field. Gray & Osborne was the design firm the City hired to design the park and the walkway. Gray & Osborne helped the City work with Precision to deflect and defend claims throughout the settlement process. When that concluded earlier this year, the City began a conversation with Gray & Osborne to reach a consensus on errors that were made and their impact on the City's project and the finances. He recommended approval of the proposed settlement agreement with Gray & Osborne for a total of $60,000 of which $35,000 is a cash payment from Gray & Osborne to the City and $25,000 is design services provided to the City at no cost during the settlement process with Precision. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONDITIONAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH GRAY & OSBORNE, INC. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. EDMONDS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOARD REQUEST TO AMEND CITY CODE SECTION 3.75.120 - EXTEND DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING ANNUAL WORK PROGRAMS AND BUDGETS. (Councilmember Yamamoto joined the Council meeting via telephone.) Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained the Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District (EDBID) is requesting the submittal deadline for their 2013 work program and budget be changed from September 1 to October 31 and all subsequent annual submittal deadlines be changed from September 1 to October 1. He relayed Finance Director Roger Neumaier's indication that would be workable with regard to the budget. He relayed City Attorney Jeff Taraday's suggestion that to address the request to change the date from September 1 to October 31 this year, the Council delete September and insert October in ECDC Section 3.75.120 and add a sentence at the end, "unless otherwise agreed to by the City Council." COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO CHANGE THE 2013 DATE TO OCTOBER 31 AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 3.75.120. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. AUTHORIZATION TO RECRUIT FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR Councilmember Bloom provided a history of the position: • Position vacated end of April 2009 • Two searches to locate a qualified Development Services Director were unsuccessful Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 3 • Planning Manager Rob Chave appointed Acting Development Services Director on March 6, 2012 • Mr. Chave's appointment renewed in 2013 She relayed Mr. Chave is doing a very good job but she imagined doing two full-time jobs, one of which is supervising himself, is very difficult. The position has been vacated long enough that it has done damage to the operation of the Development Services Department. She acknowledged she missed the fact that the position was not budgeted in the 2013 budget. She relayed Mayor Earling's indication that he made a conscious decision not to present the position as a decision package in the 2013 budget. She concluded this oversight continues to put excessive burden on Mr. Chave and does a disservice to the Development Services Department, employee's workloads and citizens. Councilmember Bloom explained the Development Services Director is a City officer position, a position that requires the Mayor present three qualified candidates to the Council for interview and approval of the final candidate. That process is not required for appointment of an acting director; Mr. Chave has been in the position of Acting Development Services Director longer than the code intends. Councilmember Bloom requested the Council consider passing a resolution to begin recruitment for a Development Services Director position as soon as possible. Anticipating it will take a long time to find a qualified director, she felt it important to begin the search as soon as possible. Council President Petso asked if a resolution was required to begin the process of recruiting for a position or could the Council authorize the Mayor to begin the recruitment process. City Attorney Jeff Taraday answered there currently is no Development Services Director position in the budget. If the Council wanted that recruitment to begin, the Council could ask the Mayor to begin recruitment. He was uncertain the Mayor would be under any obligation to begin the recruitment because there is no position budgeted and the Mayor, as the Chief Executive Officer of the City, controls hiring decisions subject to appointment. The fact that the Council has confirmation authority of the position does not require the Mayor to begin a recruitment process when there is no budgeted position. Council President Petso asked if a resolution was required or could the Council do it by motion. Mr. Taraday said that did not matter. Council President Petso observed it appeared the position had been previously advertised and a decision made not to hire. She asked whether there was a downside to initiating recruitment now and then ceasing recruitment if a decision was made during budget deliberations not to reauthorize the position. Mr. Taraday advised commencing a recruitment process did not obligate the City to hire someone. Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out in the private sector, directors are promoted from within. The Acting Director has been in the position for a long time. She relayed Planning Commissioner Val Stewart's request that if the Acting Director applied for the position, consideration be given to the importance of the historical knowledge of the code, policies and past events along with the skill set and combined experience. Councilmember Buckshnis noted Mr. Chave is highly respected by other cities who participate in Snohomish County Tomorrow. She acknowledged the importance of the Acting Director's knowledge and suggested hiring consultants during busy periods. Councilmember Yamamoto questioned what damage had been done to the department or the community by not having a permanent Development Services Director in place. He agreed Mr. Chave is doing a very good job and suggested placing him into the position of permanent Development Services Director. Councilmember Yamamoto also cited the cost of a search process. He questioned what could be gained by an outside search, commenting Mr. Chave has a great deal of ability, experience and knowledge. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 4 Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented the decision is to fill the Development Services Director position and the job requirements; the Council has no role in deciding whether Mr. Chave is selected as that is the Mayor's decision. Councilmember Peterson expressed concern with the timing of this item, preferring it be discussed during budget deliberations. To Council President Petso's question about beginning recruiting and then stopping if the position was not authorized during budget deliberations, he commented there may not be any legal issue but from a professional perspective it would bode poorly for the City in future recruitment for this position or other director positions. After the Mayor presents the budget, the Council can make changes to the budget including authorizing this position. He summarized including the position in the budget is the first step; recruiting without a funded position is not a wise course of business action. He agreed filling the position may take a long time but he questioned who will apply if the position is not funded. In response to Councilmember Yamamoto's question about what damage has been done to the department, Councilmember Bloom explained Mr. Chave stepped into the position of Acting Development Services Director after three years without any leadership in the department. The Development Services Director oversees five chapters of code and she assumed many things were not being done when no one was accountable for overseeing the code. She summarized the damage had been done before Mr. Chave was appointed Acting Development Services Director and no one could have corrected the damage caused by that lack of leadership. Councilmember Bloom suggested correcting the damage by beginning to recruit for the position now, relaying her preference that the position had been budgeted for 2013 and that recruitment had begun earlier this year. To Councilmember Fraley-Monillas' comment that it is the Mayor's decision, Councilmember Bloom read from the code regarding city officer positions, "the City Council shall interview the top three candidates for each position prior to the Mayor's final selection provided that the Council may waive the three interview requirement by motion and may opt to interview as few as one candidate for any vacant position. The Mayor's appointments to all other employee positions shall not be subject to City Council confirmation." She noted the Public Safety & Personnel Committee (comprised of Councilmember Peterson and she) are considering amendments to this code section. She clarified not only does the Council interview candidates for all city officer positions, the Council approves the Mayor's appointment and reviews all job descriptions prior to filling the position. She summarized the Council has a very active role in the Development Services Director position. Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Peterson's concern regarding the timing, commenting the right time was during the last budget cycle. The amendments the Public Safety & Personnel Committee is considering include how acting officer positions are appointed and approved and the length of time before a search is initiated. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised the Mayor makes the ultimate selection of officers as was done most recently in the selection of the Finance Director; the Mayor presented two candidates and the Mayor made the decision to hire one of them. She referred to comments made during Audience Comments regarding the need for a Development Services Director to address issues that range from stormwater to assigning job tasks. She agreed with Councilmember Peterson that when recruitment begins, there should be a general idea of whether the position will be filled. A search process requires a great deal of time and money for the Human Resources Department. The cost is unknown as a decision has not yet been made whether the Director position will be an added position or take the place of another position. Councilmember Johnson relayed that the Finance Committee recommended this proposal be sent to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee. She agreed that would be a prudent first step in preparing for the budget decision. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 5 Councilmember Buckshnis said the three years without an Acting Director was due to the actions of previous mayors, not Mayor Earling. If a decision is made to fund the position, she suggested Mayor Earling promote from within. Council President Petso clarified the Finance Committee was split; one Councilmember wanted to refer it to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee and the other wanted it brought to full Council. She made a decision to present it to the full Council for discussion of whether to proceed as Councilmember Bloom proposed, refer it to Public Safety and Personnel Committee or defer it to the budget process. Council President Petso agreed when/if the Council authorizes the process, the Council does not need to state whether to promote from within or conduct a search. The position would be opened to applicants from within and outside the City and the Mayor will select the candidates for Council to interview. She suggested the Council focus on how to proceed, whether to forward it to committee, wait for the budget process or begin advertising the position with the expectation that will help fill the position sooner. Councilmember Peterson preferred to delay further discussion until budget deliberations. He did not want to consider funding this position without considering funding of other positions such as a police officer or funding other cuts that were made. He was aware the Development Services Director position was not funded in the 2013 budget and although he was not happy about it, he was not happy with many of the other cuts that were made but necessary. The appropriate place to consider this position was during budget deliberations when staff and services can be considered as a whole. Based on her reading of the code which requires the Mayor present the top three candidates for interview by the Council, Councilmember Bloom did not feel this was a position that the Mayor can promote from within. She understood the inclination for delaying until budget deliberations but that assumed the Development Services Director position would not be funded and she could not fathom that the Development Services Director position would not be funded. The code states an acting director cannot be in a position on an ongoing basis. She agreed the Public Safety & Personnel Committee could review the job description and the cost of a recruitment process and estimate the time to conduct a search, etc. to provide additional information for the budget process. Even if a process was initiated this year, she felt it unlikely the position would be filled by the end of 2013. She recommended referring the matter to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee and returning to the Council with additional information. Councilmember Yamamoto, a member of the Finance Committee, relayed his supported for forwarding this to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee. Councilmember Buckshnis disagreed with referring it to the Public Safety and Personnel Committee as she viewed this as a finance issue. If a Councilmember feels strongly about filling the position, it should be done via a budget amendment which is reviewed by the Finance Committee. She recalled funding for previous director positions was reviewed by the Finance Committee. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis, noting the Human Resources Department has the job description, costs, etc. The Finance Committee could review a budget amendment to fill the position sooner than the 2014 budget, but she preferred to discuss the position as part of the 2014 budget. Councilmember Bloom commented another pending item is the rewrite of Chapter 2 which discusses acting director and officer positions and how they are filled. That is on the Public Safety and Personnel Committee's agenda and the committee could address this position at the same time. Council President Petso suggested scheduling it on both the Finance Committee and the Public Safety & Personnel Committee's agenda, with each committee addressing relevant aspects of the proposal. Mayor Earling explained, at his request, Planning, Building and Engineering staff have been discussing how to be more user friendly, more productive, and make better decisions. For example the three Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 6 divisions did not previously meet on a regular basis to discuss projects; they do now. A group of staff members have held 12 meetings over the last 7-8 months to develop a series of recommendations. Mayor Earling distributed information that includes a memorandum from him with his recommendations, a memo from Mr. Williams regarding the process and a matrix with tasks, purpose/general information, and status. A series of improvements have been made by Planning, Building and Engineering in the past several months to improve the flow of work. There is a sense of camaraderie, working together and understanding of their common mission. At the forefront of that has been Rob Chave. Mr. Chave has done a fabulous job in his role as Acting Development Services Director. With the quality of Mr. Chave's work and interdisciplinary cooperation, Mayor Earling recommended a direct appointment of Mr. Chave as permanent Development Services Director. Mr. Chave is comfortable taking on the director position as well as a fair amount of the Planning Manager role. Mayor Earling relayed his recommendation also includes establishing a new position for Kernen Lien to assume a portion of the Planning Manager's work. Mr. Lien is comfortable and enthusiastic about the opportunity to explore a new responsibility. He provided the following cost comparison: Mayor's Recommendation • Salary increase costs: $23,000 - $27,000 (includes benefits) • Total cost: $23,000 - $27,000 Newly Created Director Position • Salary & benefits costs: $184,000 • Search costs: $20,000 • Total cost: $204,000 Mayor Earling explained initial projections indicate there may be an additional $600,000 for allocation; the $204,000 cost of a newly created director position would substantially reduce that amount. He explained his preliminary 2014 budget will include some one-time costs such as security issues in the IT department at a cost of $50,000 - $70,000. Mayor Earling reiterated Mr. Chave and Mr. Lien have done and will continue to do fabulous work. He looked forward to their direct appointments. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked when Mayor Earling wanted the Council to approve/disapprove his proposal. Mayor Earling preferred to move it along as expeditiously as possible such as September or October. Because of the lower dollar amount, it would have considerably less impact on the budget. Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the senior planner's workload would be addressed. She noted Leif Bjorback had done a great job in the Building Official position. Mayor Earling responded Mr. Chave is comfortable with assuming the director position and a portion of the planning manager. Mr. Lien is comfortable with assuming a small amount of the planning manager's duties. In addition, a planner who was on maternity leave returned two weeks ago. Due to increased workloads, he likely will propose utilizing contract staff on an as -needed basis in the amount of $20,000 - $30,000. That will be included as part of the 2014 budget. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM, TO REFER THIS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND PERSONNEL COMMITTEE AND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION IN LIGHT OF THE NEW INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY MAYOR EARLING THIS EVENING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED INTERIM ORDINANCE / CRITICAL AREAS'ALLOWED ACTIVITIES' PROVISIONS Senior Planner Kernen Lien explained the critical area regulations are not completely consistent with the Best Available Science (BAS) report that was prepared as part of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update in 2004, particularly in regard to allowed activities. Allowed activities are activities that can occur within a critical area or critical area buffer. Allowed activities can be conditioned, but must use best management practices and must not degrade associated critical area. Examples include utility Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 7 maintenance, activities within the improved right-of-way, and alterations to structures that do not increase the "footprint of development." The footprint of development is the inconsistency between the CAO and BAS report. The idea of development or redevelopment within the developed footprint was discussed in the BAS report. The BAS report noted the vast majority of the city (96%) is already developed and that future growth will be concentrated in the redevelopment of existing parcels. The BAS report noted the challenge for the CAO is providing opportunities to improve conditions around critical areas in the long term while allowing reasonable redevelopment. The BAS concluded the main route to improving critical areas and their buffers was to require buffer enhancement in exchange for allowing development and redevelopment within the existing footprint of development. When the critical areas regulations were written, the inclusion of "existing structures" in the allowed activities section has consequences counter to the BAS report which referred to development within the developed footprint. Mr. Lien recalled two projects that are impacted by this inconsistency were highlighted last week including the American Brewery Silo and the City Park project. He provided information in an email from Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite describing how the critical areas regulations impacted the City Park project: • Holding off on 60% design • Budget could be impacted by further delay • Shifting the project to the south would result in the removal of three large trees • Waiting for an expedited review pushes the project back further and would not open next summer • Grant requires the project be completed by August 2014 Mr. Lien highlighted the proposed changes to the CAO in the interim ordinance to bring the current CAO into compliance with BAS: • Development proposal within the footprint of development ECDC 23.40.220.C.3, ECDC 23.50.020.E • Definitions ECDC 23.40.320 impervious surface and footprint of development • Physically separated and functionally isolated ECDC 23.50.040.H, ECDC 23.90.040.D.4.c • Wetland enhancement ECDC 23.50.040.J He advised this is scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Board next Wednesday. Council President Petso referred to Mr. Lien's comments regarding the inconsistency with BAS with regard to structures. The interim ordinance also changes physically separated and functionally isolated; she asked whether there was any inconsistency with regard to that or was it simply an add -on. Mr. Lien answered it is not just an add -on; it is a continuation of the previously developed footprint. If a developed area is separated from the critical area and critical area buffer by development, allowing development on the opposite site is similar to allowing development in the previously developed footprint. Council President Petso observed it would allow development outside the previously developed footprint. Mr. Lien answered as proposed it would allow development in an area that is physically and functionally isolated; that would be determined by a critical areas expert. In the park example, there is a parking lot and a road between what is proposed in the critical area. That area does not provide any benefit to the critical area or enhancement to the buffer area as it is separated by previous development. Council President Petso pointed out that area is not currently 100% impervious surface; there is a lot of grass and trees. Mr. Lien explained it is physically and functionally separated by imperious surface. Council President Petso agreed but said it is not impervious surface, yet the proposed change would allow it to become 100% impervious surface. Mr. Lien answered yes, if a critical areas expert determines it is physically and functionally isolated and would not have any impact on the critical area. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 8 Council President Petso referred to things that constitute physically and functionally isolated such as the railroad tracks between homes and Puget Sound or a road such as in City Park. She asked if something as small as a trail or a small rock retaining wall could constitute physically and functionally isolated. Mr. Lien reiterated that would be determined by a qualified professional. Something as small as a trail would not; trails are an allowed activity within a critical area buffer and generally are smaller and not impervious surfaces. Things that physically separate and functionally isolate are typically larger such as roads. Another example would be a house constructed in a stream buffer; if the homeowner wanted to add onto the house on the opposite site of the stream, the house would physically separate development from the critical area. Unlike the other examples that would be within the existing developed footprint, Council President Petso observed the City Park project could expand the existing impervious surface. Mr. Lien agreed it could if it was physically and functionally isolated. With regard to the developed footprint, Council President Petso recalled there was some discussion about attempting to cure the sins of the past. If the existing developed footprint was a parking lot, a parking lot could be reconstructed with pervious pavement to enhance the wetland; with the proposed change to allow structures, she asked if there would be any opportunity to reduce the effect of past development. Mr. Lien answered as the code is written, enhancement is still an important part. The BAS report and code language allow development within the previously developed area in exchange for enhancement. The code allows activity if it, a) does not increase the footprint of the development beyond the legally established footprint, b) does not increase the impact to the critical area and/or buffer, c) does not increase the total impervious surface area of the site, and d) does not increase the risk to life or property as a result of the development proposal, and e) includes measures to enhance the critical areas. The code allows development in this area in exchange for enhancement. Council President Petso asked who decides if the enhancement is proportionate to the expansion of impervious surface or structure. Mr. Lien answered within critical areas, a qualified professional makes that determination; a wetland expert for a wetland and a stream biologist for a stream. If the changes are not made, Council President Petso asked whether a variance process with a decision by the Hearing Examiner would be required. Mr. Lien answered people are not encouraged to pursue a variance because the variance criteria are very strict. The proposed changes are to bring the code into consistency with BAS. The variance process is a last resort when there is nothing that can be done to fit the code but the development should go forward. Council President Petso recalled a statement in last week's packet that it would be illegal to mitigate for the City Park project. Mr. Lien referred to the issue outline memo that contained an excerpt from an email from Ms. Hite, "Mitigate the development within the buffer, which has been determined by Planning isn't legal" which he felt was a "lost in translation comment." Staff informed Ms. Hite that it does not fall within allowed activities, in planning -speak, that becomes it is not legal. Council President Petso asked whether the spray pad could be constructed and the impacts mitigated. Mr. Lien answered as far as allowed activities, no. He did not anticipate the spray park would meet all the variance criteria; one of the criteria is "can it can be constructed someplace else." The project can be moved to the south and three large, healthy trees removed. Ms. Hite has also indicated there are time constraints; the standard time for a variance process is 3-4 months. He reiterated the proposed changes are to bring the code into consistency with the BAS report. Councilmember Peterson asked if the City was vulnerable to legal action if the CAO was in conflict with the BAS report. Mr. Taraday stated legally they are required to be consistent under the GMA. The time to challenge that would be at the time of adoption of the CAO; therefore, it may be too late for a challenge. Councilmember Peterson pointed out BAS is science and that does not change regardless of the CAO. Councilmember Buckshnis stated the proposed change is to bring the CAO into compliance with the BAS report. She noted Council President Petso is throwing in the issue of no net loss which has nothing to do Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 9 with this. Without the proposed change, the City Park project will be moved south and three healthy trees removed. She objected to the Council micromanaging staff s work, reiterating the City Park project is physically separated and functionally isolated. Council President Petso asked what part of the physically separated and functionally isolated criteria conflicts with BAS with regard to redevelopment in the existing footprint. Mr. Lien answered no net loss is one of the criteria in BAS as well. The idea behind allowing development in a previously developed area is it results in no net loss because it is already an area that has been developed and it allows an opportunity for enhancement. With regard to physically separated and functionally isolated, the tie to BAS is this area is separated from the critical area by an area that has been previously developed. That determination is made by a qualified professional. Council President Petso asked how this was not consistent with the current BAS. Mr. Lien answered it is not in the code at all; the concept is contained in BAS. Council President Petso recalled BAS allows development within the existing footprint. Mr. Lien explained the conflict between the CAO and BAS report is related to how BAS characterizes this issue with the city being developed and development within previously developed areas as an opportunity for enhancement. Councilmember Bloom asked whether adoption of an interim ordinance was necessary tonight when the Planning Board is holding a public hearing next week. Mr. Lien referred to the comments from Ms. Hite, pointing out even an expedited review process by the Planning Board pushes the City Park project out to the point it will not be completed by next summer and there are issues associated with the August 2014 grant deadline. Councilmember Bloom asked if that would be the case if the Planning Board returned it to the Council at the August 21 meeting. Mayor Earling pointed out although a public hearing is scheduled, the Planning Board may not reach a conclusion at next week's meeting. Mr. Lien pointed out a public hearing must also be held by the Council which requires notice. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3935, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS ECDC 23.40.220, 23.40.320, 23.50.020, 23.50.040, AND 23.90.040, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN LEGALLY ESTABLISHED IMPERVIOUS AREAS AND WITHIN BUFFER AREAS THAT ARE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED AND FUNCTIONALLY ISOLATED FROM AN ASSOCIATED CRITICAL AREA. Council President Petso pointed out the agenda memo states footprint of already developed areas; physically separated and functionally isolated allows a great deal more impervious surfaces to be added. If that happened for example upstream from Perrinville Creek where efforts are underway to control flows to protect habitat, it would be a problem. She did not support the motion as she did not find enough incentive to rush and she viewed the proposed change as an enormous expansion beyond the footprint of already developed areas. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion. She was uncertain what part of Perrinville Council President Petso was referring to. She pointed out there are other avenues to protect critical areas. Councilmember Peterson referred to Mr. Lien's statement that if development occurs, there would need to be approval by a certified professional. The idea that the other side would be 100% impervious surface was a bit of a stretch. Councilmember Johnson did not support the motion. There was no mention of an interim ordinance when this issue was presented to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee in July. The committee recommended it be referred to the Planning Board; the last Planning Board meeting was canceled. She Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 10 was confident in the Planning Board's ability to review the matter and preferred an expedited review at the Planning Board. She suggested there would be time to consider an interim ordinance after learning more about the City Park project. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BLOOM, YAMAMOTO, BUCKSHNIS, AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON AND FRALEY-MONILLAS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING NO. (Councilmember Yamamoto discontinued his participation in the Council meeting via telephone.) 9. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON INCORPORATING THE HARBOR SQUARE MASTER PLAN INTO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Council President Petso recalled a majority of the Council approved a motion last week to continue discussion of Exhibit 3. Mr. Lien provided history regarding Exhibit 3: • February 5, 2013 Council asked staff to prepare a staff version of the Harbor Square Master Plan. • Staff drafted Exhibits 2 and Exhibit 3. o Exhibit 3 is an issue table outlining the issues raised by Council during and following the public hearing process and identifies how they are addressed in Exhibit 2. • March 19 and 26 City Council reviewed the issue table and planned to continue discussion of the Planning Board recommendations at the April 16 meeting. • Prior to April 16 meeting, Port withdrew their application • Council has been contemplating how to proceed • July 30 a motion was made to continue discussion on the issue table and how the Planning Board's recommendations were incorporated into Exhibit 2 Councilmember Johnson requested Mr. Lien provide a summary of the Planning Board's recommendations. Mr. Lien explained the Planning Board made 14 specific recommendations. Some did not carry over to the draft Master Plan (Exhibit 2) because they were no longer relevant. He reviewed the Planning Board's recommendations and how they were incorporated into Exhibit 2: 1. Building heights shall be limited to 45 feet and consideration may be given for heights up to SS feet if the development proposal includes significant public amenities and/or sustainable design certification such as LEED Platinum. Exhibit 2 no longer references specific building heights and 55 feet was removed. There is discussion regarding incentive zoning. 2. Development proposals should place the tallest buildings towards the south and west boundaries of the property. With a base height of 35 feet, the condition is less relevant. If during a subsequent rezone public amenities are provided and a height bonus granted, design and location of the taller building will be addressed at that time. 3. Buildings along Dayton Street should be limited to 35 feet in height. Exhibit 2 establishes a base height of 35 feet for the entire site. 4. Development plans shall ensure that the Public View Corridor down Dayton Street is preserved and enhanced. Language from that condition was added to page 3 of Exhibit 2. 5. On page 5 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "Circulation, Traffic and Parking", an additional sentence should be added to read: "The absence of available off -site parking requires that adequate parking allowance be made to accommodate all customer, employee and resident vehicles during peak use times. " This issue was not addressed in whole in Exhibit 2; the parking issue is driving by the development code and could be addressed via a development agreement. 6. At the bottom of page 9 of the Harbor Square Master Plan, the exception to the 55 foot height limit for special architectural features such as a tower, sculpture, etc. should be deleted. The 55 foot height limit has been removed from Exhibit 2. 7. In the graphic "Schematic Section through Harbor Square Looking West" on page 10, the annotation as to "setback" above 35 feet along Dayton Street should be revised to "building step back". The schematic was removed from Exhibit 2. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 11 8. An additional sentence should be added to the "Dayton Street Frontage" section on page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan to read: "Consideration should be given to enhance street -side parking to support separating human activity from the traffic along Dayton Street. " This language was added on page 7 of Exhibit 2. 9. On page 11 of the Harbor Square Master Plan under "SR 104 Frontage", `If WSDOT is amendable" should be stricken from the beginning of the third sentence. Language was added to Exhibit 2. 10. The Edmonds City Attorney shall develop language consistent with the memorandum dated September 6, 2012 to be incorporated into the City's adoption of the Comprehensive Plan addressing height limits, precedent, and views. The City Attorney's memo was in response to three specific questions from the Planning Board: a. The height issue is addressed by limiting base height to 35 feet. Any increase in height above 35 feet could only be accomplished through incentive zoning approved by Council. b. Concern with regard to precedent is addressed by treating the HSMP as a subarea plan. c. No specific language with regard to protection of private views has been provided. The memo noted the City has discretion in how it addresses private views. Private view protection is not mentioned in any of the City's planning documents or codes. The City has designated specific public view corridors. 11. Claming language should be added to the Harbor Square Master Plan that residential uses must be multifamily and not single-family residential. No specific language with regard to multifamily development has been added. Residential development in Harbor Square should not be the principle use, but provide to enhance and support the mixed use nature of Harbor Square. Urban Mixed Use III in the SMP allows multi -family development but not single family. 12. If and when the Harbor Square Master Plan is adopted by the City Council, it should be physically incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan rather than incorporated by reference. 13. Any future development proposal shall clearly demark and provide protection for the Edmonds Marsh by establishing an area of open space not less than 25 feet landward from the edge of the Edmonds Marsh and ensure any development preserves or improves the Edmonds Marsh Park/Walkway. Setbacks from the marsh will be determined by the updated Shoreline Master Program currently under review by the City Council. 14. The approved Master Plan shall be modified as necessary to maintain consistency with the Shoreline Master Program update to be determined following submittal by the City and approved by the State in accordance with process deadlines existent between the State and the City. The SMP and Harbor Square Master Plan have been reviewed together to ensure consistency. Exhibit 2 specifically references consistency with the SMP. The Harbor Square Master Plan is a Comprehensive Plan amendment; a development proposal will be required to meet the SMP. Main Motion COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WORK WITH STAFF TO DEVELOP A DECISION TREE TO ASSIST IN DELIBERATING THE KEY ISSUES FOR HARBOR SQUARE. Councilmember Johnson commented the Council's discussions regarding Harbor Square have included a wide range of topics including regulatory processes and zoning. She suggested sorting through the topics and focusing attention on the key issues that need to be decided from a Comprehensive Plan perspective such as the appropriate land uses for redevelopment of Harbor Square and whether redevelopment should include residential and if so, how much. Creation of a decision tree is the next logical step. Councilmember Buckshnis commented Exhibits 1 and 2 are drastically different. For example there is no longer a 55 foot height limit, there is a 35 foot base height; there is no longer a set buffer, the buffer is as indicated by the SMP, etc. If the process moved forward, she asked if a new Planning Board review would be required. City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained as he emailed to Council President Petso and Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 12 Councilmember Buckshnis earlier today, the Council can commit to sending the Harbor Square Master Plan back to the Planning Board for further public participation regardless of what the final plan looks like. The Council can make that statement even before they know what the final plan will look like. He cannot make a decision whether further Planning Board review and public hearings will be required until a final plan is developed. Councilmember Buckshnis commented people are confused and still referring to the Harbor Square Master Plan as the Port's plan. She noted the Port's plan is no longer being discussed as evidenced by Exhibit 3 and Council direction to staff to develop Exhibit 2 based on Council and citizen input and some of the Port's ideas. Mr. Taraday explained once a final plan is developed, his recommendation whether further Planning Board review is required will be based on how similar the final plan is to what the process began with. Councilmember Buckshnis viewed the staff -developed plan as drastically different from the Port's plan and therefore would require Planning Board review. Mr. Taraday observed the Council is not prepared to adopt Exhibit 2 as the Harbor Square Master Plan; therefore he has not developed a recommendation regarding whether it would need to go back to the Planning Board. If the concern is ensuring the final plan is reviewed by the Planning Board, the Council can commit to that. If a motion were made to approve the Harbor Square Master Plan as originally presented by the Port and four Councilmembers voted in favor, Council President Petso observed it would not need to go back to the Planning Board for additional public hearings. Mr. Taraday agreed. To ensure a future public process at the Planning Board, Council President Petso recalled a suggestion to adopt a resolution stating there would be a future public process. However it was her understanding the Council could not bind itself or a future Council. Mr. Taraday answered resolutions stating intent are not legally binding. However in his opinion it would be highly unlikely and unusual for a Council to state additional public hearings at the Planning Board would be required and then surprise everyone with a hasty adoption of a subarea plan without sending it to the Planning Board for further public hearings. Hypothetically, if the Council voted on August 6 to send the plan to the Planning Board for additional public hearings and then on September 6 adopted the subarea plan without sending it back to the Planning Board for public hearing, there was some risk of a GMA challenge that the Council failed to provide the public participation it committed to providing. His advice in that hypothetical situation was that the plan be sent back to the Planning Board if the Council committed to sending it back. Council President Petso asked for clarification that although the Port's original proposal had a maximum height of 55 feet, Exhibit 2 does not have a maximum height. Mr. Lien answered Exhibit 2 limits the base height to 35 feet, the current height limit in that zone, and provides opportunity for heights above 35 feet via incentive zoning to a maximum of 45 feet. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the last two times this was discussed, Mayor Earling said he would not have staff spend time on this because of other projects, lack of staff, etc. She asked whether that was still the case and when would staff have time to assist with a new plan. Mayor Earling responded Councilmember Johnson has suggested a way of reaching resolution. If the process is pointed toward potential success or at least moving forward, he would be agreeable to staff assisting with developing a decision tree. His comments about not having staff do anything else were the result of meetings where the Council simply had discussion and then decided to have another meeting. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled Mr. Taraday provided the Council four choices, 1) the Council likes the Port plan and wants to move forward with it, 2) the Council likes elements of the Port plan but want to revise some elements, 3) deny the plan in its entirety, or 4) acknowledge the withdrawal of the Port's application and cease processing the application. She summarized the development of a decision tree will not fix the problem; these are still the four choices before the Council. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 13 Councilmember Peterson recalled when the discussion first began, one of the big issues was shoreline buffers; that will be addressed by the SMP and the plan must comply with the SMP. The biggest issue is whether residential should be allowed; if the Council can reach agreement on that, the Council can then discuss how much residential development should be allowed. If residential is not allowed, that would be a death knell for any further development. Height and bulk are also issues; removing the numbers as staff did in Exhibit 2 will make that discussion easier and many of those discussions will happen when development is proposed. He did not want to start with the small things that Council agrees on and leave the larger issues for later. Councilmember Johnson concurred that she wanted the Council to face the big, tough decisions first which as Councilmember Peterson identified, are height, residential uses and possibly setbacks. The Council needs to provide direction and discuss the process later. Councilmember Bloom asked if Councilmember Johnson's motion was for staff to look at the Planning Board's recommendations or the Council Comments/Suggestions. Councilmember Johnson repeated her motion, that the City Council and staff work together to develop a decision tree to assist in deliberating key issues for Harbor Square. Councilmember Bloom observed the key issues have been identified, noting the most critical was residential uses. If the Council cannot agree on residential uses, the plan cannot be agreed on. She recalled the public hearings revealed a lot of concern about residential uses, heights and uses on the property given the conflicting issues on the site. She did not support the motion as the key issues have already been identified. Council President Petso pointed out height was a key issue and not an issue to be deferred. There was an enormous amount of public comment regarding height. She noted Exhibit 2 does not include a 45-foot maximum height but rather a 45-foot average. She anticipated that would not be specific enough for people concerned about their views or those who were concerned whether heights were being raised. If the Council wanted to take heights out of the discussion, she suggested a 25 foot base and a 35 foot maximum. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed support for the motion, noting this was a matter of non -monetary capital items. She relayed Ms. Shippen, who does not advocate height increases, said she would not be opposed to a 4-story parking structure under certain conditions. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested citizens be allowed to creatively explore what they might be willing to give up for an additional 10 feet in height. The City needs a parking structure; it could include a dining or viewing platform on top. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested the City develop its own plan from the beginning. Although elements of the Council's desires are included in the revised Harbor Square Master Plan, she anticipated the Council would continue to spin its wheels and continue to have the same conversation. She preferred to start from scratch and consider the waterfront as a whole rather than individual properties. She did not believe a decision tree would resolve the issues. Councilmember Peterson noted the Council cannot start from scratch because the discussion has already begun. The decision tree would allow Council to identify issues they may be able to agree on. If the Council cannot agree on some of the big issues, he anticipated the process could be concluded. With the number of things that have been removed from the original proposal, it is close to starting from scratch. The decision tree will provide direction regarding how to proceed or that it needs to sit for 1-2 years. Council President Petso preferred to start from scratch to guarantee a full public process. She asked whether letting it sit for 1-2 years was an option. Mr. Taraday did not recommend that without making a motion; doing nothing is tantamount to one of the four options he provided. If the Council is truly not going to talk about it for a year that was essentially a decision not to take any action and acknowledging the Port has withdrawn its application. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 14 Councilmember Peterson clarified his comment about not talking about it for a year did not mean this plan would be allowed to sit for a year. His comment was waiting to talk about the entire area for 1-2 years. He agreed if the Council could not reach agreement with regard to moving forward, the plan should be killed. With regard to Council President Petso's comment about guaranteeing a full public process, he emphasized this discussion is a full and public process. He took offense to Council President Petso's intimation that supporting this motion was somehow excluding the public. If anything, there has been an effort to continue the public process that has being going on for three years. The Council has the ability to send a plan back to the Planning Board and he anticipated if a plan was ever developed, it would be sent back to the Planning Board for a continued public process. Council President Petso explained as Mr. Taraday stated, until this process is terminated, the original Port Harbor Square Master Plan can be adopted by a majority vote of Council without further public process. Further, Mr. Taraday has also been clear that whatever the Council develops as its recommendation may or may not require a further public process. The Council has not committed to having an additional public process for whatever plan may be developed. If the Council recognizes the Port has withdrawn its Master Plan and the Council discontinues processing it, there will be the opportunity and assurance of further public process because it will be required by law. She would be more comfortable knowing the Planning Board and the public would have an opportunity to review whatever the Council developed. Council President Petso relayed her concern with the Council's failure to make a decision. She was concerned with again discussing height limits and residential uses. Councilmembers have suggested three approaches, 1) meet offline with representatives of the Port either individually or in a group, 2) sit down and talk with the Port about what can be done, 3) divide the issues between what needs to be done at the Comprehensive Plan level, the zoning level and later. She concluded none of that could happen until this ongoing process was put to rest. Amendment COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT ANY NEW COUNCIL PROPOSAL WILL MOVE THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD PROCESS. Councilmember Bloom observed the Council could agree they did not want to adopt the Port proposed Master Plan; the Port has withdrawn its plan. She asked if the Port could submit the same plan in the future if the Council continues the process and never officially denies the Port Master Plan. Mr. Taraday answered the Port could submit the same plan regardless of the Council's decision. Even if the Council adopted a subarea plan tonight, the Port could submit the same plan in the future. Councilmember Bloom observed if the Council denies the Port's plan, the Council could move forward with working on their own plan. Mr. Taraday answered that could be done with or without denying the Port's plan. Council President Petso agreed there was no maximum height limit in Exhibit 2 other than an option for a maximum height limit of 45 feet. Action on Amendment THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Johnson explained this is an attempt to discuss the key issues and for Councilmembers to weigh in on what the key issues are. Making no decision is a decision and she urged Councilmembers to participate and state their opinions. Action on Main Motion as Amended UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED TIED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, PETERSON AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BLOOM AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO VOTING NO. MAYOR EARLING BROKE THE TIE BY VOTING YES AND THE MOTION CARRIED (4-3). Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 15 Council President Petso asked whether the Councilmembers voting in favor wanted this to be discussed by the full Council or the Parks, Planning and Public Works (PPP) Committee. Councilmember Johnson said her motion was for the Council to work together; she was open to whatever Council President Petso felt was appropriate. The Council was agreeable to referring it to the PPP Committee. 10. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED FOR THE 5TH AVE OVERLAY PROJECT AND POSSIBLE AWARD OF CONTRACT TO INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $732,732.25. Mr. Williams explained the project limits on 5'1' Avenue extend from Elm Way on the south and Walnut on the north. Funding for the project includes a $551,000 federal grant. This will be the first curb -to -curb 2 inch asphalt paving on an important City street since 2008. He provided several pictures of curb, driveways and pavement defects, pointing out there are a lot of intersections and curb ramps. A large part of the project is bringing curb ramps and many of the driveways up to current ADA compliance. The opportunity to pave this street arose because the Water Department tore up half the street replacing the waterline. The Water Fund now has the responsibility to restore the street, providing matching funds for the federal grant. Mr. Williams reviewed the 5t" Avenue Overlay improvements: • Pavement grind and 2-inch hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay • Pavement fabric to minimize reflective cracking • New pedestrian curb ramps for ADA compliance • Replace 13 existing driveways • Add bike sharrows • New pavement markers/striping Mr. Williams reviewed bid results: • Engineering Estimate: $547,842 • Low bid (2): $732,732 • Difference: $184,890 or 33% • Grant applied for spring 2012. Prices have gone up since • Snohomish County opened bids on a similar paving project one day earlier and were 3 1 % above Engineer's estimate Mr. Williams explained a great deal of federal money was prioritized by PSRC and the ICC in Snohomish County for pavement preservation (overlays) and all those projects went out to bid at the same time. In addition, the economy is improving and contractors have more work. He reviewed the project budget: Item Cost Construction Contract $732,732 Construction Management $115800 10% Management Reserve $73,000 Design $81,000 Total $1,002,532 Mr. Williams reviewed project funding: Funding Source Amount Federal grant $551,000 Water Utility Fund $301,000 Stormwater Utility $20,000 REET (recommended) $130,532 Total $1,002,532 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 16 Mr. Williams recommended using $130,000 in REET 2 to cover the funding gap, noting it is a common use of REET funds. REET 2 receipts were budgeted in 2013 to be $650,000; yearend receipts are projected to be approximately $900,000. Other options are to rebid the project now or rebid it next spring. He did not recommend rebidding as other bids were similarly over the engineer's estimate and the cost differences are in traffic control and HMA prices which are unlikely to change if the project is rebid immediately or in the spring. He recommended proceeding with the project. Councilmember Buckshnis observed project temporary traffic control is $60,000 over the engineer's estimate. She asked whether traffic control was provided by city staff. Mr. Williams answered it typically is not; this would be a big job for city staff. Councilmember Buckshnis asked why there was such a significant difference. Mr. Williams answered it is a lump sum price; the other bid was even higher than the engineer's estimate. The apparent low bidder, ICI was $96,000 and the engineer's estimate was $37,000. Councilmember Buckshnis observed the HMA was $30,000 over the engineer's estimate. The engineer's estimate for HMA was $78/ton based on recent bids; the apparent low bidder was $95/ton. Councilmember Bloom asked why the bid was $200,000 over the engineer's estimate. Mr. Williams answered prices are changing rapidly and there is not as much competition. When projects were put out to bid in the last couple years, the economy was depressed, there were a lot of bidders and it was very competitive. That situation is changing quickly due to the improving economy as well as the number of paving projects that were put out to bid at the same time. The City did not receive bids from the big paving companies such as Lakeside, Northwest or Seabeck because this project is not as big as some other projects. Councilmember Bloom asked if that would change if the project were rebid. Mr. Williams was not confident enough in that to recommend waiting until next spring. This work was attempted last year and promised this year and could be accomplished this year during the dry weather. Mayor Earling commented this project is a big deal for Edmonds because 5t' Avenue is a main entry to the city; however it is a relatively small project compared to larger projects that some of the big paving companies are bidding on. Mr. Williams referred to the bid Snohomish County received that was also 33% over the engineer's estimate. COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO AWARD THE CONTRACT TO INTERWEST CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $732,732.25. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Earling reported there were several great applicants for the City Clerk position. The deadline for applications was Wednesday, July 31. Interviews will be conducted the third week of August and he anticipated introducing the new person to the Council in early September. Mayor Earling referred to the inference that stormwater is under the purview of the Development Services Department; stormwater is actually the responsibility of the Engineering Department. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Council President Petso announced Councilmember Fraley-Monillas has agreed to be the second Council liaison to the Economic Development Commission. Council President Petso advised an interview of a candidate for appointment to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee will be scheduled later this month followed by approval on the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Bloom provided a reminder of the mid -week market on Wednesdays from 3:00 to 7:00 p.m. at the Salish Crossing. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 17 Councilmember Buckshnis announced the Taste of Edmonds will be held this weekend. Councilmember Johnson announced a free pet micro -chipping event for Snohomish County residents at Langus Park in Everett on Saturday, August 10. Councilmember Peterson thanked the Parks Department and the Hazel Miller Foundation for the summer concert series at Hazel Miller Plaza on Tuesdays at noon and Thursdays at 5:00 p.m. The series add a great dynamic to the downtown. 13. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). At 9:50 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding pending litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 5 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. Action may occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public Works Director Phil Williams, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 9:54 p.m. 14. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 9:55 p.m. COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Buckshnis was not present for the vote.) 15. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 6, 2013 Page 18