SNOHOMISH — The city voted to accept the low bid from Accord Contractors for $1.7 million to renovate the Carnegie building.
A total of seven agencies took part in the second round of bidding for the Carnegie restoration project. In a 7-0 vote, the bid chosen was Accord Contractors LLC, out of Bellevue.
An oversight regarding state law requirements for projects more than $1 million led to the need for a rebid.
“The state law concerning this is really draconian or harsh,” said city attorney Grant Weed, voiding any contracts that do not include a list of subcontractors in the first go-round of bids.
If the city had stayed with the first round of bids, they would have had to choose from the contractors who did list subcontractors, which could have increased overall costs. The error did not hold the project up, said Mayor John Kartak, because the lost time was during the holiday season anyway.
Still at issue for some is the presence of a park in front of the Carnegie, where some feel parking should be placed.
After public comment was collected over time, the city moved forward with plans for a veteran’s memorial park, at a grass area where the current annex is located: the annex is the 1960s addition to the original Carnegie structure that will be removed as part of the restoration of the site’s historic 1910 Carnegie structure. Snohomish is preserving a structure that some cities have chosen to tear down due to the cost of renovating historic structures.
Jason Sanders, council member, read an email sent by community member Morgan Davis, who was unable to attend the meeting. Davis’ email said that “before committing to such a controversial contract award” the city should allow more public comment. Davis wrote of rumors about the fairness of the bidding process, and requested the council reject the current bid, and table the issue until January.
Davis said the public needs time to glean the facts and determine whether there was “any hanky panky” in the process.
Melody Clemans, president of the Carnegie Foundation spoke in favor of keeping the plan in-process, with the veteran’s memorial park rather than a parking lot in front of the renovated Carnegie.
“The Carnegie setting will once again be the crown jewel of Snohomish … it’s in your hands,” she said to the council. “... This time next year we’ll all be saying ‘meet me at the Carnegie.’”
Mike Edwards, Lions Club President, spoke to the council and mentioned being outside of Snohomish, and seeing a photo of the Snohomish Carnegie.
But he also supported opposing views: “I know that those that have presented their various opinions … they speak from their heart about what they feel is best for the community, and I respect that. Even if we don’t agree, we are speaking from our hearts about what we think is right.”
Renee Deierling spoke to the council to support the memorial park. Deierling offered additional ideas for dealing with parking issues near the Carnegie, such as signage encouraging people to leave their cars at Cady Park. She suggested some legwork be done to determine whether businesses nearby would grant unused parking spaces during the hours that their businesses were closed. She also mentioned the health benefits of walking: “Is it really so bad for our health to have to walk a few blocks to get to our end-point?”
After citizen comments ended, a motion was offered by Karen Guzak, council member, who said “ I feel that Morgan Davis’ comments are really misplaced. There’s no hanky panky here.” She said the process was done openly, and made a motion to authorize the city to sign the contract.
Schuller, in a phone interview after the meeting, said the parking lot currently at the Carnegie building is being retained. The city can consider how to deal with parking issues, as part of its project list for 2020. Like all projects, he said, whether more parking is added depends on funding.
CORRECTION
In the print version of the Dec. 11 story, “Carnegie restoration bid selected, parking still discussion item,” a figure was misstated as the bid amount. The chosen low bid was $1.7 million including sales tax, which was correctly reported. Another figure elsewhere in the same story — $2.1 million — was not the bid amount, but the total project estimate when including construction contingency costs in the figure.
The Tribune regrets the error.
