Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Climate Plan Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milton council approves $280,000 amendment to planning contract for climate-element work
Summary
On July 6, Milton’s City Council authorized Amendment No. 1 with planning consultant Framework for up to $280,000 to complete resiliency and greenhouse‑gas reduction subelements required for the city’s climate element, funded by a Department of Commerce grant; the motion passed 6–1 after questions about cost and oversight.
Milton’s City Council voted July 6 to authorize Amendment No. 1 to the city’s agreement with planning consultant Framework, approving up to $280,000 to complete the resiliency and greenhouse‑gas emissions subelements required for the city’s climate element.
Planning manager Stalnecker told the council the amendment is funded by a Department of Commerce GMA planning grant (the grant award is $334,431.89) and that the work must be completed under the grant cycle by June 2027. He said the proposed amendment continues work Framework already performed for Milton and argued that using the same consultant preserves continuity, saves staff time and avoids duplicative procurement costs.
The council debated cost and oversight before the vote. Councilmember McNally Martinez asked whether staff had verified that the $280,000 request is reasonable and requested a clearer scope of work and estimated hours and rates. Councilmember Mounts pressed staff on the large increase from a prior on‑call/base contract amount (about $39,000) to the $280,000 amendment, asked how invoices would be reviewed, and sought assurances that funds would be allocable, allowable and tracked.
Stalnecker said the city treats these as personal‑service contracts consistent with guidance from the Municipal Research Services Center and Washington State auditors, which do not always require a competitive RFP for certain planning professional services. He said Framework invoices monthly on an hourly basis, that staff reviews invoices, and that unused grant funds would likely revert to the state per grant rules.
Councilmember Seager moved to authorize the mayor to execute the amendment not to exceed $280,000; the motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote reported as 6–1, with Councilmember Mounts recorded as opposed. Planning staff said the work will proceed through the planning commission and back to the council for required plan amendments and public hearing steps.
The council did not adopt additional contract safeguards on the council floor other than staff’s description of invoice review and grant reporting; several councilmembers asked for further detail and suggested a joint study session with the planning commission to review scope and oversight.
