2010.09.28 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
6:00 p.m. - Executive session regarding labor negotiation strategy.
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1.Approval of Agenda
2.Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B. AM-3399 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2010.
C. AM-3396 Approval of claim checks #121352 through #121432 dated September 23, 2010 for
$380,737.93. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #49807 through #49849 for
the period September 1, 2010 through September 15, 2010 for $632,408.56.
D. AM-3395 Authorization to advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for construction
engineering services for the Interurban Trail Project.
E. AM-3400 Authorize $82,415 in motor vehicle fuel tax from the Street Construction/Improvement
Fund (Fund #112) for the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project.
3. (5 Minutes)
AM-3405
Proclamation in recognition of October as National Arts & Humanities Month.
4. (10 Minutes)
AM-3394
Edmonds Arts Commission Annual Report.
5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
Packet 1 of 294
5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
6. (30 Minutes)
AM-3408
Continued discussion and potential action on the 2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget
Adjustment.
7. (30 Minutes)
AM-3402
Discussion on the Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016).
8. (15 Minutes)
AM-3389
Discussion of a potential council policy dedicating a significant portion of
unexpended wages and benefits to the purpose of achieving and maintaining
appropriate targeted reserves in both the emergency financial reserve fund and the
general fund ending cash balance.
9. (20 Minutes)
AM-3397
Discussion regarding Planning Board recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan
framework.
10. (10 Minutes)
AM-3401
Extension of sunset date for Citizens Economic Development Commission.
11. (15 Minutes)
AM-3392
Climate Solutions New Energy Cities.
12. (15 Minutes)
AM-3398
Discussion and potential action regarding hiring a City Council budget analyst.
13. (10 Minutes)
AM-3404
Report on Mayor’s Community Survey.
14. (15 Minutes) Council reports on outside committee/board meetings.
15. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
16. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet 2 of 294
AM-3399 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
09-21-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/23/2010 01:55 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 01:56 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/23/2010 11:26 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/23/2010
Packet 3 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 21, 2010
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding labor
negotiation strategy. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 60 minutes and
would be held in the Jury Meeting 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
Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Wilson. Others present were
City Attorney Scott Snyder, Human Resources Director Debi Humann, Police Chief Al Compaan, and City
Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 7:03 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council Chambers,
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Rob English, City Engineer
Carl Nelson, CIO
Michael Clugston, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Wilson requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2010.
Packet 4 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 2
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #121101 THROUGH #121213 DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 2010
FOR $1,729,084.52, AND CLAIM CHECKS #121214 THROUGH #121351 DATED SEPTEMBER
16, 2010 FOR $521,065.12.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DONNA L. BRESKE
($5,000.00).
F. ORDINANCE NO. 3807 – AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, TITLE 10, TO ADD A
NEW CHAPTER 10.95 CITIZENS’ TREE BOARD.
G. AUTHORIZATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1235 TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION FOR
2011 SNOHOMISH COUNTY CDBG PUBLIC FACILITIES & INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
FUNDING FOR SENIOR CENTER SIDING REPLACEMENT AND WATERPROOFING.
ITEM E: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH SERS FOR LOW COST DARK FIBER,
Councilmember Wilson asked for background on the proposed Interlocal Agreement with SERS. CIO Carl
Nelson explained a major regional Public Safety project involving all Snohomish County Police and Fire
Departments, as well as the County Sheriff, is underway to replace and unify the 911 and Police/Fire/EMS
records system. As part of that effort, Snohomish Emergency Radio System (SERS) pursued a 30-year
Irrevocable Right of Use (IRU) agreement with Blackrock to connect the County data center and the region's
two 911 centers with diverse redundant fiber routes. As part of the negotiations, SERS asked Blackrock to also
connect any cities it passed through to the county.
The terms that were eventually reached by SERS and Blackrock require Blackrock to connect the two 911
centers, provide interconnectivity within the county and provide six cities three years free use of fiber that
Blackrock owns in those cities. The term of the agreement is 30 years. Per the agreement, at the end of 3 years,
the affected cities could combine their resources to pay an additional $300,000 one-time fee. If the cities chose
not to, each city would begin paying the $500/month for the Blackrock connection at the end of 3 years. As the
intermediary step, Edmonds has the opportunity to enjoy the use of Blackrock fiber for 3 years. In order for this
to occur the City needs to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with SERS to take advantage of this opportunity
and to release SERS from financial liability.
Councilmember Wilson observed the City pays $500/month for use of the Blackrock fiber; the savings over 3
years would be approximately $18,000. He asked whether the City’s portion would be 1/6th of the $300,000 in 6
years. Mr. Nelson answered he assumed it would be equally proportioned between the six cities because the
cities equally benefit from the fiber connection. Councilmember Wilson summarized the alternative was
$500/month for 30 years.
Councilmember Wilson asked how the City used the Blackrock fiber assuming it was available in a limited area
of the City and the City has its own fiber. Mr. Nelson explained the Blackrock fiber connection is from the
City’s Public Works facility to Snohomish County. It is currently used for video arraignment and other
intergovernmental purposes. There are also plans to use that fiber to provide service to other cities.
Councilmember Wilson asked the terms to get out of the contract. Mr. Nelson answered it was four years.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the potential downside of entering into the Interlocal Agreement. Mr.
Nelson answered the City received 3 years of free fiber. Councilmember Wilson pointed out the City was
assuming some liability. Mr. Nelson explained this agreement is the result of a larger agreement that provided
the connection between the 911 centers and the County. The cities expressed interest in the three years of free
fiber; the original agreement contains a clause that if the cities pursue the three years of free fiber and one city
defaults, and there was some question with regard to who would be liable for that default.
Packet 5 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 3
Councilmember Wilson observed the default could be a city choosing not to participate in the future. Therefore
if a city chose not to participate, the other cities would have a $300,000 liability. Mr. Nelson answered there was
no commitment to spend the $300,000 in the future. This agreement provides 3 years of free fiber and leaves
open the option for 30 years of fiber at a very low cost.
Council President Bernheim asked whether this was reviewed by committee. Mr. Nelson answered it was
reviewed by the Finance Committee.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the agreement terminated at the end of 30 years. Mr. Nelson explained
at the end of 30 years, the City would pay $500/month, the same arrangement the City has had with Blackrock
for the past year. Councilmember Plunkett asked what would happen if the City terminated the agreement in
three years. Mr. Nelson answered per the agreement SERS reached with Blackrock, at the end of 3 years, the
cities could combine their resources to pay an additional $300,000 one-time fee and they would also be given a
30-year Irrevocable Right of Use (IRU). If the cities chose not pursue an IRU, each city would start paying the
$500/mo for the Blackrock connection at the end of 3 years.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained at the end of 3 years, the City had the option of paying $50,000 (1/6th
of $300,000) for 30 years of free fiber or return to the monthly rate of $500 ($180,000 over 30 years).
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the City was currently paying Blackrock $500/month; the 3 years of free
fiber was an incentive for the City to pay its portion of $300,000 to receive 30 years of free fiber.
Council President Bernheim inquired about the Finance Committee’s recommendation with regard to this item.
Councilmembers Plunkett and Buckshnis answered the Finance Committee recommended approval. Council
President Bernheim pointed out the Finance Committee’s recommendation was not included in the agenda
memo. Mr. Hines advised the Finance Committee minutes reflect that the Committee recommended approval
and forwarded this item to the Council Consent Agenda at last week’s meeting.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this agreement can be terminated but not without terminating the dark fiber
agreement.
Councilmember Wilson suggested in the future the agenda memo reflect action recommended by the Council
committee.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED UPDATES TO LAND USE PERMIT REVIEW
PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
CHAPTERS 20.01 THROUGH 20.08, EXCLUDING 20.05, WHICH INCLUDE STAFF REASSUMING
THE PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECT APPLICATIONS; REORGANIZING AND
CLARIFYING PORTIONS OF TEXT; AND UPDATING THE PERMIT TYPE MATRIX IN ECDC
20.01.003.A. (FILE NO. AMD20100013).
Planner Mike Clugston explained the Planning Board forwarded to the Council several recommended changes to
the Land Use Permit Administration procedures in Title 20. The recommended changes include the two interim
zoning ordinances the Council passed in January reestablishing the Council’s role in closed record appeals.
Other changes include staff reassuming public notice requirements for project permit applications; previously
adopted changes made applicants responsible for notification. The proposed changes also include reorganizing
and clarifying text to make it more user friendly. The permit matrix in ECDC 20.01.003A was updated to reflect
the permits processed in Edmonds and a 90-day permit extension opportunity was added. The final change is the
draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was removed from the permit matrix. An EIS is not a land use
Packet 6 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 4
decision but a decision-making tool and there are separate requirements elsewhere in the ECDC and State
regulations that relate to hearings.
Councilmember Petso referred to language in the proposed ordinance that appeals be typed with a decent size
font and printed single sided. She assumed that was for the City’s convenience and asked whether an appeal be
rejected if those requirements were not met. Mr. Clugston answered the intent was to be able to read the
material. City Attorney Scott Snyder pointed out only the Council or the body to whom an appeal is made could
dismiss an appeal; staff accepts appeals but does not dismiss appeals.
Councilmember Petso asked the time of close of business for the second floor. Mr. Clugston answered 4:30.
Councilmember Petso suggested the appeal deadline be changed from 4:00 to 4:30.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the proposed changes reinstated the Council in land use appeals as a
quasi judicial body in approximately the same appeals as the Council heard previously. Mr. Snyder answered
yes. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the proposed ordinance required appeals be in writing or allowed
oral argument. Mr. Clugston answered the appeal and closed record hearing materials were required to be in
writing. Mr. Snyder advised that requirement was contained on page 33-34, Section 20.07.005C, “parties to the
appeal may present written arguments to the City Council.”
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the language did not state only written argument. Mr. Snyder recalled the
Council’s prior direction was to require written argument and that was the intent of the language. The language
could be clarified to state only written argument would be accepted. He pointed out the procedures in Section
20.07.005 do not contain a provision for oral argument. The Council’s record to date has been to limit the appeal
to a written record. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged that may have been the direction of the Council
previously but this Council may be interested in amending that requirement.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the matrix does not define whether the appeal is written or oral. Mr.
Snyder explained the purpose of the matrix is to provide a simplified format; each process is described in more
detail in later sections of the code.
Councilmember Plunkett explained land use appeals were previously heard by the Council. A different City
Council took those decisions away from the City Council and required citizens to go to court. The proposed
ordinance reinstates the Council in those decisions. The Council previously discussed whether decisions would
be in writing only or whether there would be an opportunity for oral argument. The proposed ordinance requires
arguments to be in writing only rather than the previous procedure that allowed written and/or oral argument. He
suggested the audience speak to whether oral argument should be allowed or whether argument should be in
writing only. He expressed his intent to propose an amendment.
Councilmember Wilson explained Council had never taken itself out of land use decisions. The question was
who heard an appeal of a land use decision. In the recent past, Council acted only as legislators and not judges
and appeals were sent to a Hearing Examiner. The proposed ordinance returns appeals of land use decisions to
the Council. With regard to written versus oral argument, Councilmember Wilson recalled former Development
Services Director Duane Bowman advocated for a written appeal process because often when providing oral
argument, new information was provided that had the potential to influence the Council’s decision.
Councilmember Wilson asked staff’s opinion regarding the appropriate and standard practice for land use
appeals. Mr. Snyder recalled the concern that former Mayor Haakenson and he raised was that citizens who
often are not lawyers inadvertently providing new information during an appeal. This put an enormous burden
on the mayor, staff and him to try to review the information while oral argument was underway and identify
issues that may be outside the record. There are several ways this can be addressed, first, require argument be in
writing. He referred to page 34, paragraph G, pointing out the Council still has the ability to ask questions of the
appellant and parties of record. The formal presentation and argument by the appellant and respondent was
Packet 7 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 5
eliminated. Another option if the Council wanted to hear oral argument was to put the burden on the parties to
object to information outside the record. This often leads to an opportunity for each party to respond and make
citations to the record. The result may be delays so that parties can make formal objection and the other party
can indicate where the information is contained in the record.
Mr. Snyder commented he often felt uncomfortable during closed record hearings telling citizens they could not
say something. Staff’s intent is to keep argument to the record and if not, identify a mechanism that removed the
Mayor and the City Attorney from seemingly muzzling citizens during their argument. He commented on the
difficulty for staff to review a voluminous record while a party was providing comment to determine whether
information was/was not contained in the record. If the Council allowed oral argument, he suggested
formalizing the process to require objections by the parties.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented on the importance of the public or appellant having an opportunity to
decide whether to submit written materials or provide oral argument. In his experience Mr. Snyder had done an
excellent job during oral argument. He recalled a Councilmember who preferred to listen to oral argument over
reading the materials. He summarized the Council should allow oral argument. Next, he expressed concern with
administrative variances and asked whether there was criteria for administrative variances and whether there
were examples to assist the public and Council in understanding what matters were handled by administrative
variance. Another topic not addressed by the proposed ordinance was the form in which appeals could be
submitted, whether by email, fax, mail, or hand delivery. He was also concerned with development agreements
which can address maximum building heights, setback, phasing and design standards. He referred to language in
paragraph C on page 34 that states parties to an appeal may present written argument and paragraph D that states
while not required, the applicant may submit his written argument. He suggested as written, the ordinance would
allow oral or written argument.
Kathy Lester, Edmonds, suggested the appeal process should be allowed to be oral and in writing. She feared
eliminating the oral appeal process would reduce citizen participation. Without the ability to provide oral
comment, she envisioned a person attending a Council meeting would not have the ability to provide comment
on an appeal.
Betty Larman, Edmonds, explained three years ago she appealed an ADB decision to the City Council, using a
PowerPoint as part of her presentation. She did not recall Mr. Snyder informing her that she was providing new
information. She expressed support for the Council hearing appeals and for the public to witness the
proceedings. If information is provided in writing, the public is left out of the process. She expressed support for
allowing an appellant to decide whether to provide information in writing or orally.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, pointed out some may prefer to speak and some prefer to provide information in
writing depending on their abilities and what is more convenient. He recommended the option to provide
information orally or in writing be left up to the citizen.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comment regarding administrative variances, Mr. Snyder explained the Council
approved an extensive revision of Chapter 18 a few months ago. That process included consolidation of 30-40
appeal routes for issues such as driveway surface area, street grade, etc. An example of an administrative
variance would be to increase the grade of a driveway from 12% to 15%.
With regard to providing appeals in writing or orally, Mr. Snyder explained a written document was required to
frame issues and determine whether the appeal was timely. Requiring an appellant to list the issues they are
appealing assists with providing order to the process.
Packet 8 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 6
With regard to development agreements, Mr. Snyder explained this provision was already in the code, and is a
codification of State statute, RCW 36.70A. He agreed that a number of issues could be addressed via a
development agreement, one of the primary provisions in the City’s code and State statute is the development
agreement must comply with the purposes and wording of the zoning ordinance. A development agreement
allows minor amendments to development processes and a public hearing is required. To assist citizens, the
State statute has been included in the City’s development code.
With regard to the use of “may” on page 34, Mr. Snyder explained “may” was used rather than “shall” to ensure
once a written appeal was filed, if an applicant felt it was frivolous and did not respond, they did not
automatically lose due to a requirement to submit a written response.
With regard to a person attending a Council meeting not having the ability to provide comment on an appeal,
Mr. Snyder explained these are closed record appeals and participation is limited to those who participated in the
open record hearing.
Mr. Clugston advised appeals must be in writing as there is a fee for filing an appeal.
Councilmember Petso asked whether an applicant could obtain an administrative variance for a height limit and
would there be an opportunity for appeal. Mr. Snyder answered an applicant could not obtain an administrative
variance for height. Mr. Clugston explained the only way to request a height variance was the variance process
via the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Snyder explained the standard topography variance under the City’s code, a full
open record process, would apply; there is no height variance in the administrative variance process.
Councilmember Petso asked whether a variance could be requested for underground wiring and whether the
appeal would come to the Council. Mr. Snyder recalled the undergrounding provisions have no variance
authority other than the standard subdivision variance that has variance criteria and is appealable to the Council.
He offered to confirm his recollection.
Council President Bernheim commented on the timeframe to submit written materials, suggesting the current
requirements contained in 20.07.005.D were somewhat constrained. He suggested consideration be given to
expanding the timeline from 12 days before the closed record review to submit written arguments, 7 days to
respond to the appellant’s argument, 4 days for rebuttal and 2 days for final surrebuttal, to 20 days, 10 days, 5
days and 1 day. Mr. Snyder explained the difficulty was the 120 day rule to act on permits. The process
including appeals must be completed within the 120 days exclusive of SEPA review. The proposed requirements
already consume approximately a month, leaving only 90 days for the remainder of the process. Planning
Manager Rob Chave noted another factor that drives the deadlines is including materials in the Council packet.
With regard to the 4:00 p.m. deadline for submitting an appeal, Mr. Chave explained the City does not accept
money after 4:00 p.m. as administrative accounting procedures require all accounts be reconciled by close of
business which is 4:30 p.m. Extending the deadline to 4:30 p.m. would create an administrative difficulty.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the liability for oral versus written appeal argument and whether the
City has ever had a liability. Mr. Snyder explained the Council must make its decision based on information in
the record. If a party injects new information during their argument and staff does not catch it and a
Councilmember relies on that information and it is included in the Findings of Fact, the decision could be
overturned by the court. If the Council does not want appeal argument in writing which provides an opportunity
to ensure that information outside the record is not included, he suggested the burden of proof be placed on the
parties to object at the hearing and require the other party to show where in the record the information was
contained. The intent was to make the process fair as well as appear to be fair. He recalled times when he has
had to inject himself into a person’s argument more than he is comfortable with. Councilmember Plunkett
Packet 9 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 7
commented Mr. Snyder has always done so expertly and professionally. Mr. Snyder summarized his concern
was he did not want to appear to be favoring one side over the other.
Mr. Chave commented the reverse was also true; he recalled a person who was delivering their oral argument
and was interrupted by staff questioning whether a fact was in the record. The person became flustered and lost
his train of thought. If the materials had been submitted in writing, staff could have identified any information
that was outside the record ahead of time. He summarized there was no easy solution but there were problems
with both methods.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how often problems arose with oral argument. Mr. Snyder answered when the
Council was holding closed record reviews, it was a rare occasion when information outside the record was not
introduced. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed Councilmember Plunkett’s comment that there had never been a
court issue. Mr. Snyder responded at times it had been very distracting for the person presenting their argument.
With regard to his offer to Councilmember Petso to confirm his recollection, Mr. Snyder reported Chapter 18.05
regarding utility wires does not contain a variance provision. There are exemptions for underground utility
substations and high voltage but no variance process.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about Councilmembers incurring personal liability in a quasi judicial
proceeding. He asked if a Councilmember would be exposed to personal liability if he/she relied on new
information provided during a closed record review and stated their position was based on that information. Mr.
Snyder answered not if a Councilmember was acting in good faith based on the information provided. He
explained the inability to provide new information at a close record review is due to the GMA’s requirement that
there only be one open record hearing. If new information is presented in the closed record review, it is
essentially a second open record hearing. That is also the reason that only parties of record can provide
information. The Council is limited to the record of the first hearing.
Mr. Snyder clarified a Councilmember could always be sued; the City has an indemnity ordinance to protect
Councilmembers for the good faith fulfillment of their acts. Under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, anyone
challenging a Councilmember based on a conflict of interest has the obligation to raise their objection at the
earliest opportunity. If a Councilmember refused to recuse themselves and they had a conflict of interest, they
could incur some personal liability. If new information was provided and considered, there was no liability for
an individual Councilmember, however, there was potential for litigation costs on appeal. He summarized new
information provided at the closed record review was a blemish on the record of the proceeding.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out during a closed record review, the Council sits as a judge rather than a
legislator. He asked if there were any courts of law in the United States where an appeal could be made without
a written brief. Mr. Snyder agreed all appeals must be in writing. At small claims court, parties are not required
to brief materials. Councilmember Wilson noted even with written briefs, there was an oral element in courts of
law via questioning. As proposed the Council would still have the opportunity to ask questions. Mr. Snyder
agreed. Councilmember Wilson summarized eliminating the written brief would be an uncommon practice. Mr.
Snyder explained “may” was used in the ordinance to keep the requirement loose so that a written response was
not required but the party could attend the closed record review and Council could ask questions if they desired.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Supreme Court and most other courts allowed oral argument. Mr.
Snyder agreed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
APPROVE THE CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON 7/28/10 AND
CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT 4, AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE
FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL.
Packet 10 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 8
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION; AMEND PAGE 34, SECTION 20.07.005.G TO READ, “THE REVIEW SHALL
COMMENCE WITH THE RESOLUTION OF APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS ISSUES, IF ANY,
FOLLOWED BY A ORAL PRESENTATIONS BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE GENERAL
BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE. AND THE
OTHER PARTIES. AFTER THE DIRECTOR’S PARTIES’ PRESENTATIONS, THE CITY COUNCIL
MAY ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS...”
Councilmember Plunkett commented he often learned from the oral presentation as well as the written materials.
He agreed some people may prefer to write their argument, others may prefer to provide it orally. When citizens
appeal a development, the developer usually has an attorney to write the brief; requiring a citizen to do the same
was not in their best interest. The timeframes are very short and although they may not be tight for an attorney
whose job it is to write the brief, the timelines would be difficult for a citizen to meet. He preferred to provide
citizens the best opportunity to provide their case.
Councilmember Wilson commented the proposed ordinance allows for written argument and oral
question/answer. He asked whether the proposed amendment will allow written argument and require an oral
presentation. To address this issue, Council President Bernheim revised the amendment as follows:
“...FOLLOWED BY THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL PRESENTATIONS BY THE DIRECTOR AND
THE OTHER PARTIES...”
Mr. Snyder advised if the amendment was approved, he had several clarifying questions for the Council about
other procedures that would need to be changed.
To the comment that an attorney was better able to provide written arguments without an attorney a citizen was
out of luck, Councilmember Peterson pointed out one of an attorney’s key skills was oral argument. If oral
argument was allowed without any written materials, an attorney was better able than the average citizen to
provide oral argument. He disagreed with the idea that allowing only oral argument served the citizen better.
Requiring written argument allows the information be fact-checked prior to the closed record review. An
attorney may be better able to present information in an oral presentation which upon review may not be factual
which leaves the appeal in jeopardy. He was also concerned with a process that allowed objection to oral
argument, pointing out an attorney would be much better at making objections. He feared allowing oral
argument would increase the need for an appellant to be represented by an attorney. He pointed out the proposed
ordinance did not exclude oral argument; parties would simply be required to submit a written outline of points
they planned to cover. He supported the requirement for a written record.
Councilmember Plunkett preferred to give the citizen as much latitude as possible and to allow them the choice
to provide written and/or oral argument. He agreed Council could ask questions during a closed record review
but the ability to make oral argument would allow a citizen to emphasize what they felt was most important.
Councilmember Petso recalled during her appeal to the Council, there were objections and claims that
information was not in the record. She recalled Mr. Snyder provided both sides an opportunity to submit a letter
identifying where in the record information was contained and all claims that information was not in the record
were resolved quickly by Mr. Snyder. If oral presentation is not allowed, one of the most powerful tools for
citizens to communicate would be lost including the ability to provide a PowerPoint with photographs,
diagrams, etc. She agreed via oral argument, the public also has the ability to hear the information. She
summarized that allowing PowerPoints and the public to view the process outweighs the advantage attorneys
may have via oral argument.
Council President Bernheim pointed out the proposed ordinance requires a clear, written statement of the
grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based with specific reference to facts in the record.
Packet 11 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 9
Councilmember Peterson asked whether a PowerPoint handout would be considered written materials. Mr.
Snyder responded that was one of his questions to the Council if this amendment passed. If the amendment did
not pass, he clarified the Council was not excluding oral argument, it must be supplemented with written
argument. He agreed with the importance of allowing oral argument.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Snyder suggested he draft the following procedural rules:
1. Reasonable time limits for oral argument be established by the Mayor.
2. A procedure be drafted for parties to make objections and provide opportunity to respond. An option
would be to continue the public hearing to allow response. The sole basis for objection would be the
material cited in argument was not in the record of the proceeding.
3. “Shall” in Section 20.07.004.D.7 and F be changed to “should” (All written submittals shall should be
typed on letter size paper...)
4. Does the Council want PowerPoint presentations to be submitted in conjunction with parties’ briefs? He
suggested any PowerPoint presentation be attached to a brief or rebuttal brief and will not count toward
the page count. Council President Bernheim commented as long as a PowerPoint did not contain new
information it could be presented along with oral argument
Mr. Snyder advised he would draft a list of rules and procedures for the Council’s review in conjunction with
consideration of a final ordinance.
Council President Bernheim thanked staff for their work, noting there had been several changes back and forth
as well as changes in the composition of the City Council.
Councilmember Peterson did not support the motion, explaining when Councilmembers served in a quasi
judicial capacity, they were unable to speak to citizens about issues they may be passionate about. He preferred
Councilmembers act as legislators and not judges.
Councilmember Wilson expressed support for the motion, envisioning the process would operate smoothly
regardless of the details.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Snyder advised a closed record appeal under the interim ordinance was scheduled on October 19. That
appeal would be subject to the limitation of written argument; there will not be oral argument as the appeal will
proceed under the rules in effect on the date the appeal was filed. He advised the final ordinance and rules and
procedures would be presented to the Council in 2-3 weeks.
4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2011-
2016).
Councilmember Wilson pointed out all the funding allocations from the assumed passage of the Transportation
Benefit District (TBD) vote were in the fourth year and beyond. He assumed that would change if the ballot
measure passed. He questioned why the public hearing and Council approval of the Six-Year TIP was being
held tonight rather than waiting until after the vote. City Engineer Rob English explained when the Council
approved the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) in December 2009, they requested it be presented earlier in the year.
The presentation on the CFP will describe how the CIP and CFP interrelate. If the TBD ballot measure passes in
November, he suggested the Council take up the matter in the first quarter of 2011, noting the TBD Board will
also be making some key decisions regarding how projects are programmed.
Packet 12 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 10
Councilmember Wilson pointed out if the TBD ballot measure failed, some changes may be required such as
aggregating expenditures to fewer projects. Mr. English explained if the TBD ballot measured failed, there
would not be a need to revise the TIP as the projects programmed for 2011 do not use TBD revenue. In
July/August 2011, a new CFP for 2012-2017 would be presented that did not include revenues from the TBD
ballot measure.
Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss reviewed TIP requirements:
• Revised Code of Washington (RCW) requires that each city update their TIP prior to adoption of the
budget.
• Document must contain all regionally significant transportation projects that a City plans to undertake in
the next six years.
• TIP is sent to different state agencies as well as the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC).
• This data is then used to create a state-wide TIP Database.
Following past practices, the TIP is financially constrained in the first three years (2011-2013) and not
financially constrained the last three years (2014-2016). Projects identified in the TIP can receive State and
Federal transportation grants. He explained each project has different funding sources. Federal and State
grants/local funds are programmed as a source of revenue for some TIP projects. Due to a shortfall in
transportation funding, the TIP includes potential revenue from the Transportation Benefit District (TBD):
• Increase of $40 (in addition to $20 vehicle license fee approved in 2009),
• Increase to be on November ballot, and
• Identified in the TIP starting in 2014
He reviewed scheduled projects for 2011-2013:
Dayton St. Overlay
Project Description: Overlay Dayton Street from SR-104 to the railroad tracks (poor asphalt condition with
many cracks)
Schedule: Preliminary engineering / construction: 2011
Funding: Estimated Total Cost: $120,000
Fund 112: $30,000
Fund 412: $90,000
228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
Project Description: Recommended as #1 project in Hwy. 99 Traffic Safety and Circulation Study (conducted
in 2006)
Restrict southbound left turn from Hwy. 99 onto 76th Avenue W
New traffic signal at Hwy. 99 @ 228th Street SW (w/ protected LT phasing) to enable
safe left turn for the southbound movement from Hwy. 99 to 76th Avenue W and create
additional safe pedestrian crossing on Hwy. 99 between 238th and 224th
New traffic signal at 76th Avenue W @ 228th Street SW
Schedule: Preliminary Engineering phase: 30% design completed in 2009
Environmental / Design: 2011-2012
ROW acquisition: 2013
Construction: 2014
Funding: Total Project Cost: $4.3 million
Design: Federal grant secured
ROW: Federal grant secured
Estimated construction cost: $3,452,000=> unsecured grant/TBD
Packet 13 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 11
Interurban Trail
Project Description: Install missing Interurban Trail link between Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline
Schedule: Design: close to completion
Construction: Spring 2011
Funding: Estimated Total Construction Cost: $1,327,000
Federal Funding: $750,000 (secured)
State Funding: $577,000 (secured)
Main Street. Pedestrian lighting
Project Description: New sidewalk on both sides of Main Street between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue
Installation of pedestrian lighting on both sides
Schedule: Preliminary Engineering: 2011
Construction: 2012
Funding: Total project cost: $725,000
Preliminary Engineering: $115,000 (secured grant)
Construction : $610,000 (secured grant)
80th Avenue W Walkway
Project Description: Construct walkway on 80th Avenue W between 188th Street SW and 180th Street SW
and on 180th Street SW between 80th Avenue W and Olympic View Drive
Ranked #6 in Long Walkway list (2009 Transportation Plan)
Schedule: State grant application submitted last April/response scheduled Spring 2011 - 100% grant
funding requested
Preliminary Engineering: 2011-2012
Construction: 2013
Funding: Estimated project cost: $777,000
Preliminary Engineering: $130,000 (unsecured grant)
Construction: $647,000 (unsecured grant)
Shell Valley Emergency Access
Project Description: Construct an emergency access road from Shell Valley subdivision to Main Street
Schedule: Preliminary engineering: close to completion
Construction: 2011
Funding: Total construction cost: $486,500
State Grant: $250,000 (secured)
Fund 412: $236,500
226th Street SW Walkway project
Project Description: Install sidewalk on 226th Street SW between SR-104 and 105th Place W (complete safe
pedestrian connection from SR-104 to Sherwood Elementary School)
Schedule: Design: close to completion
Construction: Spring 2011
Funding: Total construction cost: $139,000
Federal grant: $139,000 (secured)
Mr. Hauss reviewed other projects scheduled 2014-2016, explaining most projects are funded by potential
(TBD) revenue, beginning in 2014. If the TBD passes, those projects would be moved up in the schedule:
Street Overlays
• Ranked #1 in TBD list of projects
• Preservation project
Packet 14 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 12
• Design/construction: Begin in 2014
212th Street SW @ 76th Avenue W
• Ranked #14 in TBD list of projects
• Concurrency project (improve Level of Service from LOS F to D) => widen 76th Avenue W / add left
turn lane for northbound and southbound movement
• Design: 2014
Madrona Elementary School Walkway
• Ranked #6 in TBD list of projects
• Sidewalk project along 236th Street. SW connecting 2 stretches of SR-104
• Design: 2014
100th @ 238th Signal Upgrades
• Ranked #15 in TDB list of projects
• Preservation project
• Signals over 20 years old
• Design & construction: 2014
Mr. Hauss relayed staff’s recommendation that the City Council approve the TIP.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why the signals at 100th & 238th needed to be upgraded if they still worked. Mr.
Hauss responded that although the signals still worked, the lifecycle of a signal is 20-30 years. City Engineer
Rob English explained the signal needs to be functional for liability reasons. Operation crews are having
difficulty locating parts for the signal equipment in the electronic panel. Councilmember Plunkett concluded
maintenance costs are increasing and there is the potential for liability if the signal is not replaced at the end of
its lifecycle and the electronics fail.
Councilmember Wilson asked how these specific projects were selected, noting several of the projects were not
funded in the TIP until 2014. Mr. Hauss answered the projects were ranked according to grant eligibility and
other factors.
Councilmember Wilson recalled the Council previously discussed speeds and the level of service on Olympic
Avenue and requested staff return with suggestions regarding traffic calming. That was clearly a Council
priority and a low cost, yet the TIP does not include any funds for traffic calming in the next three years. Mr.
Hauss responded that could be added to the TIP. Traffic calming was deferred last year due to funding issues. It
was included in the TIP beginning in 2014.
Councilmember Wilson observed REET Fund 125 can be used for parks and transportation. The Council
directed that all REET receipts over $750,000 would be used for transportation; however, because REET
revenues have not exceeded $750,000 in recent years, all the funds are used for parks. He asked if the funds
from Fund 125 for the 4th Avenue Corridor could be redirected to traffic calming, suggesting with a total cost of
$1.25 million, the $50,000 from Fund 125 allocated in 2011 for the 4th Avenue Corridor project would not
accomplish much. Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained the most immediate expenditures for
the 4th Avenue Corridor are to continue planning to go from the conceptual stage to 15% design. Funds are also
allocated to that project as matching funds. The City recently received a $25,000 grant for gateway treatments,
interpretive signage, art, etc.
Councilmember Wilson commented traffic calming is a high priority for citizens and significant public safety
improvements can be realized for a small amount of money. He recommended funding be included in the TIP
for traffic calming.
Packet 15 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 13
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the $2 million in the TIP in 2016 for the Five Corners intersection,
noting the project begins with a $247,000 expenditure in 2014 and $216,000 in 2018. He expressed concern with
allocating funds for design when a determination has not yet been made regarding what is needed at the Five
Corners intersection. With regard to the Hwy. 524 and 88th Avenue West intersection improvements, he
suggested that project be moved up and funds sought from the State for that project. With regard to annual street
overlays, he questioned why there was no funding until 2014. He expressed concern that a portion of the
proposed additional $40 TBD fee would be used for trails and suggested the City fund important projects such
as street overlays.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE SIX YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND ADOPT
RESOLUTION 1236.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out there were 4 projects in 2011 that utilize City funds. He asked whether
$50,000 for traffic calming could be added to the TIP from the General Fund ending cash balance rather than
taking funds from another project. Mr. English agreed that could be done.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
AMEND THE TIP TO ADD $50,000 FOR TRAFFIC CALMING PROJECTS IN 2011 FROM THE
GENERAL FUND ENDING BALANCE.
Councilmember Wilson suggested installation of “your speed is” signs would have tremendous public safety
implications and could be one of the most impactful projects done in 2011.
Councilmember Peterson expressed support for the motion and asked whether the Council wanted to provide
direction regarding specific locations for traffic calming such as Olympic Avenue. Mr. English responded a
general line item was sufficient or the Council could provide direction regarding specific locations. The City has
a policy for vetting traffic calming requests to determine whether they were warranted. Mr. Hauss advised staff
has identified a few locations where traffic calming was warranted; the Council could identify other locations.
Councilmember Petso did not support the amendment because notice had not been provided to staff, the Council
or the public. If the TBD ballot measure is approved, traffic calming projects will be moved up. She preferred to
wait for the outcome of the TBD vote and leave the $50,000 in the General Fund.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Hauss advised a Citywide Traffic Calming Program was identified in the
TBD list of projects with funding of $50,000/year. Councilmember Plunkett was hesitant for the Council to
identify locations for traffic calming and preferred that staff develop a list of locations.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS
PLUNKETT, PETERSON, WILSON, AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO.
Councilmember Peterson thanked staff for developing the TIP and congratulated them on the receipt of a grant
for Main Street lighting.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet 16 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 14
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, explained since an answer had not been provided regarding how the ferry system
planned to spend $26 million on one important project to be completed in Edmonds in the 2029 biennium, she
assumed it would be a second slip at the Main Street terminal. A second slip has been the ferry system’s priority
since 1988 and would allow simultaneous loading and unloading. The ferry system has studied the issue
including possible dredging, eel grass, density and extent of microalgae, and intertidal and subtidal zones.
Drawings of the current terminal are depicted in several ferry system reports including the overhead loading and
the second slip. She summarized the ferry system knew how they planned to spend the $26 million. Next she
relayed that Mr. Clifton’s discussions with WSF have related to minimum build alternatives for Edmonds
Crossing; minimum build to WSF means two slips. Mr. Clifton’s discussions with WSF have referred to federal
funding of $12.3 million, and $23-$26 million from the State. She advised her comments in the future will
address impacts of a second slip.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented on the following issues:
1. The explanation that Mayor Cooper promised three weeks ago regarding why the Hearing Examiner was not
seeking renewal of their contract has not been provided.
2. A large 50-60 year old tree was improperly removed from City right-of-way on Walnut Street in June; the
developer said the removal was authorized by the City, the City disagreed. The Police Department’s
investigation should be concluded this week.
3. Neither Mr. Hines nor Mayor Cooper has responded to his email asking why the budget workshop estimate
for 2010 General Fund revenue was more than $2 million over the forecast provided in June.
4. The land purchased by the City in December 2008 in front of Old Mill Town has not yet been developed
into a park. He suggested completing the park even if electrical service could not be provided.
5. Their condominium recently replaced 15 florescent fixtures in the garage with fixtures consuming 47% less
power but provide as much light. The total cost of the project was $2,000 with the PUD paying two-thirds of
the cost. Residents’ repayment of the one-third via power savings will take only 15 months.
Don Hall, Edmonds, reported last Friday Edmonds joined several other cities around the world in Park(ing)
Day. Five stores in Edmonds transformed the parking space in front of their store into a park. He thanked Stacy
Gardea who spearheaded the project, the Chamber of Commerce for providing necessary insurance and Public
Works for providing cones. Participating stores included Fabric of Life, Running in Motion, Wooden Spoon,
Arista/C’est la Vie/Blue Fish Designs, and Garden Gear. He commented a number of people visited the parks
and enjoyed the peace and quiet. He hoped businesses would participate in Park(ing) Day next year.
Betty Larman, Edmonds, explained approximately two years ago the Council purchased the property in front
of Old Mill Town, the last green space downtown. One of the Floretum Garden Club members, Rachel
Sedgefield, was the caretaker of the garden when Old Mill Town was established in 1972. The Garden Club
pledged to maintain the garden after the City purchased the property. An architect donated a design for the
landscaping and bandstand. The Garden Club, a 501(c)(3), is fundraising to assist the City with completing the
site. Electricity is needed on the site for a water fountain, lighting and power in the bandstand. She summarized
it would not only be a garden but a tool for teaching horticulture.
Donna Breske, Edmonds, asked whether it was standard City policy to require fees be paid to the City to have
specific code and infrastructure questions answered. In order to obtain answers to two questions, she was told by
staff she was required to either apply for a pre-application meeting at a cost of $655 or apply for a formal
building permit with a specific design which costs thousands of dollars. Her two questions are:
1. The previous ECDC and the recently revised ECDC include a grandfather date of July 7, 1977 for
stormwater drainage management. Any impervious areas created prior to this date were not subject to
management of stormwater runoff. Per staff’s interpretation of the previous drainage code, the grandfather
date only applies to the site being developed and does not apply to any offsite impervious areas. She asked
whether the interpretation of the revised code was the same as the previous drainage code: does the July
Packet 17 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 15
1977 grandfather date for management of stormwater flows from impervious areas only apply to the site
which is being developed and not to any offsite pre-1977 impervious areas.
2. Per a May 14, 2008 letter from the previous Public Works Director Noel Miller, the City-installed
stormwater drainage pipes were in no way installed to promote the development of her lot at 9330 218th
Place SW but were installed as an emergency overflow to alleviate flooding incidents to surrounding
properties. She asked where the piping system transitioned from an overflow pipe to a drainage conveyance
pipe.
Mayor Cooper suggested she provide her questions in writing and he would have the City Attorney address
them with Public Works Director Phil Williams.
Mayor Cooper declared a brief recess.
6. PRESENTATION REGARDING 2010 CITIZEN LEVY COMMITTEE
Councilmember Buckshnis explained Jessie Beyer, a member of the 2010 Citizen Levy Committee (CLC) and a
CPA, will provide the presentation she gave at the first CLC meeting regarding the difference between
governmental accounting and regular financial accounting.
Ms. Beyer explained government operates from the starting point of the budget which is a legal document
binding to the administrators of the governmental unit. There are typically two different budgets:
• Estimated Revenue budget – lists revenues e raised pursuant to law during budget cycle
• Appropriates budget – must be enacted into law before governmental administration has legal authority
to incur liabilities
Governmental accounting uses funds to account for revenues and expenditures as outlined in the budget. The
most common funds are General Fund, special revenue funds, capital projects fund, and debt service. Funds are
limited in purpose and scope based on budget. Governments record financial information on a modified accrual
basis of accounting. However, they report on the full accrual basis of accounting. This is due to several factors:
• Governments can measure tax revenue before it is collected
• An expenditure (not expense) is recorded when the liability is incurred (such as bonds) even if the
amount is known prior to the payment due date
Governments are not in the business of making a profit. The budget is the driver and if revenues exceed
expenditures then an increase in net assets is reported and the surplus is generally added to the budget for the
following cycle. If the reverse is present, the governmental entity has a deficit.
Ms. Beyer concluded her comments by stating that many of the differences between governmental accounting
and regular financial accounting are due to the very different role of a government entity. The objectives of
government are more than financial; they include political, social and environmental needs. Governmental
accounting requires more transparency because there are many more users of the finance statements.
With regard to questions that have arisen over Police and Fire overtime in 2009, Councilmember Buckshnis
explained Fire had $795,000 in overtime in 2009. Police had $457,891 and $79,000 was reimbursed to the
General Fund, leaving approximately $378,900. She explained overtime in the Police Department is often due to
backfilling positions when an officer is out on disability. Another reason overtime occurs is investigating a
homicide, missing child, etc.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the City’s policy discusses reporting of General Fund actuals; the City
currently uses a working capital approach (current assets minus current liabilities). She displayed examples of
General Fund reports from several other cities.
Packet 18 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 16
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified her presentation had not yet been made to the CLC. The purpose of her
presentation was to increase the Council’s understanding of budget amendments. The information presented is
based on Governmental Finance Officers Association’s Standards (GFOA), research of other cities’ websites,
and discussions with other Finance Directors and an instructor for the Association of Washington Cities (AWC).
In April 2010 the Council passed Ordinance 3789 and Resolution 1266. The major items are:
• A change in the Monthly General Fund Reports that contain revenue budget, biennium to date,
expenditure budget, biennium to date, balance and total balance.
• Timeliness of reporting to the Finance Committee and Council and placement of reports on the City’s
website for citizen review.
• Quarterly reports to have narrative discussing trends, drivers and assumptions.
• Proper labeling on documents with page numbers and proposed budget amendments are to be part of
monthly Finance Meetings.
She provided background provided by MRSC Finance Advisor Mike Bailey in “Amending Your Budget:”
• The legislative body grants authority to the administrative body during each budget.
• Once granted, administrative can spend appropriations up to the budget amount.
• Appropriations are based on estimates of available resources (revenue and fund balances) and history.
• Sometimes spending occurs regardless of amount of revenue, which can be a problem.
• Budgets are adopted at the “fund” level.
• The legislative body can track at a significantly greater level of detail if necessary.
• State law provides that transfers within a fund are permitted as an administrative function provided that
the budget was adopted at the fund level
In a traditional environment, the typical reasons to amend a budget are as follows:
• Receipt of additional/unanticipated revenues (grant money, etc.)
• Non-debatable Emergency (RCW 35.33.081) (natural disasters, war, etc.)
• Emergency of lesser nature (RCW 35.33.091) (Council determines need, ordinance must be introduced,
public hearing and majority vote plus one is required
In today’s economy, Councils are having to re-opening budgets to revise estimates downward. Administrative
and legislative should work together to closely monitor revenues. Because the budget or appropriation level may
not be tied to the available resources, situations may exist where Councils grant authority to spend public funds
that may exceed available resources.
Legislation and Administration need to work together to figure out expense reductions by:
• Monitoring and encouraging caution in expenditures.
• Placing an administrative watch on spending.
• Considering administrative policy directives (freezes on travel, reduction in discretionary spending,
furloughs, etc.)
• Considering a legislative policy directive (reducing appropriations for certain budgets items which as of
today is non-applicable since our budget cycle is ending: so in October. the legislative body should look
closely at 2011 budget numbers to see if realistic).
The GFOA recommends:
• Communicating clearly, honestly and often
• Shrinking revenues require more frequency broadcast of financial condition to public.
• Seeking input and compare as everyone is in the same “boat”. All have made cuts - all are asked to do
more for less. Understand the environment and broadcast to citizens so they understand.
Packet 19 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 17
• Don’t over-react – but be prepared. Overreaction can come in the form disaster scenarios that
contemplate drastic measures. Being prepared means thinking and planning.
The Council is raising questions because:
• Ordinance 3789 requires vetting through Finance Committee.
• Labeling/descriptions are not adequate (Ordinance 3789).
• Council was asked to transfer approximately $900,000 to the General Fund without discussion or timing
to understand.
• Staff believed that same logic utilized in the 2009 budget amendment applies to logic of new Council
but did not ask.
• Attempted subsequent conversations resulted in additional changes requiring another review. Council
questions based on first amendment and only some issues resolved.
• June 2010 Budget Report (6-month financials) already reflects changes that the City Council had yet to
consider or approve
Reasons the administration should comply include:
• City Council has the highest responsibility in local government.
• City Council has a fiduciary responsibility to understand the financial position of this City.
• City Council has every right to ask questions and expect answers in a timely manner.
• City Council must be informed and have conversations with Administration especially in an economic
recession.
• City Council protects the taxpayers
Councilmember Buckshnis recommended the following:
• Start conversations and have an open dialog.
• Show more detail, provide adequate labeling, page numbers and descriptions.
• Comply with Ordinance 3789 and Resolution 1266.
• Give the Council time to review and digest information.
• Restate June Budget Report to reflect current financial situation so Council understands and then can
make an informed decision with proposed amendments.
• Ask the Council questions rather than guess at our logic.
• City Council needs to have the final say before actions are taken.
AT 10:00 P.M., COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
WILSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Peterson asked for clarification of the statement in the presentation, “situations may exist where
Councils grant authority to spend public funds that may exceed available resources.” Councilmember Buckshnis
provided the example of Parks exceeding their revenue budget. Councilmember Petso explained the June
financials show the 125 Fund had already overspent the authorization of $200,000 and the revised budget
amendment requests an authority extension to $500,000. Councilmember Peterson clarified the budget
amendment would not exceed available resources and result in deficit spending. Councilmember Buckshnis
noted Parks exceeding its spending authority should have been vetted and approved by the Finance Committee.
Councilmember Peterson referred to recommendations for expense reductions such as freezes on travel,
reduction in discretionary spending, furloughs, etc., pointing out that had been done. Councilmember Buckshnis
clarified this was not intended as a criticism, the information was taken from a paper written by Mike Bailey,
AWC.
Councilmember Wilson recalled Councilmember Plunkett telling him when he was first elected that he may not
have a full appreciation of the divide between the Mayor and the Council. During his time on the Council he has
Packet 20 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 18
come to appreciate that comment. He lost a tremendous amount of faith in the information provided during the
Fire District 1 process. He reached a conclusion that none of the numbers would be 100% accurate and that the
numbers provided would make the case for the Fire District 1 contract. The previous Finance Director
developed numbers and then left the City for employment at Fire District 1. The subsequent Finance Director
was thrown into a storm. He did not question the integrity of the finance staff but during that process, he lost
respect for the integrity of the numbers that were provided.
Councilmember Wilson commented Mayor Cooper has done a phenomenal job of being open, transparent and
honest and the Council could not ask for a better attitude from the senior executive. Although he sometimes
disagreed with her, he appreciated Councilmember Buckshnis dogging this issue, noting that when she was
satisfied, he would be more than satisfied.
Councilmember Petso commented when she worked as a citizen on the Fire District 1 numbers with
Councilmembers Wilson and Wambolt, she reached the same conclusions that Councilmember Wilson did.
With regard to overspending the Fund 125, she recognized that adjustments may be necessary due to a deferred
project, soil issues, etc. However, the Council needed to be informed that additional funds would be requested in
the mid-year budget amendment. This would avoid financial ruckus as well as allow Councilmembers to
respond to citizens regarding projects. She suggested the Public Works Director report quarterly to the
Community Services/Development Services Committee on ongoing projects. She referred to Dick Van
Hollebeke’s interview for appointment to mayor where he urged everyone to work together with a unified
purpose for the benefit of the City.
Mayor Cooper explained as soon as he delivered the 2011 budget to the Council, one of his and Mr. Hines’
priorities will be to do a full accounting of all the Fire District 1 numbers and consolidate the information in one
report. With regard to Fire Department overtime, as soon as Mr. Hines discovered the information provided was
in error, he corrected it via email. He clarified the Finance Department was unaware that while the Police
Department’s overtime is all in Line 120, the Fire Department’s overtime is in Line 120 – 126, only Fire Chief
Tomberg knew that.
With regard to the City’s accounting practices and Councilmember Buckshnis’ suggestion that things could be
done differently, Mayor Cooper assured the City’s accounting practices were not wrong. The accounting is done
so well the State Auditor continues to commend the City. He has committed to Council President Bernheim and
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas that after he delivers the budget to the Council, he will make it a priority to
address how the reports can be altered. However, he disagreed with the timing of altering reports in the middle
of the budget process. He also attended the AWC workshop on budgeting and agreed changes could be made to
improve transparency to the Council and the citizens.
Mayor Cooper complimented the information provided in Councilmember Buckshnis’ presentation regarding
expenditure reductions and recognized the previous administration’s and Council’s administrative watch on
spending. For example, the previous mayor had a policy that no department director could spend more than
$5,000 without asking permission, even if it was budgeted. He was asked last week if he wanted to retain that
policy and he told the directors he did. In order to purchase $12,000 in ammunition for the SWAT Team, the
Police Chief recently had to ask permission to spend the money.
Mayor Cooper assured the budget he presents to the Council will not be like Lynnwood, Federal Way, or
Seattle’s budget that includes employee layoffs. The reason is because the City has been fiscally conservative
for the past 10 years, a tribute to past and present Councils and the former Mayor. He summarized the
expenditure reductions listed in Councilmember Buckshnis’ presentation represent practices that have occurred
over the past decade. Staff is doing its best to comply with the intent of Ordinance 3789 and he recognized some
things could be changed. However, changing the reporting method may cost money if the City’s software does
not support it as well as staff time to make the changes.
Packet 21 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 19
With regard to the slide in Councilmember Buckshnis’ presentation regarding why administration should
comply, Mayor Cooper agreed with all the statements, pointing out all the elected officials have the highest
responsibility in local government, the Council as well as the Mayor, thus the division of power between the
executive and legislative branch. All elected officials have a fiduciary responsibility to understand the financial
position of this City. He agreed the Council had the right to ask questions but the timing of responses depends
on the workload of the administration and administration takes their direction from the executive branch of
government. There is a tremendous workload due to the Citizen Levy Committee and budget preparation. He
summarized all eight elected officials protected the taxpayers. Elected officials have 41,000 bosses (the
citizens), the directors have one boss, the mayor; keeping that separation in mind will lead to better teamwork.
With regard to assertions that he has failed to meet with Councilmembers, Mayor Cooper advised his Executive
Assistant reported that every request for a meeting by a member of the Council has been honored. He expressed
his willingness to discuss his philosophy with Councilmembers even if it was necessary for them to agree to
disagree.
7. 2009-2010 MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained the mid-year budget amendment was presented to the Council on
August 24. Several questions were answered at that meeting and the adjustment was remanded to the Finance
Committee. A special Finance Committee meeting was held on August 30 where questions were answered for 2
hours. It was his understanding that all questions had been answered at that time except for Councilmember
Petso’s request for an hour meeting with him to address her questions. He has been unable to schedule a meeting
with Councilmember Petso. As the adjustment remains with the Finance Committee, he suggested the Chair
provide a status update.
Councilmember Plunkett, Chair of the Finance Committee, explained the Council has questions that have not
yet been answered. He was reluctant to take action until he had a better understanding of some issues and
possibly even an executive session related to personnel.
Councilmember Petso advised an opportunity exists to meet with Mayor Cooper and Mr. Hines later this week.
Once that meeting is scheduled, she invited Councilmembers to meet with her to provide their questions and she
offered to meet with Councilmembers after the meeting to relay what she learned. She was hopeful that process
would be a step toward approving the mid-year budget amendment. She also had policy issues related to the
amendment, 1) whether to suspend B Fund contributions for 2010, and 2) whether to transfer the funds set aside
for acquisition of new fire trucks to the Public Safety Reserve Fund. She suggested scheduling a time for
Council to provide direction to staff regarding those two items as the proposed amendment may need to be
revised based on Council direction.
City Attorney Scott Snyder cautioned Councilmembers could send Councilmember Petso their questions and
she could report but any appearance of a rolling quorum needed to be avoided. Councilmember Petso also
extended her offer to members of the public.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the day before the August 31 special Finance Committee meeting, a new
amendment was provided that changed the numbers and the pages did not match. They have asked to speak with
Accountant Debra Sharp regarding those issues. Mr. Hines responded the amendment was initially provided to
the full Council on August 24. Adjustments were made at the end of that week that were included in the agenda
for the special Finance Committee meeting. Staff briefed the Finance Committee regarding the two additional
amendments, 1) regarding the TBD fund, and 2) regarding utility revenues. After the explanation, it was his
understanding that everyone understood and they proceeded on to other questions.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked for an explanation of the utility revenues. Mr. Hines responded the revenue
estimate from the utility tax increase was reduced from $726,000 to $360,000.
Packet 22 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 20
Councilmember Plunkett suggested Councilmember Petso introduce her amendments when the Council moved
the mid-year adjustment. Councilmember Petso responded the Finance Department needs to know the
amendments in advance in order to draft the resolution. Councilmember Plunkett suggested the Council could
adopt the amendments and the final resolution returned to Council for approval. Mayor Cooper suggested the
Council provide direction regarding those amendments tonight to allow staff to prepare the necessary language
in the resolution. He clarified where to place the funds that were set aside for fire equipment was a policy
decision. When Mr. Hines asked where to place the funds, he told him to put them in the General Fund ending
cash balance and they could be addressed in the 2011 budget. The other option was to include the amendments
in the December adjustment.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Hines’ memo that compared the General Fund balance and General
Fund working capital. The memo shows the emergency reserve at $1.927 million and unrestricted undistributed
fund balance of $4 million. He asked whether $2 million of the $4 million was ending cash. Mr. Hines answered
the $4.138 million represents the total residual fund balance in the General Fund. The $2.175 million represents
the estimated working capital for the beginning of 2010. The $2.175 million is a subset of the $4.138 million.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the $4 million, observing $2 million of that amount was not ending cash.
Mr. Hines explained there is a residual fund balance of $4.138 million, a beginning working capital balance of
$2.175 million. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether $4 million represented the ending balance. Mr. Hines
referred to the trial balance of the General Fund, advising the assets less the liabilities, the equities section totals
$4.138 million.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out there is $2 million in reserve, $2 million in ending cash and asked where
the other $2 million is. Mr. Hines answered the statements are in the format the City has historically presented to
the Council; nothing has changed. The City has used a working capital approach for years. Councilmember
Plunkett asked if working capital was different than ending cash. Mr. Hines answered yes, working capital was
the amount of cash available to spend.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the amount of working capital and ending cash were different. He asked the
amount in working capital. Mr. Hines answered $2.175 million. Councilmember Plunkett commented there is $2
million in working capital, $2 million in reserves and $2 million in ending cash. Mr. Hines advised the ending
cash for calendar year December 31 is $5.384 million. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the 5-year budget
forecast where there is $2 million in ending cash. Mr. Hines clarified that was working capital. Councilmember
Plunkett observed working capital was ending cash. Mr. Hines explained in the last projections, the
nomenclature was changed to say beginning working capital and ending working capital.
Mayor Cooper suggested Councilmember Plunkett meet with him and Mr. Hines, pointing out Mr. Hines drafted
a memo at his request to explain this two weeks ago. He provided Councilmembers Mr. Hines’ spreadsheets and
his memo that explained the formula that has been used by at least the last two Finance Directors. He suggested
the terminology may be different but this same discussion occurred in October 2009 when the Council
deliberated on the 2009 budget process. The ending cash balance will be approximately $2 million. The memo
explains the formula in the spreadsheet. He suggested if the Council had questions, they make an appointment
with Mr. Hines and him.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the October 6, 2009 meeting in which the Council reported all reserve
funds were not clearly identified. Council said they needed a better understanding of General Funds. At that
meeting, Councilmember Wilson stated that policy ideas, strategy was being made based upon projections.
Those are the 5-year forecasts we did not understand the difference between the forecasts and additional
information was coming to light. Council reported we understood we were getting documentation but no
narrative, no background, no help. Councilmember Plunkett summarized that meeting highlighted that as of
October 2009, this information was not clear and it has not been clarified since then. Mayor Cooper offered to
Packet 23 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 21
meet with Councilmember Plunkett and encouraged him to read the memo Mr. Hines provided that carefully
explained the formula and walked him through what was explained at the Finance Committee meeting, at a
director’s meeting where Councilmember Buckshnis was present, and on October 6, 2009. When
Councilmember Buckshnis was a citizen, there was a long conversation outlined in minutes that were provided
to him by the City Clerk. He assured the City was not missing $2 million; Councilmember Plunkett simply does
not understand the accounting practices.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out when Councilmember Plunkett and he agree it is usually because the
evidence or the frustration is overwhelming. He expressed support for Councilmember Plunkett’s line of
questioning, emphasizing the Council should not still be having this conversation a year later. Although he
thought he understood the $6 million, the data provided does not reference $6 million.
Mayor Cooper agreed it was a complicated formula; as has been explained there is a $2 million ending cash
balance. Mr. Hines met with four members of the Council and four members of the Citizen Levy Committee
(CLC). At the end of the meeting, the four members of the CLC understood Mr. Hines’ explanation and have
emailed him expressing their thanks for Mr. Hines’ explanation.
Mayor Cooper found it counterproductive for Councilmembers to suggest funds were missing. He encouraged
Councilmembers to read the memo Mr. Hines provided him and to carefully review the spreadsheets. If
Councilmembers still had concerns, he encouraged them to ask specific questions. Councilmember Wilson
commented his interpretation of the Council comments was not that funds were missing. The basic question was
$6 million was on certain documents, yet reports provided during the year show a $2 million ending cash
balance and there is $1.9 million in emergency reserve fund but it is not clear where the other $2 million is on
paper. His understanding was the other $2 million was used to manage payments. Mayor Cooper asked whether
removing liabilities resulted in the ending cash balance. Mr. Hines agreed. Mr. Hines explained only the cash
that is freely available for new liabilities is reflected; cash that is already obligated for accrued liabilities from
the prior year is not reflected. Previous Finance Directors have only shown the cash that is unobligated. He
advised the $6 million was reflected in the CAFR once a year due to reporting requirements. Last year the figure
was $5.2 million, this year it is $6.1 million.
Councilmember Wilson observed the $6 million includes the Public Safety Emergency Reserve Fund, all the
money that is referred to as the ending fund balance and money set aside to pay known liabilities. Mr. Hines
explained the $6 million includes equity balances from Fund 001 General Fund, Fund 004 Criminal
Investigation Fund, and 006 Emergency Reserve Fund. Adding those equities together totals the residual fund
balance. The City typically considers those as separate funds but they are rolled together in the CAFR.
Councilmember Wilson asked the meaning of residual fund balance. Mr. Hines answered it was assets, less
liabilities. There is a certain subset of the residual fund balance that can be isolated as working capital which is
done using the balance sheet. Councilmember Wilson clarified Mr. Hines was calling working capital the
unobligated funds. Mr. Hines agreed. In the 5-year forecast the beginning balance is the unobligated cash,
expected revenue and expenses, and the ending unobligated balance at year end. Councilmember Wilson
observed the unobligated ending balance was the beginning balance of the following year. Mr. Hines agreed, it
would be the working capital figure. In summer 2008 when the 2009-2010 budget was developed, it was
estimated that the beginning working capital for the General Fund would be $1.273 million. Once actuals for
2009 were available, the beginning working capital was $2.175 million. The proposed amendment will add
$800,000-$900,000 to the General Fund beginning balance. Councilmember Wilson suggested staff’s use of
layman terms when describing the fund balances would be helpful to the Council.
Council President Bernheim planned to schedule a brief appointment with Mayor Cooper and Mr. Hines to pose
his questions regarding the budget adjustment. He suggested scheduling the mid-year budget adjustment on the
September 28 agenda and give all Councilmembers the opportunity to have their remaining questions answered
before then. He was hopeful the Council could approve the budget adjustment at that time.
Packet 24 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 22
Mayor Cooper suggested Councilmembers provide direction on the items Councilmember Petso raised, into
which fund the money set aside for fire equipment should be placed and whether contributions to the B Fund
would be suspended for 2010.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the definition of the B Fund. Mayor Cooper explained the Council has
historically set aside $350,000/year for purchase of police cars and other fleet. Mr. Hines advised it was Fund
511 in the budget book. Mr. Hines relayed that suspension of the contribution began in 2009 as a cost saving
measure. It is an annual transfer from Fund 001 General Fund into Fund 511 Equipment Rental Fund. In 2009
the contribution was suspended and the $350,000 retained in the General Fund. The proposed amendment
carries forward the direction of the prior Council in the 2-year budget.
Councilmember Wilson explained funds were transferred into Fund 511 Equipment Rental Fund to purchase
new cars in the future. He clarified suspension of that contribution was an administrative entrepreneurial action
last year, the Council did not provide that direction. There was a resolution of support that was not seconded.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained Mr. Hines met with CLC members Gatjens, Reed and Haug. Mr. Reed
emailed her today, requesting an answer to his question regarding the General Fund. Mr. Hines advised the two
amounts Mr. Reed was questioning in the balance sheet were related to the City’s relationship to the Edmonds
Center for the Arts (ECA). The City issued bonds on the ECA’s behalf and the ECA pays the City for those
bonds. It is money the ECA pays the City to pay their bond and because the City incurred the debt, it must be
shown in the liability section.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained last year the Council Contingency Fund was at $93,136 and it is now
$78,779. She asked for a reconciliation of the Contingency Fund. According to former Mayor Haakenson,
$25,000 would have been added to the fund. Mr. Hines answered there is a $25,000 appropriation under the
miscellaneous category in the Council budget. That $25,000 is backed up by the Council Contingency Fund. As
the Council spends down the $25,000 in the miscellaneous appropriation, it also spends down the Council
Contingency Fund. Councilmember Buckshnis asked for an accounting of the expenditures from the
Contingency Fund in 2009.
Councilmember Peterson expressed support for Council President Bernheim’s suggestion. He pointed out this
was the 2009-2010 mid-year budget adjustment and there would be another budget adjustment at the end of the
year, another mid-year budget adjustment in 2011 and another at the end of 2011 and so on. Mid-year budget
adjustments were not out of the ordinary for City government; as revenues and expenses change, the Council
must approve budget adjustments. He assured the City was not on the brink of disaster because a mid-year
budget adjustment was necessary.
Councilmember Petso advised she was willing to place the money set aside for fire equipment into the Public
Safety Reserve fund and/or undo the suspension of B Fund contributions. By suspending B Fund contributions,
the City was living off its assets. The contributions have only been suspended once under a perception there was
a dire budget emergency. The contributions have been made in the past so that when a new vehicle was needed,
most of the money was available for that purchase.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, TO
HAVE THE MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT RETURN TO COUNCIL WITHOUT A
SUSPENSION OF THE B FUND CONTRIBUTIONS FOR 2010. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, THAT
THE MID-YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT RETURN TO THE COUNCIL WITH THE FUNDS SET
ASIDE IN THE 511 FUND FOR FIRE EQUIPMENT TRANSFERRED TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY
RESERVE FUND RATHER THAN THE GENERAL FUND.
Packet 25 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 23
Councilmember Peterson pointed out there was nearly $2 million in the emergency reserve fund. There are also
funds in the Public Safety Fund whose purpose has not been defined by the Council. He was hesitant to have a
balance of over $1 million in an undefined fund when the City was, 1) considering a levy, and 2) beginning
contract negotiations with employees. The City had plenty of legitimate shortages where those funds could be
used. Further, those funds were originally transferred from the General Fund.
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern with using one-time dollars for operational purposes which has result
in spending down reserves. The City was affected not only by the recession but also by the continued use of
one-time dollars. He preferred to set aside one-time dollars rather than mix them with into general operations.
When the Mayor presents the preliminary budget, he wanted to ensure annual expenditures did not exceed
annual revenues. The Council could also move the funds later such as to Fund 509, the firefighters pension fund,
that has an unfunded actuarial liability of $8-$10 million.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING 30 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out he has been very careful to say the City is not missing $2 million; it is
simply an accounting issue. He pointed out that not all the questions were answered at the special Finance
Committee. Two CPAs on the CLC met with Mr. Hines; one of the CPAs stated at a recent CLC meeting that he
was confused. Councilmember Plunkett suggested the questions he has asked reflected questions all
Councilmembers have. He did not find the email or presentation provided by Mr. Hines to be helpful.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not support moving the $580,000 in TBD revenue from the Street Fund into the
General Fund. Mr. Hines explained those funds would eventually be transferred to the Street Fund. They come
in through the General Fund, are transferred through the 631 Fund into the 111 Fund. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked whether $120,000 was being moved back into the General Fund. Mr. Hines answered the
$120,000 reduced the $700,000 originally expected in TBD revenue to $580,000. Mayor Cooper clarified it was
simply adjusting the estimated receipt.
Councilmember Wilson referred to Mr. Hines’ response to Mr. Reed’s email that the City sold bonds on the
ECA’s behalf and the ECA pays those bonds. If the ECA cannot cover the debt service, the City is responsible.
The City is now covering some of that debt service and accruing in the City’s balance sheet what they will pay.
If the City is paying debt service that the ECA was expected to pay, how did the City cover that debt service if
funds had not been appropriated. Mr. Hines responded under the current agreement with the ECA, they pay a
portion of the debt service and the City pays a portion of the debt service. The ECA provides a payment every
six months which is added to the City’s portion and submitted to the bond underwriter. The ECA is currently
paying their obligation and the City is paying their obligation. The amount Mr. Reed referred to was the amount
in the City’s balance sheet that reflects the liability for the bonds issued on behalf of the ECA. Because the City
issued the bonds, they are the City’s liability. The City also reflects a “due from” in accounts receivable from
ECA in approximately the same amount. There are other smaller amounts in the due from and deferred
revenues; the biggest is the ECA.
Councilmember Wilson observed if the City were required to make the ECA’s portion of the bond payment, it
would require a budget adjustment. Mr. Hines agreed it would.
Councilmember Wilson suggested the Council may need a dedicated person to address Council finance
questions, a 20 hour/week person for the next 3 months who reports directly to the Council President. The
Council has been placing a tremendous workload on Finance staff and the Council may want to consider
allocating funds for some assistance. Council President Bernheim offered to schedule it for discussion by the
Council.
Packet 26 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 24
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether Councilmember Petso received an answer to her September 14 memo to
the Mayor requesting clarification of $1.8 million identified as other. Councilmember Petso planned to address
that in her meeting with Mr. Hines and Mayor Cooper later this week. She hoped the meeting would improve
her understanding as well as allow her to communicate the answers to her questions to others.
8. EXTENSION OF SUNSET DATE FOR CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
RESCHEDULE THIS ITEM TO A LATER MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
9. CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (2011-2016).
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
POSTPONE THIS ITEM.
Councilmember Petso asked if postponing this item caused staff difficulty with the upcoming public hearing.
City Engineer Rob English responded the public hearing was scheduled on October 5. Tonight’s presentation
was to introduce the item to the Council and provide an opportunity to ask questions and provide input.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
10. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 14, 2010.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, TO
CONSIDER THE MEETINGS REPORTED VIA THE MINUTES IN THE RECORD. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper had no report.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Petso relayed a question from the Port Commission regarding when Dayton Street would be
paved. It was her understanding that project was scheduled in 2011. The paving could not be done until Sound
Transit completed their work on the road.
Mayor Cooper congratulated the Chamber of Commerce on the successful September 12 car show. The Mayor’s
Trophy went to a 1947 Plymouth Coupe pulling a matching teardrop trailer that is owned by an Edmonds
resident. Councilmember Peterson offered to pass on the Mayor’s comments to the Chamber of Commerce.
Councilmember Wilson found this meeting was very helpful. There was a cathartic moment and that needs to
happen to resolve pent up issues. He recognized staff’s frustration with the Council and the Council frustration
with administration, noting that is changing. The Council questions are a result of transparency and openness
that has not existed for a long time. The Council passed budget amendments in the past because they were
intimidated into doing so. Although emotions were high at this meeting, the tenor of the meeting was nothing
like past meetings.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Councilmember Wilson’s suggestion that the Council hire a financial
person, explaining his reference to an executive session was to discuss that position. He supported hiring a
financial assistant for the Council as soon as possible.
Packet 27 of 294
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 25
Councilmember Buckshnis also expressed her support for hiring a financial assistant for the Council. She also
supported improved transparency of the General Fund.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:33 p.m.
Packet 28 of 294
AM-3396 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #121352 through #121432 dated September 23, 2010 for $380,737.93.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #49807 through #49849 for the period September 1, 2010
through September 15, 2010 for $632,408.56.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit and checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:1,013,146.49
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $380,737.93
Payroll $632,408.56
Attachments
claim checks 9-23-10
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Lorenzo Hines 09/23/2010 05:16 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/24/2010 08:54 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/24/2010 02:39 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/24/2010 02:39 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 09/23/2010 09:14 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/24/2010
Packet 29 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121352 9/23/2010 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 09132010 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 2,811.25
INTERPRETER FEE91310
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 3,270.30
Total :6,081.55
121353 9/23/2010 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-111183 Traffic Control - White Traffic Paint
Traffic Control - White Traffic Paint
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 403.10
Yellow Traffic Paint
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 283.61
50 lb Bags Glass Beads
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 2,355.84
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 316.31
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 319.09
Total :3,677.95
121354 9/23/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5122560 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 31.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.96
Total :34.16
121355 9/23/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5103334 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.37
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.36
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.23
1Page:
Packet 30 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121355 9/23/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5115232
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.37
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.36
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5115234
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 5.85
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.56
FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5122561
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 43.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 4.09
PW MATS655-5126935
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
2Page:
Packet 31 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121355 9/23/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
Total :86.05
121356 9/23/2010 072576 ART ACCESS 11293 ADVERTISING
ARTS ACCESS ADVERTISING
123.000.640.573.100.440.00 105.00
Total :105.00
121357 9/23/2010 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 57088 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 36.86
UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 36.86
UB Outsourcing area #500 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 37.99
UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 118.65
UB Outsourcing area #500 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 118.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.50
9.5% Sales Tax
3Page:
Packet 32 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121357 9/23/2010 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.61
Total :359.61
121358 9/23/2010 073035 AVAGIMOVA, KARINE 1132 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 100.00
Total :100.00
121359 9/23/2010 069218 BISHOP, PAUL 329 WEB SITE MAINTENANCE
Web Site Maintenance
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 390.00
Total :390.00
121360 9/23/2010 065739 BOBBY WOLFORD TRUCKING &040436 Storm - Recycle Brush/Wood
Storm - Recycle Brush/Wood
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 143.00
Total :143.00
121361 9/23/2010 070009 BOLA ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING 4 MUSEUM - EXTERIOR - ARCHITECT SERVICES
Museum - Exterior - Architect Services
116.000.651.519.920.410.00 5,538.66
Total :5,538.66
121362 9/23/2010 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 292267 Street/Water/Sewer - Gravel
Street/Water/Sewer - Gravel
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 1,395.00
Street/Water/Sewer - Gravel
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 697.50
Street/Water/Sewer - Gravel
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 697.49
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 132.53
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 66.26
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 66.26
4Page:
Packet 33 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,055.041213629/23/2010 003001 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL
121363 9/23/2010 065309 CAMPBELL PET COMPANY 0255281-IN INV#0255281-IN EDMONDS PD
BLUE ROPE LEASES W/ "O" RING
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 120.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 9.02
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 12.26
Total :141.28
121364 9/23/2010 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 10300123 INV#10300123 CUST#572105 EDMONDS PD
COPIER RENTAL (4)
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60
COPY CHGS FOR 07 AND 08/2010
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 604.18
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 112.62
Total :1,298.40
121365 9/23/2010 068484 CEMEX 9420037958 Street - Washed Sand
Street - Washed Sand
111.000.653.542.660.310.00 220.93
Storm - Dumped Asphalt
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 76.80
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.660.310.00 20.33
Street - Washed Sand9420046464
Street - Washed Sand
111.000.653.542.660.310.00 354.38
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 151.10
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.660.310.00 32.61
Roadway - Asphalt9420078300
Roadway - Asphalt
5Page:
Packet 34 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121365 9/23/2010 (Continued)068484 CEMEX
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 638.00
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 58.70
Roadway- Cement9420078301
Roadway- Cement
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 200.00
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 18.41
Roadway - Asphalt9420095331
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 245.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 23.28
Water - Asphalt9420095332
Water - Asphalt
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 173.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 16.47
Total :2,229.41
121366 9/23/2010 065682 CHS ENGINEERS LLC 450901-1008 E9GA.SERVICES FOR AUGUST 2010
E9GA.Services for August 2010
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 32,032.03
Total :32,032.03
121367 9/23/2010 005810 CRAIN, DOUGLAS 72 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 586.00
Total :586.00
121368 9/23/2010 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 148968 INV#148968 - EDMONDS PD
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 6.91
CALIBRATION GVPD 08527 (NEW UNIT)
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 75.00
6Page:
Packet 35 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :81.911213689/23/2010 061570 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16
121369 9/23/2010 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 9/2/10-9/22/10 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00 306.00
Total :306.00
121370 9/23/2010 007905 EDMONDS FAMILY MEDICINE CLINIC E81090411 Employment testing services
Employment testing services
001.000.220.516.210.410.00 345.00
Total :345.00
121371 9/23/2010 008550 EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT #15 1001000384 SUPPORT FOR ARTISTS IN RESIDENCE
SUPPORT FOR ARTISTS IN RESIDENCE AT
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 1,000.00
Total :1,000.00
121372 9/23/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-02735 PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-POLICE/CRT
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-POLICE/CRT
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,206.80
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE LINE6-02736
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE LINE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 14.65
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE6-02737
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX-FIRE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 170.53
PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION6-02738
PUBLIC SAFETY IRRIGATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 487.23
LIBRARY & SPRINKLER6-02825
LIBRARY & SPRINKLER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,922.78
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (FIRE DETECTOR)6-02875
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (FIRE DETECTOR)
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 25.63
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER6-02925
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER
7Page:
Packet 36 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121372 9/23/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,265.44
Fire Station #166-04127
Fire Station #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 796.57
fire sprinkler-FS #166-04128
fire sprinkler-FS #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 14.65
Public Works Bldg6-05155
Public Works Bldg
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 504.06
Public Works Bldg
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 504.06
Public Works Bldg
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 132.65
Public Works Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 504.06
Public Works Bldg
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 504.06
Public Works Bldg
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 504.05
Public Works Fire Detector6-05156
Public Works Fire Detector
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 1.83
Public Works Fire Detector
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 6.95
Public Works Fire Detector
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 6.95
Public Works Fire Detector
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 6.94
Public Works Fire Detector
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 6.95
Public Works Fire Detector
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 6.95
Total :9,593.79
8Page:
Packet 37 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121373 9/23/2010 069469 FLINT TRADING INC 121246 Street - Left Turn Arrows
Street - Left Turn Arrows
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 1,857.92
12" White Lines
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 7,254.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 865.63
Total :9,977.55
121374 9/23/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0417 TELEMETRY STATIONS
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.64
TELEMETRY STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 26.64
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES425-712-8251
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 14.43
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 72.16
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 60.62
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 60.62
P/W FIRE ALARM, FAX LINE & 2 SPARE LINES
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 80.82
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE FIRE ALARM LINE425-745-4313
Meadowdale Club House Fire Alarm Line
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 103.46
Radio Line between Public Works & UB425-775-7865
Radio Line between Public Works & UB
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 53.28
PUBLIC WORKS C0NNECTION TO 911425-RT0-9133
Public Works Connection to 911
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 5.48
Public Works Connection to 911
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.81
9Page:
Packet 38 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121374 9/23/2010 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 20.81
Public Works Connection to 911
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.78
Total :608.17
121375 9/23/2010 011210 GC SYSTEMS INC 000023550A Water Repair Supplies - Stem Adaptors,
Water Repair Supplies - Stem Adaptors,
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2,954.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 18.12
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 282.35
Total :3,254.47
121376 9/23/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9342516649 PW - 2 12V Batteries
PW - 2 12V Batteries
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 158.60
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 16.37
PW - 12 V Battery9345046354
PW - 12 V Battery
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 70.00
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.69
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.57
Total :275.99
10Page:
Packet 39 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121377 9/23/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1030106 FAC - Radiator Parts
FAC - Radiator Parts
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 296.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 28.20
FAC - Return Air Vent1571127
FAC - Return Air Vent
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.95
MCH - Repair Supplies2036330
MCH - Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 57.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.43
FAC - Repair Supplies2036432
FAC - Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 39.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.79
Sewer - Garden Tool2043036
Sewer - Garden Tool
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.99
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.09
FAC - Repair Supplies2045322
FAC - Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 51.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.86
FAC - Repair Supplies Returned2253890
FAC - Repair Supplies Returned
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -18.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 -1.80
FAC - Repair Supplies3036228
11Page:
Packet 40 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121377 9/23/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
FAC - Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 31.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.95
Fac Maint - Supplies3040820
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 50.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.75
FAC - Radiator Supplies3040824
FAC - Radiator Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 24.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.31
MCH - Siding Supplies3045027
MCH - Siding Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 68.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.55
MCH - Maint Supplies4036052
MCH - Maint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 41.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.94
City Parks Bldg - Pest Control Supplies4596538
City Parks Bldg - Pest Control Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.55
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.43
FAC - Radiator Parts49475
FAC - Radiator Parts
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 54.23
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.15
CIty Hall - Supplies49535
12Page:
Packet 41 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121377 9/23/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
CIty Hall - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.10
Museum - Repair Supplies5031657
Museum - Repair Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 43.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.12
Fac Maint - Gloves Supply5092459
Fac Maint - Gloves Supply
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.84
FAC - Radiator Supplies5093960
FAC - Radiator Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.72
Fac Maint - Supplies5567515
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.94
Parks - Adhesive
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.55
FAC - Radiator Supplies6567172
FAC - Radiator Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.50
Sewer LS 5 - Tape6583623
Sewer LS 5 - Tape
13Page:
Packet 42 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121377 9/23/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.77
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.55
Sewer - Machetes (3)7041988
Sewer - Machetes (3)
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 44.91
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.27
FAC - Radiator Parts9016386
FAC - Radiator Parts
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 89.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.55
PS - Shelves9030594
PS - Shelves
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 37.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.58
Traffic Control- Step Ladder for Sign9034948
Traffic Control- Step Ladder for Sign
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 44.97
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 4.27
Fac Maint Unit 26 - Scew Driver, Driver9034954
Fac Maint Unit 26 - Scew Driver, Driver
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 35.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.41
Total :1,199.00
121378 9/23/2010 073411 HORIBA JOBIN YVON INC 90278560 INV#90278560 - EDMONDS PD
1 PINT ARSON EVIDENCE CANS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 30.96
GALLON ARSON EVIDENCE CANS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 67.92
14Page:
Packet 43 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121378 9/23/2010 (Continued)073411 HORIBA JOBIN YVON INC
MAMMOTH BAGS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 44.50
HANDLING CHARGE
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 2.15
Freight
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 15.72
Total :181.25
121379 9/23/2010 073419 IHMELS, CHERYL IHMELS0914 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO MEDICAL REASONS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 50.00
Total :50.00
121380 9/23/2010 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 7347138 C/A 768328
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 1,775.42
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.240.513.110.420.00 0.88
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.240.513.110.420.00 1.78
Total :1,778.08
121381 9/23/2010 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 09132010-01 INV#09132010-01 - EDMONDS PD
50 CAR WASHES @$5.03 FOR 08/10
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 251.50
Total :251.50
121382 9/23/2010 073136 LANG, ROBERT LANG0918 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 9/18/10
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00
Total :105.00
121383 9/23/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105034 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
15Page:
Packet 44 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121383 9/23/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 175.91
SUPPLIES105042
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 43.79
Total :219.70
121384 9/23/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105036 BUSINESS CARDS FOR P & R, DEV SER & FIN
Business Cards-Cliff Edwards250-00249
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 17.20
Edward Sibrel250-00249
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 17.20
Nori Jacobson250-00249
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 17.20
Debbie Karber250-00249
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 17.20
Debra Sharp250-00249
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 17.20
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 1.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 1.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 4.91
Total :94.17
121385 9/23/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105037 Letterhead paper for the Hearing
Letterhead paper for the Hearing
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 271.84
Total :271.84
121386 9/23/2010 073420 MARKLEY, ANDI MARKLEY0917 REFUND
WRITE ON THE SOUND REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 106.00
Total :106.00
16Page:
Packet 45 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121387 9/23/2010 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1133 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE1134
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE1135
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE1136
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE1140
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 87.50
INTERPRETER FEE1142
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
Total :525.00
121388 9/23/2010 019650 MASTER POOLS OF WASHINGTON INC 55705 CEMETERY SUPPLIES
CHLORINE
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 76.95
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 7.31
Total :84.26
121389 9/23/2010 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 115373 HEDGE TRIMMER
HEDGE TRIMMER
001.000.640.576.810.350.00 449.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.810.350.00 42.75
Total :492.71
121390 9/23/2010 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 114210 Street - Supplies
Street - Supplies
17Page:
Packet 46 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121390 9/23/2010 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 54.88
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.310.00 5.21
Total :60.09
121391 9/23/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-185163 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HANDICAPPED AND REGULAR HONEY BUCKET
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 1,121.59
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-186467
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC CENTER
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
Total :1,311.46
121392 9/23/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 951899 INV#951899 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
POROUS POINT RED PENS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 10.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 0.95
Total :11.02
121393 9/23/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 012397 LABELWRITER, STAPLER, PENS, ORGANIZER
Labelwriter, stapler, pens, organizer &
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 255.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 24.29
Total :279.95
121394 9/23/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 039774 OFFICE SUPPLIES
LASER TONER, BAND AIDS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 140.27
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 13.33
Total :153.60
121395 9/23/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 957436 PW - HP Ink Supply
PW - HP Ink Supply
18Page:
Packet 47 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121395 9/23/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 105.30
Storm - Dry Erase Boards for Project
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 26.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 10.01
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 2.56
Total :144.85
121396 9/23/2010 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER Aug-10 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL
Emergency Medical Services & Trauma
001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,555.77
PSEA 1 2 & 3 Account
001.000.000.237.130.000.00 34,607.20
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.000.237.150.000.00 196.50
State Patrol Death Investigations
001.000.000.237.170.000.00 619.31
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.000.237.180.000.00 5,453.59
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.000.237.200.000.00 184.38
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.000.237.250.000.00 3,064.64
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.000.237.260.000.00 569.42
Accessible Communities Acct
001.000.000.237.290.000.00 55.55
Multi-Model Transportation
001.000.000.237.300.000.00 55.55
Total :46,361.91
121397 9/23/2010 068709 OFFICETEAM 31754910 TEMPORARY HELP
Temp help in Clerk's Office
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 598.90
19Page:
Packet 48 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :598.901213979/23/2010 068709 068709 OFFICETEAM
121398 9/23/2010 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 686473 Legislative Legal Fees for Aug. 2010
Legislative Legal Fees for Aug. 2010
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 4,944.00
Total :4,944.00
121399 9/23/2010 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 106897 DUMP FEES
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 80.00
DUMP FEES106908
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 80.00
DUMPING FEES106915
DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 70.00
Total :230.00
121400 9/23/2010 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 105094 Storm Dump Fees
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 198.00
Storm - Dump Fees106797
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 50.00
Storm Dump Fees106806
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 80.00
Storm Dump Fees106843
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 70.00
Storm Dump Fees106847
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 70.00
Storm Dump Fees106924
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 80.00
20Page:
Packet 49 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :548.001214009/23/2010 027060 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
121401 9/23/2010 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.962585 MCH - Paint Supplies
MCH - Paint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 150.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.25
Total :164.29
121402 9/23/2010 027279 PATRICK & CO 817830 INV#817830, ACCT#26925 - EDMONDS PD
DOG & PET LICENSE TAGS
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 465.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 19.77
Total :484.77
121403 9/23/2010 071362 PEACHTREE BUSINESS PRODUCTS P227005400018 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMITS
2011 Employee Parking Permits
121.000.340.517.900.310.00 795.00
Total :795.00
121404 9/23/2010 071813 PEACOCK, WILLIAM R 2010TA0009 WWCPA Certification Training and Test
WWCPA Certification Training and Test
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 415.00
Total :415.00
121405 9/23/2010 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC PCASH0917 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
SISTER CITY/DRIVER'S ABSTRACT
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 10.00
SISTER CITY PARKING
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 5.00
PRESCHOOL - WOODEN DOWELS
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 1.08
PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 5.48
GYMNASTICS RIBBON
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 3.09
21Page:
Packet 50 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121405 9/23/2010 (Continued)008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC
SISTER CITY PICTURES, ETC.
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 60.97
BIRD FEST SUPPLIES
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 11.97
PARKING FOR ARTS COMMISSION
117.100.640.573.100.490.00 8.00
BALLOONS FOR BIRD FEST
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 54.92
BIRD FEST SUPPLIES
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 9.92
SUPPLIES FOR BIRD FEST
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 5.45
BIRD FEST SUPPLIES
001.000.240.513.110.310.00 25.36
GYMNASTICS CLEANING SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 12.77
DISCOVERY PROGRAM SUPPLIES
001.000.640.574.350.310.00 7.18
Total :221.19
121406 9/23/2010 064552 PITNEY BOWES 3833100SP10 POSTAGE METER LEASE
Lease 08/30 to 9/30
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 866.00
Total :866.00
121407 9/23/2010 069447 POINTS SHARP STEEL INC 10-2133 Water/Sewer - 60# Breaker Repair
Water/Sewer - 60# Breaker Repair
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 112.50
Water/Sewer - 60# Breaker Repair
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 112.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 10.69
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 10.69
22Page:
Packet 51 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :246.381214079/23/2010 069447 069447 POINTS SHARP STEEL INC
121408 9/23/2010 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER
Pier StormWater Rent for
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,665.96
Total :1,665.96
121409 9/23/2010 064088 PROTECTION ONE 1988948 FAC
Alarm Monitoring for FAC
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 201.75
Alarm Monitoring for Library~2422756
Alarm Monitoring for Library~
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 188.70
PW ALARM MONITORING730531
24 hour Alarm Monitoring PW~
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 22.71
24 hour Alarm Monitoring PW~
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 22.71
24 hour Alarm Monitoring PW~
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 20.44
24 hour Alarm Monitoring PW~
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 26.12
24 hour Alarm Monitoring PW~
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 11.36
24 hour Alarm Monitoring PW~
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 10.22
Total :504.01
121410 9/23/2010 072387 RUSSELL SIGN CO 20493 PW Blank Banner
PW Blank Banner
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 35.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 3.33
Total :38.33
121411 9/23/2010 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 594429 INV#594429 CUST#0001733 - EDMONDS PD
23Page:
Packet 52 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121411 9/23/2010 (Continued)067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO
40 S&W 180GR TMJ LAWMAN ~
001.000.410.521.230.310.00 11,066.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.230.310.00 1,051.32
Total :12,117.82
121412 9/23/2010 072802 SCIENCE EXPRESS LLC SCIENCE13134 PRESCHOOL SCIENCE CLUB
PRESCHOOL SCIENCE CLUB #13134
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 84.00
Total :84.00
121413 9/23/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2022-5062-7 1341 9TH AVE N
1341 9TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.02
Total :30.02
121414 9/23/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200563385 LIFT STATION #2 912 CARY RD
LIFT STATION #2
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 45.39
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH W200739845
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 31.04
4 WAY LIGHT 9600 BOWDOIN WAY201147063
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 44.62
LIBRARY201551744
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,969.87
STREET LIGHTING (150 WATTS = 183 LIGHTS201711785
Street Lighting (150 Watts = 184 lights
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 1,591.29
Public Works201942489
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 65.43
Public Works
24Page:
Packet 53 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121414 9/23/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 248.62
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 248.62
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 248.62
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 248.62
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 248.61
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX202291662
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 4,093.20
CITY HALL202439246
CITY HALL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 2,144.23
Total :11,228.16
121415 9/23/2010 065910 SNOCOM 911 COMMUNICATIONS 722 4Q 2010 COMMUNICATION SERVICE
4Q 2010 QUARTERLY SERVICES
001.000.390.528.600.510.00 192,666.25
4Q 2010 QUARTERLY SERVICES
411.000.654.534.800.510.00 6,084.20
4Q 2010 QUARTERLY SERVICES
411.000.655.535.800.510.00 4,056.13
Total :202,806.58
121416 9/23/2010 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER Aug 2010 Crime Victims Court Remittance Aug-10
Crime Victims Court Remittance Aug-10
001.000.000.237.140.000.00 972.68
Total :972.68
121417 9/23/2010 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 2959078 Water/Sewer - Upside Down Blue Paint,
Water/Sewer - Upside Down Blue Paint,
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 232.85
Water/Sewer - Upside Down Blue Paint,
25Page:
Packet 54 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121417 9/23/2010 (Continued)009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 232.85
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 22.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 22.12
Water/Sewer - Upside Down Green Paint2962413
Water/Sewer - Upside Down Green Paint
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 113.40
Water/Sewer - Upside Down Green Paint
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 113.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.78
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 10.77
Water/Sewer - Upside Down Blue Paint,2965684
Water/Sewer - Upside Down Blue Paint,
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 381.17
Water/Sewer - Upside Down Blue Paint,
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 381.16
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 36.21
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 36.21
Total :1,593.05
121418 9/23/2010 040300 STEVENS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL PLN20100062 Refund for Stevens Hosp for Design
Refund for Stevens Hosp for Design
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 130.00
Total :130.00
121419 9/23/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2280236 PW - Yard Light Parts
PW - Yard Light Parts
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 32.71
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 3.11
26Page:
Packet 55 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :35.821214199/23/2010 040430 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
121420 9/23/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1709723 NEWSPAPER ADS
09/21 hearing (TIP)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 80.98
NEWSPAPER ADS1709736
09/21 Hearing (Title 20)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 64.12
Total :145.10
121421 9/23/2010 073418 TREE SOLUTIONS INC 24504 APPRAISAL OF TREE REMOVAL FROM ROW
Appraisal of Tree Removal from ROW
001.000.620.532.200.410.00 800.00
Total :800.00
121422 9/23/2010 072146 TRUAX, BREANNE 09152010 DOOR MONITOR FOR EDC MTG 9/15/10
Door monitor for Economic Dev
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
121423 9/23/2010 072098 UNIVERSAL FIELD SERVICES LLC 35753 E8GA.SERVICES FOR AUGUST 2010
E8GA.Services for August 2010
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 269.73
Total :269.73
121424 9/23/2010 062693 US BANK 0067-3280 Ad - Court Clerk, #10-27
Ad - Court Clerk, #10-27
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00
Financial Accounting for Managers (HR
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 265.00
Total :290.00
121425 9/23/2010 062693 US BANK 3470 WFOA CAFR Submittal of Certificate of
WFOA CAFR Submittal of Certificate of
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 505.00
QuestionsPro.com Citizen Survey
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 16.00
27Page:
Packet 56 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121425 9/23/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Safeway-coffee supplies for meetings
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 9.17
Office Depot-Misc Office Supplies
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 49.02
Total :579.19
121426 9/23/2010 064423 USA BLUE BOOK 229611 Water - 3" Reducing Flange
Water - 3" Reducing Flange
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 83.32
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 16.54
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 9.49
Total :109.35
121427 9/23/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0905324210 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 120.20
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 144.24
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 116.41
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.59
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 58.19
Cell Service-PD
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 431.79
Cell Service-Planning
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 26.58
Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 26.58
Cell Service-PW Storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 26.58
Cell Service-PW Water
28Page:
Packet 57 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121427 9/23/2010 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 40.02
Cell Service-PW Fleet
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 13.31
Cell Service-WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 40.01
Cell Service-PW Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.02
Total :1,097.52
121428 9/23/2010 045517 WACA WACA CONF 2010 DAWSON REG. EDMONDS PD
CONF REGISTRATION - DAWSON
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 100.00
Total :100.00
121429 9/23/2010 067195 WASHINGTON TREE EXPERTS 06-8122 Street- Down Alder at 7525 178th St SW
Street- Down Alder at 7525 178th St SW
111.000.653.542.710.480.00 480.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.480.00 45.60
Street - Down Fir at Pioneer Way &06-8123
Street - Down Fir at Pioneer Way &
111.000.653.542.710.480.00 275.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.480.00 26.13
Total :826.73
121430 9/23/2010 045912 WASPC 80220 ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORING
ELECTRONIC HOME MONITORING
001.000.230.523.200.510.00 46.00
Total :46.00
121431 9/23/2010 064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS 42735001 PLANTS FOR MARINA BEACH PROJECT
PLANTS FOR MARINA BEACH
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 187.30
9.5% Sales Tax
29Page:
Packet 58 of 294
09/23/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
8:38:33AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121431 9/23/2010 (Continued)064008 WETLANDS & WOODLANDS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.79
Total :205.09
121432 9/23/2010 073018 WILCO-WINFIELD 111008 PLANTING SUPPLIES
GARDENING SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 430.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 60.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 40.85
Total :530.85
Bank total :380,737.9381 Vouchers for bank code :front
380,737.93Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report81
30Page:
Packet 59 of 294
AM-3395 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization to advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for construction engineering services for
the Interurban Trail Project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize staff to advertise for a Request for Qualifications for construction engineering services
for the Interurban Trail Project.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Interurban Trail Project will complete the missing link of the regional trail through Edmonds. The
trail will head north on 76th Avenue West from the new section in Shoreline at SR104, continue to the
old rail corridor at McAleer Way and follow the corridor to 228th Street SW, where it will connect with
the new southern terminus of the Mountlake Terrace trail. The trail project includes a .47 mile 12-foot
wide paved path, landscaping, benches, signage, bicycle racks, a shelter and an information kiosk.
Approximately 0.9 mile of 76th Avenue and residential 74th Avenue will be reconfigured to add a
dedicated bike lane to complete the 1.37 mile section. Traffic calming techniques will be installed at road
crossings, along with appropriate signage.
The design phase is close to completion and the project is scheduled to be advertised for bids in early
2011. The professional services to be provided by the consultant during construction include assisting
staff in complying with federal procedures and documentation requirements, field inspection, material
testing, review of material submittals and contract administration. Staff will select a consultant using
the selection process outlined in the City's purchasing policy.
The total estimated construction cost for this project is $1.3M and this cost will be funded by state and
federal grants.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/23/2010 10:30 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/23/2010 04:52 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 05:06 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/24/2010 07:26 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/24/2010 09:21 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 09/23/2010 07:46 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/24/2010
Packet 60 of 294
Packet 61 of 294
AM-3400 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorize $82,415 in motor vehicle fuel tax from the Street Construction/Improvement Fund (Fund
#112) for the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council authorize $82,415 in motor vehicle fuel tax from the Street Construction/Improvement Fund
(Fund #112) for the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project.
Previous Council Action
On June 23, 2009, Council authorized Staff to advertise for bids on the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project.
On August 17, 2009, Council awarded a contract to Cemex Construction Materials Pacific LLC for the
2009 Asphalt Overlay Project.
Narrative
In 2009, the City secured a $999,985 federal grant through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) for the City's 2009 overlay project. The grant provided funds to overlay Dayton Street between
SR104 and 5th Ave and 212th St. between 84th Ave and 72nd Ave and replace the decorative crosswalks
at the intersection of Dayton St. and 5th Avenue.
During construction the project experienced increased project costs related to pavement repairs,
installation of curb ramps for ADA compliance and flagging. The additional pavement repairs were
needed on Dayton and 212th Streets because sections of the underlying pavement were found to be in
poor condition after the existing pavement surface was removed. The pavement section on Dayton Street
was severely cracked in many areas and additional excavation, reinforcement fabric and pavement were
added to support the new overlay. Similar conditions were found on 212th Street and pavement
reinforcement fabric was also added to stabilize the existing pavement.
Since this project was funded by a federal grant through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
the original contract plans called for the replacement of 60 sidewalk curb ramps at the intersections of
public streets within the project limits on Dayton and 212th Street. The existing sidewalk curb ramps
were removed and the new ramps built to comply with the current ADA standards. In consultation with
FHWA and WSDOT during construction, it was determined that 14 additional sidewalk curb ramps
should be added at driveways along 212th St. along with 2 new sidewalk ramps at the intersection of
212th St. and 72nd Ave.
Additional flagging hours were required for the additional pavement repairs, replacement of sidewalk
curb ramps and during construction of the pavement overlay. Additional flaggers were stationed on 212th
Packet 62 of 294
curb ramps and during construction of the pavement overlay. Additional flaggers were stationed on 212th
St. near the high school and on Dayton St. in the downtown area during construction to provide a safe
work zone for both pedestrians and construction workers.
The City completed its review and discussions this month with the contractor, Cemex, and determined
$82,415 is needed in addition to the federal grant funds to help pay for the pavement repairs, additional
sidewalk curb ramps and flagging. Staff recommends this cost be paid from motor vehicle fuel tax from
the Street Construction/Improvement Fund (Fund #112).
The total construction cost for this project was $1,082,400 and the federal grant paid $999,985 leaving a
balance of $82,415 to be paid from local funds.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/23/2010 02:10 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/23/2010 05:06 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 05:08 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/24/2010 07:26 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/24/2010 08:47 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 09/23/2010 11:33 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/24/2010
Packet 63 of 294
AM-3405 Item #: 3.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Mayor Cooper Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in recognition of October as National Arts & Humanities Month.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
For information only.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The value and importance of culture in the lives of Americans has been celebrated for over two decades
through the proclamation at national, state, and local levels of Arts and Humanities Month in October.
The proclamation commemorates the efforts of millions of people in our country, including the many arts
organizations and individuals in Edmonds, who work to make the arts and humanities a part of
everyone’s life while contributing to our economic vitality and enhancing education for our youth.
Edmonds is known as a community that supports the arts and many talented cultural organizations call
Edmonds their home - including the Cascade Symphony, Driftwood Theater, Edmonds Arts Festival and
Arts Festival Foundation, Edmonds Center for the Arts, Edmonds Historical Museum, Gallery North, and
the Olympic Ballet Theatre. In addition the city is home to a rich variety of arts related businesses. The
City of Edmonds Arts Commission works on behalf of the City to foster the literary, performing and
visual arts with such programs as the free Summer Concerts, the Write on the Sound writers’ conference
in October, public art and ongoing exhibits by regional artists. The proclamation is an opportunity to urge
citizens to reflect on the benefits of the arts to Edmonds and the many opportunities to experience a broad
array of cultural events throughout October and all year long.
Attachments
Proclamation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/23/2010 02:10 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 02:11 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/23/2010 02:05 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/23/2010
Packet 64 of 294
Packet 65 of 294
AM-3394 Item #: 4.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Frances Chapin
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Edmonds Arts Commission Annual Report.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The chair of the Edmonds Arts Commission, Mary Monfort, will present highlights from the 2009 annual
report as well as from the past 35 years in commemoration of EAC's 35th anniversary. The seven
member Commission was established by City Council ordinance in 1975. The mission of the Edmonds
Arts Commission is to ensure that the arts are integral to our community’s quality of life, economic
vitality, and central identity. Creative and diverse programming fosters involvement in the performing,
visual, and literary arts. The Commission curates the City's Public Art Collection; provides exhibit
opportunities for regional artists; presents free summer concerts in the park, co-presents opera preview
lectures and special performance events such as the 2009 Tall Boys concert at ECA; encourages youth
pursuing careers in performing and literary arts through scholarships, fosters youth arts education through
the Best Book Poster contest and artist in residence programs in the schools; presents a nationally known
annual writers' conference in the literary arts; and works to promote cultural tourism and economic
development through programs such as the conference and assistance for tourism promotion to local
cultural organizations through Lodging Tax Funds, and through capital projects that enhance and create
pedestrian friendly public spaces.
Attachments
Annual Report 2009
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 10:32 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/23/2010 02:10 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 02:11 PM
Form Started By: Frances Chapin Started On: 09/22/2010 02:06 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/23/2010
Packet 66 of 294
34 YEARS OF DEDICATION TO THE ARTS
EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION
2009 Annual Review
PROGRAMS
LITERARY ARTS
The 24th annual Write on the Sound Writers’ Conference drew record atten-
dance (over 230) and was sold out 3 weeks before the event. It featured
Filmmaker Brian McDonald [3], keynote speaker; artists Doug Keith [1] & Lynda
Sherman [2]; pre-conference writing workshops in partnership with Edmonds Com-
munity College; Writing Contest awards sponsored by Patricia Thorpe/RBC Wealth
Management; and reception sponsored by Windermere Real Estate-Edmonds.
PERFORMING ARTS
Presented eight free Summer Concerts in City Park [4], featuring diverse performances
sponsored by Acura of Lynnwood and Lynnwood Honda, with attendance over 2800.
Partnered with ECA to present Crumac & Tall Boys as part of Town Hall’s “Zing Go
the Strings” free concert and community square dance. Co-sponsored Seattle Opera
preview lectures with Edmonds Sno-Isle Library and presentation of early music opera
“La Dori”.
VISUAL ARTS
Four exhibit spaces featured work by 14 regional artists plus 3 group shows, art-
work by local high school students, and group exhibits of art from Edmonds’ sister
city, Hekinan Japan, the Edmonds Arts Festival Museum (EAFF) Collection, and
Comtemporary Quilters. A “Focus on Public Art” exhibit featured an installation by
Nickolas Meisel [5]. Other joint exhibits and receptions with EAFF included Fred
Birchman, Genevieve Tuck [6] retrospective, and the Seattle Metals Guild.
103 third grade artists participated in the 13th annual “Best Book I Ever Read Poster
Contest” for National Children’s Book Week. Reception with author/illustrator Doug
Keith included awards sponsored by the Friends of the Edmonds Library.
ARTS ASSISTANCE
Partnered with Washington State Arts Alliance to train facilitators and set up two
facilitated groups for a Peer Coaching pilot program in Snohomish County.
Awarded $9,000 for tourism promotion from Lodging Tax Funds to Olympic Bal-
let Theatre, Cascade Symphony, Driftwood Players, Edmonds Art Studio Tour [7],
Friends of Frank DeMiero Foundation, Jazz Connection, Sno-King Community
Chorale, and Choir of the Sound.
Published the quarterly EAC Arts Bulletin e-newsletter increasing circulation to over
500.
Arts Education & Scholarships: supported Artist in Residence program in Edmonds
Schools. Awarded Youth Scholarships to Eric Jellison, Andrew Leonard, Elizabeth
Melnikas, Ingrid Porter to pursue careers in performing arts. Scholarships are funded
through private donations and revenue from WOTS.
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT &
PARTNERSHIPS
Partnered to support and promote the arts, arts education, and cultural tourism in
a variety of ways with Edmonds Organizations including: Edmonds Arts Festival
Foundation (exhibits, 4th Ave, public art maintenance), Edmonds Center for the Arts
(performance, tourism promotion), Edmonds Community College (WOTS), Ed-
monds School District & Friends of the Edmonds Library (Best Book Poster Contest),
pARTners (promotion), Sno-Isle Library (lectures, exhibits), Edmonds Historic Pres-
ervation Commission (4th Ave), Sister City Commission (Cultural Night), BirdFest
(exhibit), and local businesses. Organized the Arts & Humanities month proclamation
and information flyer presented at City Council.
PUBLIC ART
EAC acquires and maintains art for the City Collection through the Percent for Art
program and privately funded public art. Relocated Louise Kodis fiber piece Water-
color [8] from Library to Anderson Center stairway. Facilitated artist selection and
installation of Community Transit Bus Rapid Transit platforms with inlays by artist
Robert Horner [9]. Facilitated Dayton & 5th Ave S small Cedar Dreams inlays with
street name stamp, and provided maintenance for Beach Launch by Robert Cooke,
Snowy Owl [10] by Tony Angell, and Portals & Railings by Michele VanSlyke. Worked
with Sound Transit regarding artwork for station railings.
2
3
8
7
4
1
5 6
9
10
Packet 67 of 294
PLANNING
Participated in completion of 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor Implementation Plan. Final design
for Dayton Street Plaza renovation art elements.
MISSION
The City of Edmonds Arts Commission exists to ensure that the arts are integral to our
community’s quality of life, economic vitality, and central identity.
The Edmonds Arts Commission works to support the Community Cultural Plan, a component of
the City Comprehensive Plan, with goals to:
Build Edmonds’ identity as a cultural destination•
Encourage effective partnerships to support cultural opportunities•
Develop cultural facilities•
Increase the visibility and accessibility of cultural events•
Broaden community involvement and participation•
Edmonds Arts Commission Programs
REVENUE EXPENSES
30% - Earned Income 30% - Events & Art Ed
5% - Contributed 4% - Supplies
16% - General Fund 20% - Marketing the Arts
16% - Lodging Tax Fund 14% - Promotion Awards
33% - Public Art 32% - Public Art
NOTE: The amount of revenue/expenses for Public Art varies from year to year
depending on City construction projects.
2009 COMMISSIONERS
Rick Bader, Greg Banasek-Chair, Pam Harold, Mary Monfort, Joanne Otness, Samantha Saether and
Todd Timmcke
STAFF
Frances White Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Kris Gillespie, Cultural Services Assistant
The Commission meets to advise and recommend on arts issues and arts programs to the Mayor and City
Council. For more information call 425-771-0228.
EAC meets the first Monday of the month at 6 p.m. in the Edmonds Plaza Room. The public is welcome.
Edmonds Arts Commission
Department of Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services
700 Main Street, Edmonds WA 98020
425-771-0228, chapin@ci.edmonds.wa.us
www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/ArtsCommission
Photos: Staff, Bruce Coxley, Greg Banasek, Todd Timmcke
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
A
r
t
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
2
O
O
9
AN
N
U
A
L
RE
V
I
E
W
Bus Rapid Transit Station
Sedentary Sousa Band Waterfront Walkway
“Of Sea & Life” by Howard Duell
“Faces of Children” by Rose Morgan & students
Packet 68 of 294
AM-3408 Item #: 6.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Finance Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Continued discussion and potential action on the 2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve
Previous Council Action
On 09/21/2010, Council voted to modify the amendment to: 1) transfer residual Fire vehicle funds from
the Equipment Rental fund to the Public Safety Reserve, and 2) continue General Fund contributions to
the Equipment Rental fund for 2010.
Narrative
The attached amendment is necessary to account for additional revenues/expenditures, interfund and
intrafund adjustments, and final accounting for the sale of the Edmonds Fire Department to Snohomish
County Fire District 1.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2009-2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
The attachment amendment request an additional $8.3 million in expenditure authority, summarized as
follows:
001 - General Fund $1.0M
411 - Combined Utility $2.0 million
414 - Capital Improvement Reserve $2.2 million
511 - Equipment Rental Fund $1.2 million
Rest of Funds $1.9 million
Attachments
Mid Year Amending Ordinance
Amendment Backup
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Packet 69 of 294
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/24/2010 03:06 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/24/2010 03:11 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/24/2010 03:12 PM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 09/24/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/24/2010
Packet 70 of 294
R:\BUDGET\BUDGET AMENDMENT\2010\SEPTEMBER AMENDING ORDINANCE.DOCX
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED
TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund
Transfers and increases in appropriations; and
WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is
transferred from one fund to another; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations
and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and
federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2010
Budget; and
WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified;
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3711 adopting the final budget for the
fiscal year 2010 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in “Exhibit A” adopted herein
by reference.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
Packet 71 of 294
2
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY ___
W. SCOTT SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet 72 of 294
3
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND
EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME
SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________,2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet 73 of 294
4
EXHIBIT“A:” BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND
2010 2010
FUND FUND BEGINNING REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING
NO. DESCRIPTION CASH CASH
001 GENERAL FUND 2,175,670 36,518,574 35,501,340 3,192,904
006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 1,927,600 0 0 1,927,600
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 512,176 387,566 465,161 434,581
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 131,976 28,500 74,115 86,361
010
PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCY
RESERVE 0 1,334,693 0 1,334,693
111 STREET FUND 319,008 1,539,574 1,537,232 321,350
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE -184,393 2,172,797 2,332,560 -344,156
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 51,542 3,000,000 3,000,000 51,542
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 42,035 412,438 454,473 0
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 374,547 115,540 110,425 379,662
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,570 400 0 17,970
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 181,037 67,530 81,883 166,684
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 93,897 27,500 26,086 95,311
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 17,166 3,464 3,400 17,230
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 50,855 17,483 22,100 46,238
125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,570,016 775,356 1,742,000 603,372
126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 442,755 764,397 956,796 250,356
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 172,069 8,361 6,850 173,580
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 3,052 239,910 242,110 852
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 94,066 208,630 151,289 151,407
131 FIRE DONATIONS 22,462 2,800 22,466 2,796
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 24,007 1,784,000 1,784,000 24,007
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 144,281 3,760 0 148,041
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 766,066 31,223 0 797,289
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 11,181 21,400 21,000 11,581
211 LID FUND CONTROL 6,337 107,500 55,300 58,537
213 LID GUARANTY FUND 50,233 2,000 0 52,233
234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 0 452,160 452,160 0
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 6,861,160 14,106,473 17,330,354 3,637,279
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 1,852,225 6,858,332 6,823,600 1,886,957
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 51,152 2,782,176 2,743,588 89,740
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,709,059 2,138,757 2,892,423 3,955,393
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 284,951 103,782 125,048 263,685
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 0 750,000 750,000 0
Totals 22,775,758 76,767,076 79,707,759 19,835,075
Packet 74 of 294
5
EXHIBIT “B”: BUDGET AMENDMENTS BY EXPENDITURE
ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. 2010
FUND FUND 3711 3771 Amended
NO. DESCRIPTION 12/2/2008 12/15/2009 8/24/2010 Budget
001 GENERAL FUND 35,768,808
(1,321,294)
1,053,826 35,501,340
006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 0 0 0 0
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 465,161 0 0 465,161
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 74,115 0 0 74,115
010 PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCY RESERVE 0 0 0 0
111 STREET FUND 1,537,232 0 1,537,232
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,332,560 0
- 2,332,560
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 3,000,000 0 0 3,000,000
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 205,200 0 249,273 454,473
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 110,425 0 0 110,425
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 0 0 0 0
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 77,883 0 4,000 81,883
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,086 0 0 26,086
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,400 0 0 3,400
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 22,100 0 0 22,100
125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,190,000 0 552,000 1,742,000
126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 956,796 0 0 956,796
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 750 0 6,100 6,850
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 0 0
242,110 242,110
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 151,289 0 0 151,289
131 FIRE DONATIONS 0 0 22,466 22,466
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 1,784,000 0 0 1,784,000
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 0 0 0 0
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 0 0 0 0
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 21,000 0 0 21,000
211 LID FUND CONTROL 55,300 0 0 55,300
213 LID GUARANTY FUND 0 0 0 0
234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 452,160 0
- 452,160
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 15,301,171 0
2,029,183 17,330,354
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 6,823,600 0
- 6,823,600
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 571,412 0
2,172,176 2,743,588
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,702,193 0
1,190,230 2,892,423
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 125,048 0
- 125,048
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 0 0
750,000 750,000
Totals 72,757,689
(1,321,294) 8,271,364 79,707,759
Packet 75 of 294
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
General Fund Summary
Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)902,405
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Fire Asset allocation from Fund 511 -
Utility Utility Tax Increases from 2009 360,000
Fire Additional FD1 savings - amended during the mid-biennium 12/15/2009 145,230
Revenues that increase ending fund balance 505,230
Decrease in revenues that decrease ending fund balance
Fire Department Reduce sale of asset budget due to agreement with FD1 - FD1 purchased aid cars (270,000)
TBD 2010 Transportation Benefit District Revenue (120,000)
Police Loss of Mtlk Terr Animal Control Contract (35,820)
Revenues that decrease ending fund balance (425,820)
Decrease in expenditures that increase ending fund balance
Multiple departments 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 Budget review.0
Police March 13, 2009 police services cuts made for 2010 (119,128)
Expenditures that increase ending fund balance (119,128)
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
City Clerk Temporary assistance due to extensive public records request 10,588
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 13,898
Fire Department Fire contract adjustment - amended during the mid-biennium 12/15/2009 98,449
Utility Hydrant maintenance 340,000
Non-departmental Transfer to Public Safety Reserve Fund & Facilities Maintenance Fund 700,000
Community Services Carry forward of Verizon/Frontier unspent grant money 8,514
Expenditures that decrease ending fund balance 1,171,449
Revenues & expenditures that do not effect ending fund balance due to offsetting revenues or expenditures
Non-departmental Eliminated Snocom Director Services in 2009 (179,022)
Public Works Admin N. Miller Payout 52,000
Mayor L. Carl Payout 16,800
Community Services HUD EDI pass through grant to Public Facilities District.91,447
Police Equip purchased w/2009 Recovery Act Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Asst Grant 12,876
Multiple Departments
Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases & Dept of Energy
Reimbursements - Energy Monitoring Software, Network Server Energy Hardware Upgrade,
2 Hybrid Vehicles, LED fixtures.76,204
Non-departmental Allocate cable utility tax revenue from franchise revenue 460,000
530,305
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(70,506)
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\09.10 Version Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 9/24/20101:27 PM
Packet 76 of 294
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Department Description BARS Category Debit Credit
General Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 001 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 893,891
General Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 893,891
General Fund Asset allocation from Fund 511 001 000 000 395 100 000 00 Sale of Assets 270,000
General Fund Asset allocation from Fund 511 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 270,000
General Fund Asset allocation from Fund 511 001 000 000 395 100 000 00 Sale of Assets
General Fund Asset allocation from Fund 511 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance
General Fund Asset allocation from Fund 511 001 000 000 397 511 000 00 Interfund Transfer In
General Fund Asset allocation from Fund 511 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance
General Fund Transportation Benefit District 2010 Revenues for the General 001 000 000 344 900 000 00 Annual Vehicle Fee 120,000
General Fund Transportation Benefit District 2010 Revenues for the General 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 120,000
General Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.001 000 000 316 720 000 00 Water Utility Tax 360,000
General Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 360,000
Police Animal Control Contract cut in March 2009 001 000 000 338 270 000 00 Intergovernmental Rev 35,820
General Fund Animal Control Contract cut in March 2009 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 35,820
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 410 521 100 950 00 Interfund Rental
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 410 521 210 950 00 Interfund Rental
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 410 521 220 950 00 Interfund Rental
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 410 521 260 950 00 Interfund Rental
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 410 521 310 950 00 Interfund Rental
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 410 521 700 950 00 Interfund Rental
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 410 521 710 950 00 Interfund Rental
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 410 521 910 950 00 Interfund Rental
Police 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 410 528 600 950 00 Interfund Rental
Building 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 620 524 100 950 00 Interfund Rental
Engineering 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 620 532 200 950 00 Interfund Rental
Planning 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 620 558 600 950 00 Interfund Rental
Recreation 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 640 574 200 950 00 Interfund Rental
Parks 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 640 576 800 950 00 Interfund Rental
Public Works 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 650 519 910 950 00 Interfund Rental
Facilities 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 651 519 920 950 00 Interfund Rental
General Fund 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 budget review 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 001 000 410 521 310 110 00 Salaries 12,000
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 001 000 410 521 700 110 00 Salaries 79,006
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 001 000 410 521 300 110 00 Salaries 9,000
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 001 000 410 521 300 230 00 Benefits 1,000
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 001 000 410 521 300 310 00 Supplies 3,820
Police
March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010
001 000 410 521 300 410 00 Professional Services 3,000
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 001 000 410 521 300 480 00 Repair & Maintenance 840
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 001 000 410 521 300 490 00 Miscellaneous 170
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 001 000 410 521 300 950 00 Interfund Rental 1,217
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 001 000 410 521 940 110 00 Salaries 7,944
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 001 000 410 521 940 230 00 Benefits 831
Police March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 001 000 410 521 940 240 00 Uniforms 300
General Fund March 2009 police expenditure cuts for 2010 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 119,128
City Clerk 2010 temporary assistance due to extensive public record request 001 000 250 514 300 110 00 Salaries 6,100
City Clerk 2010 temporary assistance due to extensive public record request 001 000 250 514 300 410 00 Professional Services 4,488
General Fund 2010 temporary assistance due to extensive public record request 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 10,588
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 510 522 100 420 00 Communications 252
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 510 522 100 480 00 Repair & Maintenance 131
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 510 522 200 240 00 Uniforms 156
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 510 522 200 410 00 Professional Services 342
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 510 522 200 420 00 Communications 2,095
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 510 522 200 490 00 Miscellaneous 802
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 510 522 300 240 00 Uniforms 10
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 510 522 300 410 00 Professional Services 1,982
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 510 522 300 420 00 Communications 238
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 510 526 100 240 00 Uniforms 124
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 510 526 100 410 00 Professional Services 6,903
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 510 526 100 420 00 Communications 248
Fire Department 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 510 528 600 420 00 Communications 615
General Fund 2009 fire costs paid in first part of 2010 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 13,898
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\09.10 Version Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 9/24/20101:27 PM
Packet 77 of 294
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Department Description BARS Category Debit Credit
General Fund Hydrant maintenance costs for 2010 001 000 390 522 200 910 00 Hydrant Maintenance 340,000
General Fund Hydrant maintenance costs for 2010 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 340,000
Non-Department Transfer of fire department sales proceeds to Public Safety 001 000 390 597 010 550 00 Interfund Transfer 600,000
Non-Department Transfer of fire department sales proceeds to Public Safety 001 000 390 597 116 550 00 Interfund Transfer 100,000
General Fund Transfer of fire department sales proceeds to Public Safety 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 700,000
Public Works N. Miller payout 001 000 650 519 910 110 00 Salaries 52,000
Mayor L Carl payout 001 000 210 513 100 110 00 Salaries 16,800
General Fund Sick & Vacation Payouts 001 000 390 519 900 230 00 Benefits 68,800
Community Services Carry forward of Verizon/Frontier unspent grant money 001 000 610 519 700 350 00 Small Equipment 8,514
Community Services Carry forward of Verizon/Frontier unspent grant money 001 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 8,514
General Fund Remove S. Perry services at Snocom 001 000 000 338 280 000 00 Snocom Director Services 179,022
Non-Department Remove S. Perry services at Snocom 001 000 390 525 400 110 00 Snocom Director Salaries 142,800
Non-Department Remove S. Perry services at Snocom 001 000 390 525 400 230 00 Snocom Director Benefits 36,222
Community Services HUD EDI pass through grant to Public Facilities District.001 000 610 519 700 410 00 Professional Services 91,447
Community Services HUD EDI pass through grant to Public Facilities District.001 000 000 331 014 025 10 Grant 91,447
Police Equip purchased w/2009 Recovery Act Edward Byrne Memorial 001 000 410 521 220 350 00 Small Equipment 12,876
Police Equip purchased w/2009 Recovery Act Edward Byrne Memorial Ju 001 000 000 331 160 580 00 Grant 12,876
Information Services Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases 001 000 310 518 880 310 00 Supplies 4,523
Information Services Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases 001 000 310 518 880 350 00 Small Equipment 24,705
General Fund Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases 001 000 000 331 081 100 00 Grant 76,204
General Fund Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases 001 000 390 597 116 550 00 Interfund Transfer 27,755
General Fund Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases 001 000 390 597 511 550 00 Interfund Transfer 19,221
General Fund Reallocate cable utility tax revenue from franchise revenue to 001 000 000 316 460 000 00 Utility Tax 460,000
General Fund Reallocate cable utility tax revenue from franchise revenue to 001 000 000 321 910 000 00 Franchise Fee 460,000
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\09.10 Version Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 9/24/20101:27 PM
Packet 78 of 294
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Public Safety Emergency Reserve Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)0
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Sale of fire department to FD1 1,334,693
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)1,334,693
Street Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)316,088
Decrease in expenditures that increase ending fund balance
2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 Budget review.0
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)316,088
Building Maintenance Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(185,214)
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Transfer proceeds from the sale of the fire department to Building Maint Fund 100,000
Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) transfer from General Fund 27,755
Grant revenues and Private Contributions 221,245
Revenues that increase ending fund balance 349,000
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Construction projects offset by grant revenues and private contributions 249,273
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(85,487)
Hotel/Motel Tax Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)61,628
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Committee approved increase in log cabin maintenance 1,500
Committee approved increase in Log Cabin Visitor Center 2,500
Expenditures that decrease ending fund balance 4,000
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)57,628
REET 2 Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)724,854
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Projects anticipated for 2009, actually completed in 2010 552,000
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)172,854
Gifts Catalog Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)13,569
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Increase in donations 4,000
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Project budgeted for in 2008 but actually completed in 2010 6,100
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)11,469
Special Projects Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)3,052
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Original 2006 projected is expected to get completed in 2010 along with grant reimbursement 239,910
Increase in expenditures that are mostly offset with grant revenue and a small decline in ending fund balance
Project budgeted for in 2008 but actually completed in 2010 242,110
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)852
Fire Donation fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)19,662
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Transferred the fire donations fund to Fire District 1 as part of the sale 22,466
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(2,804)
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\09.10 Version Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 9/24/20101:27 PM
Packet 79 of 294
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Utility Operations Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)2,194,648
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Storm water revenue increase due to 2009 rate increase 259,000
Hydrant maintenance costs for 2010 340,000
Revenues that increase ending fund balance 599,000
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council - Odor Control
Project and Energy Efficiency Improvement Project 1,103,183
Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance 200,000
Expenditures that decrease ending fund balance 1,303,183
Revenues that do not effect ending fund balance due to offsetting expenditures
Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increase - transferred to the general fund 726,000
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)1,490,465
Utility Construction Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)1,535,269
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance 200,000
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)1,735,269
WWTP Capital Imp Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(112,675)
Expenditures that do not effect ending fund balance due to offsetting revenues
Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council - Odor Control
Project and Energy Efficiency Improvement Project. Expenditures are offset by
interfund transfer from the utility operations fund & other agency revenues 2,172,176
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(112,675)
Equipment Rental Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)196,041
Increase in revenues that increase ending fund balance
Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) transfer from General Fund 19,221
Decrease in revenues that decrease ending fund balance
Reduce investment interest due to sale of fire department (8,113)
Reduce sale of equipment due to sale of fire department (3,000)
Ruduce interfund transfer due to sale of fire department (220,781)
Revenues that decrease ending fund balance (231,894)
Increase in expenditures that decrease ending fund balance
Increase interfund transfers from the 511 fund and to the general fund due to the sale
of the fire department. Need to account for the vehicle money in the 511 Fund 1,259,933
Decrease in expenditures that increase ending fund balance
Fire contract adjustment - amended during the mid-biennium 12/15/2009 (98,449)
Reduce interfund services due to sale of fire department (4,000)
Reduce in Machinery & Equipment due to sale of fire department (160,000)
Expenditures that increase ending fund balance (262,449)
Expenditures that do not effect ending fund balance due to offsetting revenues
Increase interfund transfers between programs in the 511 fund due to the sale
of the fire department. Need to account for the vehicle money in the 511 Fund 192,746
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(1,014,116)
Transportation Benefit District Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)0
Revenues that do not effect ending fund balance due to offsetting expenditures
Annual TBD revenue received and transferred to the general fund 750,000
Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\09.10 Version Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 9/24/20101:27 PM
Packet 80 of 294
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Department Description BARS Category Debit Credit
PS Reserve Fund Transfer of fire department sales proceeds to Public Safety 010 000 000 397 001 000 00 Interfund Transfer 600,000
PS Reserve Fund Transfer of fire department ERR money to Public Safety 010 000 000 397 511 000 00 Interfund Transfer 734,693
PS Reserve Fund Transfer of fire department proceeds to Public Safety Emergency 010 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 1,334,693
Street Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 111 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 316,088
Street Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 111 000 653 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 316,088
Street Fund 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 Budget review.111 000 653 542 900 950 00 Interfund Rental
Street Fund 2010 B-Fund contribution eliminated during 2009 Budget review.111 000 653 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance
Building Maintenance Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 116 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 185,214
Building Maintenance Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 116 000 651 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 185,214
Building Maintenance Transfer of fire department sales proceeds to Public Safety 116 000 000 397 001 000 00 Interfund Transfer 100,000
Building Maintenance Transfer of fire department sales proceeds to Public Safety 116 000 651 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 100,000
Building Maintenance Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases 116 000 000 397 001 000 00 Interfund Transfer 27,755
Building Maintenance Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases 116 000 651 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 27,755
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private 116 000 000 367 110 000 00 Contributions-private 170,000
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private 116 000 000 Grant 48,000
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private 116 000 000 Grant 3,245
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private 116 000 651 519 920 310 00 Supplies 31,000
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private 116 000 651 519 920 410 00 Professional Services 36,000
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private 116 000 651 519 920 650 00 Construction Projects 182,273
Building Maintenance Building maintenance projects offset by grant revenues, private 116 000 651 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 28,028
Hotel/Motel Tax Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 120 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 61,628
Hotel/Motel Tax Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 120 000 310 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 61,628
Hotel/Motel Tax Increased costs in log cabin maintenance and visitor center 120 000 310 575 420 410 50 Log Cabin Maintenance 1,500
Hotel/Motel Tax Increased costs in log cabin maintenance and visitor center 120 000 310 575 420 410 00 Professional Services 2,500
Hotel/Motel Tax Increased costs in log cabin maintenance and visitor center 120 000 310 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 4,000
REET 2 Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 125 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 724,854
REET 2 Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 125 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 724,854
REET 2 Projects anticipated for 2009, actually completed in 2010 125 000 640 576 800 410 00 Professional Services 104,000
REET 2 Projects anticipated for 2009, actually completed in 2010 125 000 640 594 750 650 00 Construction Projects 387,000
REET 2 Projects anticipated for 2009, actually completed in 2010 125 000 640 576 800 910 00 Interfund Services 61,000
REET 2 Projects anticipated for 2009, actually completed in 2010 125 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 552,000
Gifts Catalog Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 127 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 8,445
Gifts Catalog Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 127 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 8,445
Gifts Catalog Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 127 100 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 757
Gifts Catalog Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 127 100 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 757
Gifts Catalog Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 127 200 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 5,881
Gifts Catalog Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 127 200 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 5,881
Gifts Catalog Fund 2008 donations received were only partially appropriated for in 127 200 640 573 200 410 00 Professional Services 6,100
Gifts Catalog Fund May 2010 donation 127 200 000 367 000 000 00 Donations 4,000
Gifts Catalog Fund 2009 donations received were only partially appropriated for in 120 200 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 2,100
Special Projects Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 129 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 3,052
Special Projects Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 129 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 3,052
Special Projects Fund Construction projected funded by federal grant through WSDOT.129 000 240 595 700 410 00 Professional Services 8,000
Special Projects Fund Construction projected funded by federal grant through WSDOT.129 000 240 595 700 650 00 Construction Projects 234,110
Special Projects Fund Construction projected funded by federal grant through WSDOT.129 000 000 333 020 501 00 Grant 239,910
Special Projects Fund Construction projected funded by federal grant through WSDOT.129 000 240 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 2,200
Fire Donation Fund Fire Donation funds transferred to Fire District 1 131 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 19,662
Fire Donation Fund Fire Donation funds transferred to Fire District 2 131 000 510 526 200 490 00 Miscellaneous 22,466
Fire Donation Fund Fire Donation funds transferred to Fire District 3 131 000 510 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 2,804
Utility Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 411 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 2,194,648
Utility Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 411 000 654 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 2,194,648
Utility Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.411 000 000 343 810 300 00 Water Utility Tax 430,000
Utility Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.411 000 654 534 800 540 00 Water Utility Tax Payment 430,000
Utility Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.411 000 000 343 810 500 00 Sewer Utility Tax 198,000
Utility Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.411 000 655 535 800 540 00 Sewer Utility Tax Payment 198,000
Utility Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.411 000 000 343 810 600 00 Storm Utility Tax 98,000
Utility Fund Utility tax increase in revenue due to 2009 utility tax increases.411 000 652 542 400 540 00 Storm Utility Tax Payment 98,000
Utility Fund Storm water revenue increase due to 2009 rate increase 411 000 000 343 810 400 00 Storm Water Sales 259,000
Utility Fund Storm water revenue increase due to 2009 rate increase 411 000 654 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 259,000
Utility Fund Hydrant maintenance costs for 2010 411 000 000 338 220 000 00 Hydrant Maintenance 340,000
Utility Fund Hydrant maintenance costs for 2011 411 000 654 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 340,000
Utility Fund Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council 411 000 655 597 414 550 00 Interfund Transfer 1,103,183
Utility Fund Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council 411 000 654 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 1,103,183
Utility Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance 411 000 652 597 412 550 00 Interfund Transfer 100,000
Utility Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance 411 000 654 597 412 550 00 Interfund Transfer 100,000
Utility Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance 411 000 654 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 200,000
Water Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 412 100 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 354,375
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\09.10 Version Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 9/24/20101:27 PM
Packet 81 of 294
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Department Description BARS Category Debit Credit
Water Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 412 100 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 354,375
Storm Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 412 200 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 120,644
Storm Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 412 200 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 120,644
Sewer Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 412 300 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 2,010,288
Sewer Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 412 300 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 2,010,288
Utility Construction Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance 412 100 000 397 411 000 00 Interfund Transfer 100,000
Utility Construction Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance 412 100 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 100,000
Utility Construction Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance 412 200 000 397 411 000 00 Interfund Transfer 100,000
Utility Construction Fund Increase interfund transfer based on 2009 Ending Fund Balance 412 200 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 100,000
WWTP Capital Impr Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 414 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 112,675
WWTP Capital Impr Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 414 000 656 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 112,675
Capital Improvements Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council 414 000 656 594 320 650 00 Construction Projects 2,172,176
Capital Improvements Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council 414 000 000 397 411 000 00 Interfund Transfer In 1,103,183
Capital Improvements Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council 414 000 000 383 070 010 00 Contributed Capital 503,380
Capital Improvements Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council 414 000 000 383 070 020 00 Contributed Capital 359,517
Capital Improvements Treatment plant capital improvement projects approved by council 414 000 000 383 070 030 00 Contributed Capital 206,096
Equip Rental Operations Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 511 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 304,328
Equip Rental Operations Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 511 000 657 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 304,328
Equip Rental Replacement Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 511 100 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 229,674
Equip Rental Replacement Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 511 100 657 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 229,674
Equip Rental Fire App Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 511 200 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 121,387
Equip Rental Fire App Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2010 actuals 511 200 657 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 121,387
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and 511 100 657 597 001 550 00 Interfund Transfer 308,263
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and 511 100 657 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 308,263
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and 511 200 657 597 001 550 00 Interfund Transfer 951,670
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and 511 200 657 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 951,670
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and 511 100 000 397 511 000 00 Interfund Transfer 192,746
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and 511 100 657 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 192,746
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and 511 200 657 597 511 550 00 Interfund Transfer 192,746
Equipment Rental Sale of fire department assets - record removal of asset and 511 200 657 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 192,746
Equipment Rental Reduce fire apparatus budget in 511.200 511 200 000 361 110 000 00 Investment Interest 8,113
Equipment Rental Reduce fire apparatus budget in 511.200 511 200 000 395 400 000 00 Sales of Equipment 3,000
Equipment Rental Reduce fire apparatus budget in 511.200 511 200 000 397 001 000 00 Interfund Transfer 220,781
Equipment Rental Reduce fire apparatus budget in 511.200 511 200 657 548 680 910 00 Interfund Services 4,000
Equipment Rental Reduce fire apparatus budget in 511.200 511 200 657 594 480 640 00 Machinery/Equipment 160,000
Equipment Rental Reduce fire apparatus budget in 511.200 511 200 657 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 67,894
Equipment Rental Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases 511 100 000 397 001 000 00 Interfund Transfer 19,221
Equipment Rental Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Purchases 511 100 657 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 19,221
Transportation Ben. Dist Transportation Benefit District 2 year budget for Fund 631. 2010 631 000 000 334 900 000 00 Annual Vehicle Fee 750,000
Transportation Ben. Dist Transportation Benefit District 2 year budget for Fund 631. 2010 631 000 653 542 310 510 00 Intergovernmental Serv 750,000
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\09.10 Version Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 9/24/20101:27 PM
Packet 82 of 294
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
The amendment to the following funds was to adjust beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals
LEOFF-Medical Ins Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(7,271)
LEOFF-Medical Ins Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(7,271)
Drug Enforcement Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(8,305)
Drug Enforcement Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(8,305)
Street Construction Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(425,738)
Street Construction Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(425,738)
MultiModel Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)51,542
MultiModel Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)51,542
Municipal Arts Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)66,845
Municipal Arts Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)66,845
Memorial Street Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(155)
Memorial Street Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(155)
Employee Parking Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(6,613)
Employee Parking Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(6,613)
Youth Scholarship Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(1,390)
Youth Scholarship Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(1,390)
Tourism Promotional Arts Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)18,603
Tourism Promotional Arts Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)18,603
REET 1 Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(28,034)
REET 1 Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(28,034)
Cemetery Maintenance Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(37,736)
Cemetery Maintenance Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(37,736)
Parks Construction Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)24,007
Parks Construction Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)24,007
Parks Trust Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(5,192)
Parks Trust Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(5,192)
Cemetery Maint Trust Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(4,546)
Cemetery Maint Trust Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(4,546)
Sister City Commission Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(6,537)
Sister City Commission Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(6,537)
LID Control Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(15,646)
LID Control Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(15,646)
LID Guarantee Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(1,183)
LID Guarantee Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(1,183)
Firemen's Pension Fund Beginning Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)20,656
Firemen's Pension Fund Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)20,656
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\09.10 Version Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 9/24/20101:27 PM
Packet 83 of 294
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Department Description BARS Category Debit Credit
LEOFF-Medical Ins Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 009 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 7,271
LEOFF-Medical Ins Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 009 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 7,271
Drug Enforcement Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 104 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 8,305
Drug Enforcement Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 104 000 410 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 8,305
Street Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 112 200 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 370,390
Street Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 112 200 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 370,390
Street Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 112 502 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 55,319
Street Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 112 502 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 55,319
Street Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 112 506 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 29
Street Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 112 506 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 29
MultiModel Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 113 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 51,542
MultiModel Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 113 000 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 51,542
Municipal Arts Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 117 100 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 32,034
Municipal Arts Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 117 100 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 32,034
Municipal Arts Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 117 200 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 35,337
Municipal Arts Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 117 200 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 35,337
Municipal Arts Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 117 300 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 526
Municipal Arts Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 117 300 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 526
Memorial Street Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 118 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 155
Memorial Street Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 118 000 641 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 155
Employee Parking Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 121 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 6,613
Employee Parking Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 121 000 340 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 6,613
Youth Scholarship Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 122 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 1,390
Youth Scholarship Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 122 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 1,390
Tourism Promotional Arts Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 123 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 18,603
Tourism Promotional Arts Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 123 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 18,603
REET 1 Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 126 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 28,034
REET 1 Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 126 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 28,034
Cemetery Maintenance Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 130 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 37,736
Cemetery Maintenance Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 130 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 37,736
Parks Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 132 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 24,007
Parks Construction Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 132 000 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 24,007
Parks Trust Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 136 100 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 35,834
Parks Trust Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 136 100 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 35,834
Parks Trust Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 136 200 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 839
Parks Trust Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 136 200 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 839
Parks Trust Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 136 300 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 31,481
Parks Trust Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 136 300 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 31,481
Cemetery Maint Trust Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 137 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 4,546
Cemetery Maint Trust Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 137 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 4,546
Sister City Commission Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 138 100 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 748
Sister City Commission Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 138 100 210 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 748
Sister City Commission Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 138 200 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 7,285
Sister City Commission Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 138 200 210 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 7,285
LID Control Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 211 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 15,646
LID Control Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 211 000 320 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 15,646
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\09.10 Version Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 9/24/20102:29 PM
Packet 84 of 294
City of Edmonds
2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment
08/24/2010
Department Description BARS Category Debit Credit
LID Guarantee Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 213 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 1,183
LID Guarantee Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 213 000 320 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 1,183
Firemen's Pension Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 617 000 000 308 000 000 00 Beginning Fund Balance 20,656
Firemen's Pension Fund Allocate beginning fund balances based on 2009 actuals 617 000 510 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 20,656
R:\BUDGET\Budget Amendment\2010\09.10 Version Budget AmendmentJV and Summary 9/24/20102:29 PM
Packet 85 of 294
AM-3402 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion on the Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Review the Draft Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016) and provide comments and feedback.
Previous Council Action
On September 14, 2010, the CS/DS Council Committee reviewed a preliminary draft of the Capital
Facilities Plan.
Narrative
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital
projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a
list of projects that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the
City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital
projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects
are identified within the six-year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan
projects which encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects.
CIP vs. CFP
The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to
different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying
those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital
needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be
consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are
restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP.
The draft 2011-2016 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of
General, Transportation and Stormwater. This year's version of the CFP incorporates the most recent
projects approved in the 2009 Transportation Comprehensive Plan and the 2010 Stormwater
Comprehensive Plan.
The 2011-2016 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks
projects and each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers. The CIP document is a
budget planning tool and is being included in the packet for informational purposes only.
A public hearing is scheduled for the CFP at the October 5, 2010 Council Meeting. The purpose of this
presentation is to provide Council with an opportunity to review and comment on the documents prior to
Packet 86 of 294
presentation is to provide Council with an opportunity to review and comment on the documents prior to
the public hearing.
The draft CFP and CIP were presented to the Planning Board on September 8, 2010 and a public hearing
was held on September 22nd. The minutes from both Planning Board meetings will be included in the
Council packet for the October 5th meeting.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - CFP
Exhibit 2 - CIP
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 12:13 PM
Engineering Robert English 09/23/2010 12:34 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 01:54 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/23/2010 01:55 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 01:56 PM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 09/23/2010 12:11 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/23/2010
Packet 87 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT
2011 - 2016
1Packet 88 of 294
2Packet 89 of 294
CFP
GENERAL
3Packet 90 of 294
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Pa
r
k
s
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
,
a
n
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G
.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
$5
-
$
2
3
M
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
To
t
a
l
$5
M
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
$5
M
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
RE
E
T
1
/
G
r
a
n
t
s
To
t
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Li
b
r
a
r
y
/
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
Ci
t
y
G
.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
Gr
a
n
t
s
/
R
E
E
T
2
To
t
a
l
$1
0
-
1
2
M
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
$3
-
$
4
M
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
/
G
r
a
n
t
s
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
To
t
a
l
$4
-
1
0
M
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
/
US
D
O
T
EI
S
St
a
t
e
F
u
n
d
s
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
$1
1
.
8
M
To
t
a
l
$2
.
2
M
$
2
.
0
M
$
2
.
1
M
$
1
.
9
M
$
2
.
1
M
$
1
.
5
M
Un
k
n
o
w
n
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$1
1
.
8
M
An
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$2
.
2
M
$
2
.
0
M
$2
.
1
M
$
1
.
9
M
$
2
.
1
M
$
1
.
5
M
`
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
/
S
n
o
-
I
s
l
e
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
Ex
p
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
(
S
n
o
-
I
s
l
e
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Pl
a
n
)
.
20
1
4
Ar
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
/
A
r
t
M
u
s
e
u
m
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
n
e
w
c
e
n
t
e
r
f
o
r
t
h
e
A
r
t
'
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
/
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
e
(C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
s
u
b
l
e
a
s
e
d
o
n
C
i
v
i
c
Pl
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
u
n
t
i
l
2
0
2
1
)
.
Bo
y
s
&
G
i
r
l
s
C
l
u
b
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
20
1
6
20
1
3
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
20
1
5
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
W
S
D
O
T
F
e
r
r
y
/
M
u
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
Re
l
o
c
a
t
e
f
e
r
r
y
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
t
o
M
a
r
i
n
a
Be
a
c
h
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
/
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
e
d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
n
C
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
.
Se
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Re
p
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
e
x
p
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
.
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
/
A
t
h
l
e
t
i
c
C
o
m
p
l
e
x
-
Ol
d
W
o
o
d
w
a
y
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
Pa
r
k
s
&
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
&
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
In
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
E
S
D
#
1
5
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
p
a
r
k
a
n
d
a
t
h
l
e
t
i
c
co
m
p
l
e
x
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Gr
a
n
t
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
Me
e
t
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
n
e
e
d
s
f
o
r
a
n
A
q
u
a
t
i
c
s
Ce
n
t
e
r
(
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
Au
g
u
s
t
2
0
0
9
)
.
Ci
v
i
c
P
l
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(C
i
t
y
h
a
s
l
e
a
s
e
u
n
t
i
l
2
0
2
1
)
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
_
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
_
0
9
1
6
1
0
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
_
C
F
P
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0
4Packet 91 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center
at Yost Park
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 –
$23,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study
completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the
consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the
summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of
its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of
Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the
current pool.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5m - $23m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
5Packet 92 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Art Center / Art Museum ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A new Art Center/Museum facility will provide and promote
Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts
facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001
and in the 2008 update process.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for
public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority
creates the need to determine feasibility for and potentially construct new visual arts related
facilities.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
6Packet 93 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Boys & Girls Club Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build new Boys & Girls Club facility to accommodate the growing
and changing needs of this important club.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Boys & Girls Club was constructed as a field
house by the Edmonds School District decades ago and is in need of major renovation or
replacement. It is inadequate in terms of ADA accessibility and does not meet the needs of a
modern club.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
7Packet 94 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: unknown
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire this 8.1 acre property for continued use as an important
community park and site of some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in
downtown Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important
park site for the citizens of Edmonds.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
8Packet 95 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds/Sno-Isle Library ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand building/parking to accommodate additional library needs
and programs. Library improvements identified in Sno-Isle Libraries Capital Facility Plan:
2007-2025
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements will better serve citizens needs requiring
additional space and more sophisticated technology.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL unknown
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
9Packet 96 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000-
$12,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop regional community park and fully lighted multi-field athletic
complex. Development contingent upon successful partnerships, grants, and regional capital
campaign.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Currently underutilized and under maintained facility with
great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt,
parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000
residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $10m - $12m
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
10Packet 97 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities
Maintenance Building
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the
end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this
existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City
parks and Capital facilities for the long term.
SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real
estate taxes.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $3m - $4m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
11Packet 98 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4 – 10 mil.
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace and enlarge deteriorating Senior Center building
complex on the City waterfront.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This facility is at the end of it’s useful life. The floors
are continuing to settle which poses significant renovation costs. In addition, the facility
requires structural reinforcement to withstand a major earthquake.
SCHEDULE: Contingent on procuring the necessary funding from grants and other
sources.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $4m -$10m
12Packet 99 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,800,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Crossing is multimodal transportation center that will provide
the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting various forms
of travel including rail, ferry, bus, walking and ridesharing.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide an efficient point of connection between existing and
planned transportation modes.
SCHEDULE: 2011-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-
2025
Engineering &
Administration
$2,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000
$1,500,000
Right of Way $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $2,200,000 $2,000,000 $2,100,000 $1,900,000 $2,100,000 $1,500,000 Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 13Packet 100 of 294
14Packet 101 of 294
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
15Packet 102 of 294
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
Sa
f
e
t
y
/
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
2
,
1
9
3
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
4
7
,
0
0
0
$
2
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
7
3
0
,
0
0
0
$3
4
3
,
0
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$3
9
,
0
0
0
$
3
4
,
0
0
0
$
2
7
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
5
3
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
8
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
4
3
9
,
5
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
1
,
5
0
0
$
3
0
8
,
0
0
0
$4
3
9
,
5
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
1
,
5
0
0
$
3
0
8
,
0
0
0
$8
7
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
6
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
,
8
9
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
4
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
8
9
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
4
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
$5
3
6
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
3
2
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
9
,
0
0
0
De
s
i
g
n
$
2
,
9
8
6
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
,
9
8
6
,
0
0
0
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$7
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
6
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
6
6
,
0
0
0
$4
,
1
1
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
6
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
4
5
2
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
$1
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
2
2
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
2
2
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
2
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
2
2
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
2
1
1
,
0
0
0
(
T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
2
1
1
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
2
1
1
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
,
2
1
1
,
0
0
0
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
.
@
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
o
im
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
.
Ca
s
p
e
r
s
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
o
im
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
.
21
2
t
h
@
8
4
t
h
(
5
C
o
n
e
r
s
)
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
de
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
a
n
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
76
t
h
A
v
.
W
@
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Re
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
b
y
co
n
v
e
r
t
i
n
g
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
(
2
)
l
a
n
e
s
f
o
r
bo
t
h
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Ii
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
-
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
LO
S
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
.
SR
5
2
4
(
1
9
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
)
/
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
22
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
@
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Re
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
E
B
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
a
d
d
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
/
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
v
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
N
B
a
n
d
SB
L
T
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
de
l
a
y
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
.
S
(
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
(
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
Re
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
b
y
co
n
v
e
r
t
i
n
g
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
(
2
)
l
a
n
e
s
f
o
r
bo
t
h
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
20
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Im
p
r
o
v
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
t
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
y
st
o
p
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
N
B
an
d
S
B
t
o
a
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
84
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
(
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
)
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
w
o
-
w
a
y
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
t
o
im
p
r
o
v
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
i
s
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
t
o
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
(
5
0
/
5
0
sp
l
i
t
w
i
t
h
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
;
t
o
t
a
l
co
s
t
:
~
2
0
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
)
.
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Re
a
l
i
g
n
h
i
g
h
l
y
s
k
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
c
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
w
e
a
s
t
-
w
e
s
t
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
R
-
9
9
a
n
d
I
-
5
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
22
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
S
a
f
e
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
_
C
F
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
0
9
0
9
1
0
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0
16Packet 103 of 294
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
,
9
3
2
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
,
9
3
2
,
0
0
0
$3
,
9
3
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
,
9
3
2
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
,
0
7
9
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
,
0
7
9
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
7
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$4
,
0
7
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$9
0
6
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$9
0
6
,
0
0
0
$9
0
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$9
0
6
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
No
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
$1
,
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
De
s
i
g
n
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$1
,
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
,
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
$0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
2
0
1
1
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
7
2
5
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$7
2
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
2
0
1
1
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
7
7
7
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
4
7
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$7
7
7
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
4
7
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
,
1
1
5
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
6
7
5
,
0
0
0
$2
,
1
1
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$4
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
6
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
2
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
2
,
0
0
0
$3
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
2
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
-
2
4
4
t
h
t
o
2
2
8
t
h
Pa
v
e
,
s
i
g
n
,
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
se
g
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
t
o
Mo
u
n
t
l
a
k
e
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
Hw
y
.
9
9
@
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Hw
y
9
9
@
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Wi
d
e
n
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
a
d
d
a
2
n
d
WB
L
T
l
a
n
e
/
w
i
d
e
n
S
R
-
9
9
t
o
a
d
d
a
2n
d
L
T
l
a
n
e
.
2n
d
A
v
e
.
S
f
r
o
m
J
a
m
e
s
S
t
.
t
o
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
mi
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
a
l
l
-
w
a
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
Ii
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
.
@
1
7
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
LO
S
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Im
p
r
o
v
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sa
f
e
t
y
o
n
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
5
t
h
a
n
d
6t
h
a
l
o
n
g
w
/
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
al
o
n
g
t
h
a
t
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
Ma
d
r
o
n
a
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
23
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
,
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
s
a
f
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
R
-
10
4
a
n
d
M
a
d
r
o
n
a
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
r
o
u
t
e
t
o
Se
v
i
e
w
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
a
n
d
n
e
a
r
b
y
pa
r
k
s
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
5
t
h
A
v
.
t
o
6
t
h
A
v
.
80
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
f
r
o
m
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
Wi
d
e
n
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
a
d
d
a
L
T
l
a
n
e
an
d
a
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
L
T
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
N
B
a
n
d
S
B
.
Wi
d
e
n
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
a
d
d
a
W
B
ri
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
Co
n
v
e
r
t
a
l
l
-
w
a
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
Ii
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
_
C
F
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
0
9
0
9
1
0
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0
17Packet 104 of 294
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
3
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$6
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
9
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
9
,
0
0
0
$7
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$7
9
,
0
0
0
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
De
s
i
g
n
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
4
3
,
5
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$2
3
6
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
0
0
0
$4
9
3
,
5
0
0
To
t
a
l
$4
8
6
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
0
0
0
$1
3
9
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
3
9
,
0
0
0
De
s
i
g
n
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$1
3
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
3
9
,
0
0
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
7
5
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
$6
7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
6
0
,
0
0
0
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
6
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
1
,
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
2
7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$8
1
2
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$8
1
2
,
0
0
0
$8
1
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$8
1
2
,
0
0
0
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
d
.
f
r
o
m
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
t
o
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
li
n
k
.
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
f
r
o
m
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
mi
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
mi
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Sh
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
to
S
h
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
w
i
t
h
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
22
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
be
t
w
e
e
n
S
R
-
1
0
4
a
n
d
1
0
5
t
h
P
l
.
W
,
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
s
a
f
e
r
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
S
h
e
r
w
o
o
d
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
.
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
f
r
o
m
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
t
o
2
0
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
ex
.
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
2
0
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
(M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
)
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
o
r
t
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
4t
h
A
v
e
.
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
Cr
e
a
t
e
m
o
r
e
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
r
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
a
l
o
n
g
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
o
r
t
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
23
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
1
0
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
t
o
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
r
o
u
t
e
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
_
C
F
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
0
9
0
9
1
0
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0
18Packet 105 of 294
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
2
4
9
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
2
4
9
,
0
0
0
$1
,
2
4
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
2
4
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
(T
B
D
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$1
8
,
8
3
1
,
5
0
0
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$
2
,
4
8
2
,
5
0
0
8
0
3
,
0
0
0
$
91
2
,
0
0
0
$
$
4
,
6
7
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
7
5
1
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
2
1
3
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
,
9
8
8
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
s
So
u
r
c
e
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
-
2
0
2
6
$2
,
2
5
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
9
4
8
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
9
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8
,
2
4
5
,
5
0
0
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
4
7
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
3
8
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
2
9
7
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
0
3
8
,
0
0
0
$0
$7
,
0
3
3
,
0
0
0
TB
D
/
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
$0
$0
$0
$
1
,
0
9
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
3
3
8
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
5
9
7
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
,
9
8
8
,
0
0
0
$1
,
3
0
1
,
0
0
0
Lo
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
$3
6
4
,
5
0
0
$
1
8
,
0
0
0
$
3
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
5
7
8
,
0
0
0
$0
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
o
r
t
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
f
r
o
m
M
a
i
n
S
t
t
o
S
R
-
5
2
4
/
1
9
6
t
h
S
t
.
SW
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
(
e
x
.
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
:
r
o
l
l
e
d
c
u
r
b
/
u
n
s
a
f
e
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
)
a
l
o
n
g
a
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
w
i
t
h
h
i
g
h
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
.
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
b
y
Y
e
a
r
84
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
a
n
d
1
8
6
t
h
S
t
.
SW
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
r
o
u
t
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
th
o
s
e
(
2
)
l
o
c
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
.
23
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
H
w
y
.
9
9
t
o
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
r
o
u
t
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
m
i
n
o
r
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
.
18
9
t
h
P
l
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
t
o
7
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
_
C
F
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
0
9
0
9
1
0
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0
19Packet 106 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 212th St. SW / 84th Ave.
W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,536,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The intersection of 84th Ave and 212th is 5 legged, which also
includes Main Street and Bowdoin Way approaches. The intersection is controlled with stop
signs. A roundabout would be constructed with 60-foot radius and yield signs at each
approach. Installation may require the acquisition of right of way on the west side of the
intersection. The center of the roundabout will be landscaped and the outer edge will have a
special pavement treatment to accommodate trucks.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection currently functions at LOS F and delays
during the PM peak hour will worsen over time. A roundabout will improve the LOS and reduce
the need for vehicles to stop during low volume periods. A roundabout would improve the
intersection LOS to B.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2014-2015 and construction for 2016 (pending grant
unding for all phases). f
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$286,000 $250,000
Construction $2,000,000
1% for Art *
TOTAL $286,000 $250,000 $2,000,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
20Packet 107 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196th St. SW)/ 88th
Ave. W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $879,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave.
W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and
southbound traffic to right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn and through movements) would also
address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one
concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be
implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are
met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the
intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196th St.
SW.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2014 and construction in 2016 (must meet an MUTCD
traffic signal warrant and get WSDOT approval such 196th St. SW is a State Route.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$100,000 $163,000
Construction $616,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000 $163,000 $616,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
21Packet 108 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S –
(Interim solution)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Removal of parking on both sides of 9th Avenue (ex. conditions: 1
lane in each direction) and restriping of 9th Ave. S (2 lanes in each direction).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches and
the existing intersection LOS is E (below the City’s concurrency standards: LOS D). The
improvement will reduce intersection delay and improve the LOS to D.
SCHEDULE: 2014 (pending additional TBD approval)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
22Packet 109 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave. W @ 212th St.
SW Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,890,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 76th Ave. W to add a northbound left-turn lane for 250’
storage length and a southbound left turn lane for 125’ storage length. Provide protected left
turn phase for northbound and southbound movements. Widen 212th to add a westbound right
turn lane for 50’ storage length.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The
existing intersection LOS is D and F (below City’s concurrency standards) by 2015.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2014, ROW acquisition in 2015, and construction in
2016 (pending additional TBD approval).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$250.000 $600,000
Construction $2,040,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $250,000 $600,000 $2,040,000
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
23Packet 110 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Walnut St and 9th Ave. S.
– (Interim solution)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Removal of parking on both sides of 9th Avenue (ex. conditions: 1
lane in each direction) and restriping of 9th Av. S (2 lanes in each direction).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches and
the existing intersection LOS is E (below the City’s concurrency standards: LOS D). The
improvement will reduce intersection delay and improve the LOS to C.
SCHEDULE: 2014 (pending additional TBD funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
24Packet 111 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $173,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right
turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected-permitted phase for
eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement
during southbound left turn phase.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The
existing intersection LOS is D and E (below City’s concurrency standards) by 2015. The
improvement would improve the LOS to C by 2015.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction scheduled for 2015 (pending additional TBD
approval).
COST BREAKDOWN
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$20,000
Construction $153,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $173,000
25Packet 112 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW Corridor
Safety Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
$4,354,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Extend 228th St across the unopened right-of-way to 76th
Avenue West 2) Signalize the intersection of 228th St SW @ SR99 and 228th St. SW @ 76th
Ave. West 3) Construct a raised median in the vicinity of 76th Avenue West.
4) Add illumination between 224th St SW and 228th St SW on SR 99
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The construction of this missing transportation link will
improve both access and safety to the I-5 / Mountlake Terrace Park & Ride lot from SR99.
This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two existing east-west
corridors (220th Street SW and SR104) that currently experience congestion for many hours
a day. Roadway safety will also be significantly improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW will
become a signalized intersection (already approved by WSDOT) with protected left turn
phasing for both approaches on SR99. The accident-prone left turns from SR99 to 76th Ave.
W. will be restricted with the addition of a raised center island on SR 99. The new traffic
signal will also provide pedestrians and bicycles with a safe, signalized crossing across
SR99, allowing easy access to the Interurban Trail, located ½ mile east of the intersection.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2011 - 2013, ROW acquisition for 2013, and
construction for 2014 (pending grant funding). In 2010, federal grant was secured for the
completion of design and ROW acquisition.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering,
Administration,
and ROW
$310,000 $86,000 $265,000
Construction $3,452,000
1% for Art *
TOTAL $310,000 $86,000 $265,000 $3,452,000
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
26Packet 113 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th
Ave. W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,431,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all
movements).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. By 2015,
the Level of Service will be F, which is below the City’s concurrency standards (LOS D). The
improvement would modify the Level of Service to LOS B.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending TBD
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$286,000
Construction $1,145,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,431,000
27Packet 114 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Caspers St. @ 9th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,022,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop-controlled only
for the northbound movement, on 9th Ave. N.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay as vehicles going northbound
on 9th Ave. N are having difficulty accessing Caspers St.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$204,000
Construction $818,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $,1022,000
28Packet 115 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW
to 238th St. SW)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,422,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and
sidewalk on each side of the street.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along
this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with
their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any
back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the
project is in Esperance.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$2,042,000
Construction $8,169,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,211,000
29Packet 116 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,932,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325’
storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275’ storage length.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection delay from 72 seconds (w/o
improvement) to 62 seconds (w/ improvement) in 2015.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$786,000
Construction $3,146,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $3,932,000
30Packet 117 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,079,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200’
storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300’ storage length. Provide protected left
turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$815,000
Construction $3,264,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $4,079,000
31Packet 118 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th Ave.
W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $906,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50’
storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for
eastbound left turns.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers
accessing either street.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$180,000
Construction $726,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $906,000
32Packet 119 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Main St. @ 9th Ave.
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for
all approaches.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service, which is currently LOS E
(below City’s Level of Service standards: LOS D), to LOS B (w/ improvement).
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$220,000
Construction $873,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,093,000
33Packet 120 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. @ 9th Ave.
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for
all approaches.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service, which is currently LOS E
(below City’s Level of Service standards: LOS D), to LOS A.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$220,000
Construction $873,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,093,000
34Packet 121 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Interurban Trail – 244th to 228th ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,985,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a missing link of the Interurban Trail between Shoreline and Mountlake
Terrace. Pave a trail on the existing gravel road on the 74th Ave West right-of-way, between 74th Ave West
and 228th St SW, as well from McAleer Way to 74th Ave. W. Work to include replacement of catch basin
grates, corrections of safety hazards and bike route signage are also included. Bike lanes will be installed
along 76th Ave. W and 228th St. SW from the County line until the connection with the Mountlake Terrace
Interurban Trail as an alternate route.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Routes were rated and prioritized based on value and safety
considerations in the 2000 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan. This bike trail will be part of the Interurban
Regional Trail, which will ultimately extend from Seattle to Everett, to fill a missing link. Goals of the bikeway
plan include promoting bicycle activity, providing safer routes, providing connections to neighboring
jurisdictions, and providing better service to recreational facilities, schools, and businesses for those who
bicycle.
SCHEDULE: construction scheduled for 2011 through secured Federal and State grants
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $1,327,000
1% for Art *
TOTAL $1,327,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
35Packet 122 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Main St. Pedestrian
Lighting from 5th Ave. to 6th Ave.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $725,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of installing (11) historic style decorative light
poles along this block (6 on the south side and 5 on the north side), (4) decorative poles with
artist made elements at the top of the pole (2 on both sides), and inlaid street names at the
intersection corners. The visual character of this location will be further enhanced as each new
pole will have a planter basket for summer flowers. New sidewalk and curb gutter will be
installed along both sides of this stretch (total length: approximately 1,200'), to improve
pedestrian safety and remove the sidewalk humps and cracks. New ADA curb ramps or
truncated domes will be installed at all non-compliant curb ramps. The trees will remain but root
barriers will be added to prevent tree roots from impacting the sidewalk in the future.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Increase pedestrian safety and activity along the
Downtown Retail Core at all times of the day.
SCHEDULE: The design is pending a grant through the 2010 Statewide Transportation
Enhancement Program (response scheduled for January 2011). The application requested
100% grant funding for the design and construction.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$115,000
Construction $610,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $115,000 $610,000
36Packet 123 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave W from 188th St.
SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $777,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct Walkway on 80th Ave West between 188th St SW and
180th St SW and on 180th St SW between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive (ranked #6 in
Long Walkway list in 2009 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provides safe pedestrian access between Seaview Park,
connecting to Olympic View Drive Walkway and Southwest County Park. Would create an
additional safe walking route for kids attending Seaview Elementary School (188th St. SW).
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2011 (project is dependent on obtaining a grant, with
response scheduled for Spring 2011).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$30,000 $100,000
Construction $647,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000 $100,000 $647,000
37Packet 124 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 234th SW / 236th St. SW
Long Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,115,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on the south side of 236th St. SW from SR
104 to 94th Ave. W., extending northbound on 94th Ave. W to 234th St., westbound on 234th St.
to 97th Ave. W, and finally connecting back to SR 104 on 97th Ave. W (ranked #1 in the list of
Long Walkway projects in the 2009 Transportation Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. The current
pedestrian conditions are unsafe near Madrona Elementary School and along 236th St. SW
because of the limited sight distance issues (curvature of the roadway).
SCHEDULE: Design scheduled for 2014, pending state funding (such as Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety Grant)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$440,000
Construction $1,675,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $440,000 $1,675,000
38Packet 125 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S from James St.
to Main St. Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $32,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 100’) on 2nd Ave. S
between Main St. and James St. (ranked #1 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: 2016 (pending additional TBD funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $32,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $32,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
39Packet 126 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to
8th Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $63,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 250’) on Maple St.
between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009
Transportation Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2014 (pending additional TBD
approval).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $53,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $63,000
40Packet 127 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St between 7th Ave.
S and 8th Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $79,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 250’) on Dayton St.
between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2014 (pending additional TBD
approval)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $69,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $79,000
41Packet 128 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Shell Valley Emergency
Access
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $627,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: : Construct an emergency access road from the Shell
Valley subdivision to Main Street which will serve as a bikeway and walkway as
well.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Severe grade of the primary road into the Shell
Valley subdivision, results in access problems during winter freezing events. The
proposed access road will provide emergency access for these winter freezing
events and serve as a bicycle pedestrian path the remainder of the year.
SCHEDULE: Design was completed in 2010 and construction is scheduled to begin
in 2011 because of a grant secured ($250,000) and the remaining construction
costs are funded by Fund 112 and 412.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$14,500
Construction $472,000 $7,000
1% for Art *
TOTAL $486,500 $7,000
42Packet 129 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 226th St SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $185,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 300’ of walkway) on 226th
St. SW between SR-104 and 105th Pl. A Federal Grant was secured to fund both the
engineering and construction phases of project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Design is close to completion and construction scheduled for 2011.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $139,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $139,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
43Packet 130 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway
from Main St. to 200th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $675,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct Walkway on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St.
SW (~ 2,700’). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W,
adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #2 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood
Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non-motorized
transportation to walk to / from school.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2015 (project is dependent on obtaining a grant, such
as the “Safe Routes to School”).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$125,000
Construction $550,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $125,000 $550,000
44Packet 131 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Beach Rd.
Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $950,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on Meadowdale Beach Dr. between 76th Ave.
W and Olympic View Dr. (~3,800’). This is one of the last collectors in the City with no sidewalk
on either side of the street (ranked #4 in Long Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation
Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route connecting
a minor arterial w/ high pedestrian activity (Olympic View Dr.) to a collector with sidewalk on the
east side of the street (76th Ave. W). Meadowdale Elementary School is directly north of the
project on Olympic View Dr.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2016 (pending additional TBD approval)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$190,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $190,000
45Packet 132 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 3rd Ave. S to
4th Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $220,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 350’) on Walnut St.
between 3rd Ave. S and 4th Ave. S (ranked #5 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2014 (pending additional TBD
approval)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$20,000
Construction $200,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $220,000
46Packet 133 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 6th Ave. S to
7th Ave. S Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $110,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 700’) on Walnut St.
between 6th Ave. S and 7th Ave. S (ranked #4 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2016 (pending additional TBD
approval).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $100,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $110,000
47Packet 134 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 4th Ave. Corridor
Enhancement
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,500,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Corridor improvements along 4th Avenue to build on concept plan
developed in the Streetscape Plan update (2006).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will
enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the
downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center
for the Arts. Timing for design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will
assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project
implementation phase.
SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2011-2015 (pending grant funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study $25,000 $200,000
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $50,000 $1,000,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $75,000 $200,000 $1,000,000
48Packet 135 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from 104th Ave.
W to 100th Ave. W Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $812,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #8 in Long Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install
a 5’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW from 104th Ave. W to 100th Ave. W
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe
pedestrian access to Hickman Park from 100th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending TBD
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$162,000
Construction $650,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $812,000
49Packet 136 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Olympic Ave. from Main St. to
SR-524 / 196th St. SW Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,249,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #3 in Long Walkway project list in 2009 Transportation
Plan. Install new sidewalk on the east side of the street. The ex. sidewalk is unsafe because of
rolled curb.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and create
safe pedestrian access to Yost Park and Edmonds Elementary.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction $1,049,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,249,000
50Packet 137 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 189th Pl. W from 80th Ave. W to
78th Ave. W Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked # 7 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan.
Install 5’ sidewalk on either side of the street.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and create
connection to ex. sidewalk on 189th Pl. W. This missing link will create a pedestrian connection from
80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending TBD
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$35,000
Construction $140,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000
51Packet 138 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W between 188th St.
SW and 186th St. SW Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan.
Install 5’ sidewalk on the east side of the street to connect to the existing sidewalk to the south.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch, such as school
kids walking to Seaview Elementary.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending
TBD funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$35,000
Construction $140,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000
52Packet 139 of 294
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to
76th Ave. W Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Long Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan.
Install 5’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe
pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (pending TBD
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$210,000
Construction $840,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,050,000
53Packet 140 of 294
54Packet 141 of 294
CFP
STORMWATER
55Packet 142 of 294
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$5
4
6
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
4
1
,
0
0
0
$5
4
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
4
1
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$5
5
3
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
4
8
,
0
0
0
$5
5
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
4
8
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
3
9
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$2
3
9
,
0
0
0
$2
3
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
3
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
De
s
i
g
n
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
6
8
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$7
2
,
0
0
0
$
6
9
6
,
0
0
0
$7
6
8
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$7
2
,
0
0
0
$
6
9
6
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
0
7
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$5
5
,
0
0
0
$1
0
2
,
0
0
0
$1
0
6
,
0
0
0
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
1
5
,
0
0
0
$1
1
9
,
0
0
0
$6
0
7
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$5
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
7
2
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$5
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
7
,
0
0
0
$3
7
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$5
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
7
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
2
,
4
2
7
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
9
7
,
0
0
0
$
8
3
1
,
7
5
0
$
1
,
2
9
8
,
2
5
0
$8
0
9
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$9
9
,
0
0
0
$
2
7
7
,
2
5
0
$
4
3
2
,
7
5
0
$3
,
2
3
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
9
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
1
0
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
7
3
1
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
2
,
8
4
0
,
2
5
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
0
9
,
5
0
0
$
9
5
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
4
7
6
,
7
5
0
$9
4
6
,
7
5
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$1
3
6
,
5
0
0
$
3
1
8
,
0
0
0
$
4
9
2
,
2
5
0
$3
,
7
8
7
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$5
4
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
2
7
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
9
6
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
6
,
6
7
9
,
5
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
,
3
9
9
,
2
5
0
$
2
,
1
5
1
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
1
2
9
,
2
5
0
$2
,
2
2
6
,
5
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$7
9
9
,
7
5
0
$
7
1
7
,
0
0
0
$
7
0
9
,
7
5
0
$8
,
9
0
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
,
1
9
9
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
8
6
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
8
3
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$1
9
,
0
1
4
,
0
0
0
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$
3
4
9
,
0
0
0
$
5
9
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
2
5
1
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
4
6
9
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
0
9
9
,
0
0
0
1
-
I
n
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
i
a
l
u
n
d
e
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
F
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
2
0
1
1
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
o
f
$
4
5
,
0
0
0
f
o
r
a
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
v
a
u
l
t
f
r
o
m
s
t
o
m
w
a
t
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
.
N
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
C
F
P
.
To
t
a
l
s
So
u
r
c
e
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
$0
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
1
,
9
4
6
,
7
5
0
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
$0
$0
$
3
,
1
0
5
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
9
3
6
,
7
5
0
$
4
,
9
0
4
,
2
5
0
$7
,
0
6
7
,
2
5
0
To
t
a
l
D
e
b
t
/
L
o
c
a
l
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
(S
e
c
u
r
e
d
a
n
d
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
4
9
,
0
0
0
$
5
9
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
1
4
5
,
2
5
0
$
1
,
5
3
2
,
2
5
0
$
2
,
1
9
4
,
7
5
0
St
a
y
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
P
e
r
m
i
t
(
N
P
D
E
S
)
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Da
y
l
i
g
h
t
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
i
n
M
a
r
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
P
a
r
k
20
1
2
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Pe
r
r
i
n
v
i
l
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
H
i
g
h
F
l
o
w
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
h
i
g
h
f
l
o
w
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
p
i
p
e
th
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
d
i
v
e
r
t
h
i
g
h
p
e
a
k
s
t
r
e
a
m
fl
o
w
s
c
a
u
s
e
d
b
y
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
ru
n
o
f
f
.
Da
y
l
i
g
h
t
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
(
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
a
s
pa
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
)
.
A
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
t
r
e
s
t
l
e
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
pl
a
n
n
e
d
t
o
b
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
S
o
u
n
d
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
/
B
N
S
F
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
La
k
e
B
a
l
l
i
n
g
e
r
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(S
e
e
n
o
t
e
1
)
Wo
r
k
w
i
t
h
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
F
o
r
u
m
o
n
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
Y
a
r
d
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
(
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
W
a
s
h
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
C
o
v
e
r
f
o
r
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
P
i
l
e
s
)
So
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
B
a
s
i
n
S
t
u
d
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
2
-
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
S
u
m
p
s
n
e
a
r
R
o
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
La
n
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
o
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
s
95
t
h
/
9
3
r
d
S
t
.
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ad
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
f
l
o
o
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
.
So
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
B
a
s
i
n
S
t
u
d
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
3
-
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
S
u
m
p
s
o
n
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
t
o
Hi
c
k
m
a
n
P
a
r
k
I
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
Ad
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
f
l
o
o
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
.
Sh
e
l
l
a
b
a
r
g
e
r
/
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
/
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
1
0
0
-
y
e
a
r
f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
u
d
y
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
1
0
0
y
r
f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
de
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
u
d
y
t
o
a
s
s
i
s
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
f
o
r
ne
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
r
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
th
e
a
r
e
a
.
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
b
y
Y
e
a
r
Gr
a
n
t
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
Gr
a
n
t
/
D
a
t
e
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Co
n
d
u
c
t
r
e
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
e
f
l
a
p
ga
t
e
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
b
e
t
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
th
e
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
,
a
n
d
r
e
m
o
v
e
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
.
20
1
1
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
_
0
9
0
8
1
0
:
S
t
o
r
m
_
C
F
P
9/
2
3
/
2
0
1
0
56Packet 143 of 294
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
1BStormwater Project:
Sumps along Friar Tuck Lane
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
23,000
48,000
322,000
5,000
48,000
16,000
462,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
26,000
55,000
0
6,000
0
18,000
105,000TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
100%
0%
2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
0%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
384,000
0
57,000
0
441,000
100%
2012
Project Name:Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 ‐ Connect Sumps near Robin Hood Drive
Problem Description:Several sumps (dry wells) in the vicinity of Robin Hood Drive in Southwest Edmonds overflow during
large storm events. Over time, they have become clogged and may cause flooding.
Project Solution:Connect the sumps to the City of Edmonds storm drain system with an overflow pipe that will function
in large storm events to reduce the potential for flooding.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
Install 1600 ft of new 12 inch dia pipe (600 ft in the public right of way and 1000 ft on private
property). 4 new manholes. 9 connections to the existing storm drain system.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
57Packet 144 of 294
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
1CStormwater Project:
Alignment of the proposed storm drain pipe along 238th Street SW. Existing
catch basin sumps in the foreground.
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
25,000
55,000
368,000
5,000
55,000
18,000
526,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26,000
56,000
0
5,000
0
18,000
105,000
0
0
390,000
0
58,000
0
448,000
2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
100%
0%
2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
0%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100%
2012
Project Name:Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 ‐ Connect Sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park Infiltration
Problem Description:Several sumps (dry wells) along 238th Street SW in Southwest Edmonds are not functioning properly.
They have become clogged and are contributing to area flooding during large storm events.
Project Solution:Connect the sumps to the City of Edmonds infiltration system in Hickman Park to the west.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
Install 825 ft of new 12 inch dia pipe. Replace 950 ft of aging existing pipe. Reuse existing structures
west of 102nd Place W. 3 new manholes. 12 connections to existing structures.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
58Packet 145 of 294
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
2AStormwater Project:
Aerial View of Edmonds Marsh (background) and the Port of Edmonds
(foreground) ‐ Department of Ecology
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
0
0
228,000
0
0
11,000
239,000
0
0
228,000
0
0
11,000
239,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
100%
0%
2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
0%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100%
2012
Project Name:Shellabarger Creek/Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh 100‐yr Flood Plain delineation
Problem Description:Properties around Shellabarger Creek, Willow Creek, Edmonds Marsh, along State Route 104, and
Dayton Street can become flooded during large storm events due to excessive upstream flows, high
tide, and reduced storage capacity in the Marsh due to sedimentation.
Project Solution:Study would update the 100‐yr floodplain delineation for the Edmonds Marsh area to assist the City
and surrounding property owners with planning strategies to protect property from future flooding
and enable stormwater services to be allocated more efficiently. Re‐delineation of the 100‐yr flood
plain will allow the City to properly regulate development in flood prone lands and keep the City in
compliance with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) obligations. By being a part of NFIP, FEMA
makes flood insurance coverage available on buildings and their contents throughout the community
(major public benefit).
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
Includes hydrologic modeling and hydraulic modeling. This project may involve participation from
WSDOT and the Port of Edmonds.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
59Packet 146 of 294
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
5Stormwater Project:
Project area along 93rd Place W, South of 224th Street SW
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
0
0
601,000
5,000
90,000
30,000
726,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31,000
5,000
5,000
31,000
72,000
0
0
606,000
0
90,000
0
696,000
2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
100%
0%
2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
0%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100%
2012
Project Name:95th/93rd Place project
Problem Description:The drainage system in the vicinity of 95th PL W, 93rd PL W, and 224th Street SW is inadequate and is
causing flooding problems. This area was annexed into the City from Snohomish County in October
1995.
Project Solution:Construct approximately 4,000 linear feet of new storm drain pipe and new catch basins and connect
to the existing storm drain system.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
Construct 3,200 ft of storm drain pipe. 15 catch basins. 8 connections to the existing storm drain
system.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
60Packet 147 of 294
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
7Stormwater Project:
Lake Ballinger
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
0
0
0
0
0
600,000
600,000
0
0
0
0
0
100,000
100,000
0
0
0
0
0
102,000
102,000
0
0
0
0
0
106,000
106,000
2015
0
0
0
0
0
115,000
115,000TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
100%
0%
2014
0
0
0
0
0
110,000
110,000
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
0%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
0
0
0
119,000
119,000
100%
2012
Project Name:Lake Ballinger Associated Projects
Problem Description:Homes surrounding Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek have flooded during very large storm events.
There are also significant water quality issues in the watershed.
Project Solution:Work independently and with other members of the Greater Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed
Forum to implement the Strategic Action Plan, which was finalized in July 2009.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
Submitted By:Public Works Department
61Packet 148 of 294
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
9Stormwater Project:
Existing stockpiles
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
0
41,000
270,000
0
41,000
14,000
366,000
0
41,000
0
0
0
14,000
55,000
0
0
275,000
0
42,000
0
317,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
0
0
0
0
0
0
0TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
100%
0%
2014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
0%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100%
2012
Project Name:Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
Problem Description:The Public Works Yard on 210 St SW and the Parks Facility store stockpiles of sand and other aggregate
material for use by the Crews. There is not enough room under the covered part of the yard to store all
this material. Additional covered space is required to prevent this material form washing into the storm
drainage system that ultimately flows to Halls Creek in Mountlake Terrace. Also, washing vehicles can
cause undesired pollutants to enter the storm system. These projects are required under the Federal
and state Clean Water Act.
Project Solution:Provide additional covered space for the material/aggregate piles at both facilities and a vehicle wash
station at the Public Works Yard.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
12,000 square feet of cover and a vehicle wash station at the Public Works Yard and 6,000 square feet
of cover at the Parks Facility.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
62Packet 149 of 294
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
12Stormwater Project:
Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform.
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
29,000
290,000
1,930,000
150,000
290,000
97,000
2,786,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
0
103,000
757,000
57,000
115,000
77,000
1,109,000TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
25%
0%
2014
32,000
221,000
0
110,000
0
33,000
396,000
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
75%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
1,504,000
0
227,000
0
1,731,000
100%
2012
Project Name:Edmonds Marsh Restoration
Problem Description:Development around the marsh and lack of connectivity with the Puget Sound has resulted in
sedimentation of the marsh and a transition to freshwater species.
Project Solution:Conduct revegetation, replace the flap gate to allow better connectivity with the Puget Sound, and
remove sediment.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
23 acres of revegetation. Construct new tide gate. Remove sediment.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
63Packet 150 of 294
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
13Stormwater Project:
Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source:
http://www.unocaledmonds.info/clean‐up/gallery.php
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
115,000
338,000
2,250,000
100,000
338,000
113,000
3,254,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
0
67,000
935,000
57,000
141,000
72,000
1,272,000TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
25%
0%
2014
127,000
309,000
0
55,000
0
55,000
546,000
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
75%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
1,712,000
0
257,000
0
1,969,000
100%
2012
Project Name:Daylight Willow Creek in Marina Beach Park
Problem Description:Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh have been significantly impacted by past development and the
piping of the Creek.
Project Solution:Daylight Willow Creek (originally as part of the Edmonds Crossing Project). The new channel would be
lined with an impermeable membrane for the entire length to prevent remnant contamination from
the former fuel tank farm from coming in contact with streamflow. Channel will be overexcavated in
order to protect membrane and provide soil for plant establishment. A railroad trestle is currently
planned to be constructed by Sound Transit / BNSF (costs not included in this estimate). This will
facilitate the future daylighting of the creek that would have its outlet to the Puget Sound near the
historic location of the former Union Oil Company Pier.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. 6‐ft bottom width. 4‐ft
depth. 3H:1V side slopes. Overexcavate to 3 ft depth below channel bottom. Assume moderate
contamination below groundwater table.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
64Packet 151 of 294
Capital Improvement Program Project
Summary Sheet
15Stormwater Project:
Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that will be
addressed by restoration.
Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc.
In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No
1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%.
2013Total CostsExpenses
Design
Predesign
Construction
Permitting
Construction Management (Incl. Insp.)
City of Edmonds Project Management
105,000
836,000
5,573,000
150,000
836,000
279,000
7,779,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2015
0
0
2,524,000
0
344,000
0
2,868,000TOTAL EXPENSES
Revenue Summary
City Funded Stormwater Utility:
Parks (unsecured):
Percent of Project Total
25%
0%
2014
116,000
922,000
1,467,000
165,000
221,000
308,000
3,199,000
Other Funded Secured:
Unsecured:
0%
75%
TOTAL
2011 2016
0
0
2,438,000
0
401,000
0
2,839,000
100%
2012
Project Name:Perrinville Creek High Flow Diversion and Habitat Restoration
Problem Description:Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek basin has led to increased flows in the creek, incision of the creek
bed, and sedimentation in the low‐gradient downstream reaches of the creek.
Project Solution:Construct a high flow diversion pipe that would divert high peak stream flows caused by excessive
stormwater runoff at the intersection of 76th Ave W and Olympic View Drive. The diversion pipe
alignment would extend north along Olympic View Drive, cross through the Snohomish County Park,
cross several private properties, cross Frederick Place and Talbot Road, and the diversion pipe would
discharge to the existing Perrinville Creek high flow bypass pipe that discharges directly into Puget
Sound. The project also include habitat restoration in Perrinville Creek to enhance salmon spawning in
the creek.
Cost Estimate
Assumptions:
4,560 ft of 42 inch diameter storm drain pipe (2,800 ft in the public right of way, 1,000 ft on private
property, 700 ft through Snohomish County Park, 30 ft under Frederick Pl and 30 ft under Talbot Rd).
1,000 ft of streambank restoration.
Submitted By:Public Works Department
65Packet 152 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2011 - 2016
1Packet 153 of 294
2Packet 154 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2011-2016)
Table of Contents
FUND DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT PAGE
GENERAL
112 Transportation Public Works 6
113
Multimodal
Transportation
Community
Services
9
116
Building
Maintenance
Public Works
10
125
REET-2
Transportation
Public Works
12
129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 13
412-100 Water Projects Public Works 14
412-200 Storm Projects Public Works 15
412-300 Sewer Projects Public Works 16
414
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Public Works
18
PARKS
125
REET-2 Parks
Improvement
Parks & Recreation
20
126 Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation 50
132
Parks Construction
(Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
54
3Packet 155 of 294
4Packet 156 of 294
CIP
GENERAL
5Packet 157 of 294
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
5
8
o
f
2
9
4
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
5
9
o
f
2
9
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
6
0
o
f
2
9
4
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
6
1
o
f
2
9
4
1
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
6
2
o
f
2
9
4
1
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
6
3
o
f
2
9
4
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
6
4
o
f
2
9
4
1
3
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
6
5
o
f
2
9
4
1
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
6
6
o
f
2
9
4
1
5
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
6
7
o
f
2
9
4
1
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
6
8
o
f
2
9
4
1
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
6
9
o
f
2
9
4
1
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
7
0
o
f
2
9
4
CIP
PARKS
19Packet 171 of 294
2
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
7
2
o
f
2
9
4
2
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
1
7
3
o
f
2
9
4
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Haines Wharf Park &
Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,500,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on 76th Ave W / 75th Pl W between
Meadowdale Beach Road and 162nd St. with additional improvements further north.
Develop unique north Edmonds neighborhood park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: A significant sight distance issue and no road
shoulder creates a pedestrian safety problem on 76th Ave West as it winds and turns to 75th
Place West. Despite safety problems this route has significant pedestrian traffic. It will
provide improved pedestrian access and safety to Meadowdale Beach County Park, link via
North Meadowdale Road walkway to Elementary & Middle schools, and Meadowdale
Playfields. Haines Wharf Park will provide unique neighborhood park amenities and a
respite for walkers and cyclists with outstanding views of Puget Sound and the Olympics.
SCHEDULE: 2010
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction $1,500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,500,000
*all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
22Packet 174 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center
Field/Court
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities
and children’s play equipment. Replacement and renovation of amphitheater in 2012 with
improved courtyard area and drainage.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center
serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various
special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $0 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
23Packet 175 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Brackett’s Landing
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $25,000
South: Main Street and Railraod Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound
North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park
South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park
through Deed-of-Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench
maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat
improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom
repairs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park,
regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction 0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL 0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
24Packet 176 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $290,000
3rd Avenue South and Howell Way, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
14.5 acres; Community Park / Zoned public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upper lot and other parking improvements. Replacement of upper
and lower playgrounds. Extend walkway paths and other miscellaneous improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Repair and improvements for one of the City’s most
heavily used parks. Play structures in need of replacement.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $210,000 $20,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $210,000 $20,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
25Packet 177 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development
Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and
play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair
and resurfacing, irrigation. Regrade and improve track. Upgrade portable restrooms.
Landscape and site furnishing improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $5,000 $10,000 $0 $75,000 $10,000 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $10,000 $0 $75,000 $10,000 $0 $0
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
26Packet 178 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Hatchery
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $85,000
South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL
23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the
comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water
impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway
repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible.
Hatchery repairs as needed. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget
Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh
water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird
sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water
Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant
funds available through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engin. & Admin.
Construction $0 $5,000 $5,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $5,000 $5,000$ $75,000 $0 $0 $0
27Packet 179 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $42,000
LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re-tile and
renovate restroom facilities. Electrical upgrade, rail and shelter replacements / renovations.
Work with WDFW on structural repairs of concrete spalling on pier subsurface.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and
enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $2,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $2,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
28Packet 180 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Former Woodway HS
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges,
user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital
campaign. $10m - $12M project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained
facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled
access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
29Packet 181 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $40,000
89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and
natural trail system to Maplewood Park. Replace play structure in 2010.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2014
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $40,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $40,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
30Packet 182 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $75,000
South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with
federal transportation funds.
WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; Protected through Deed-of-Right RCW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand parking area. Portable restroom upgrades. Repair and
improvements to off-leash area. Replace play structure and install interpretive sign.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional
waterfront park system.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $5,000 $0 $50,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $0 $50,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
31Packet 183 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $45,000
78th Place W. & 241st. St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Install path from Interurban Trail spur terminal to parking lot. Replace play structure and
improve picnic area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2012
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $0 $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
32Packet 184 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse
Grounds
ESTIMATED COST: $60,000
6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and
landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site. Replace playground.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation
that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care,
recreation classes and preschool activities.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $20,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $20,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
33Packet 185 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Milltown Plaza Renovation ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $40,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Renovate newly acquired Milltown Plaza with improved landscaping and streetscape
improvements. Located on main pedestrian walking routes.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to Important downtown public
gathering place.
SCHEDULE: 2010
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $40,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $40,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
34Packet 186 of 294
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $80,000
83rd Avenue West and 204th St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County
22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement forest study to continue with habitat and forest
improvements, tree planting, wildlife habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking.
Natural trail links under Main Street connecting to Yost Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional
trail connections.
SCHEDULE: 2014
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $80,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $80,000
New additions meet the 1% for the Arts Ordinance requirements
35Packet 187 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $21,000
80th Street West and 186th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed-
Of-Right
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Re-surface
tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area maintenance. Renovate restrooms.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court,
parking and tennis courts.
SCHEDULE: 2010, 2014
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $11,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $11,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
36Packet 188 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $105,000
80th Street West and 191th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation
to include field drainage for turf repair.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities,
basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $30,000 $75,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000 $75,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
37Packet 189 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Yost Park/Pool
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 215,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and
unanticipated repairs. Add in-pool play amenities.
Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping,
parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for
environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $45,000 $120,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $45,000 $120,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
38Packet 190 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $230,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include library, Senior Center, outdoor
plaza, city park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree
plantings, streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide
comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $40,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $40,000
39Packet 191 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway
improvements citywide.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
* all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
40Packet 192 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park
Improvements / Misc Small Projects
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $265,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements
including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking
fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and
equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway
entrances into the city and 4th Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the
Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities
and streetscape improvements in public areas.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering / Administration
Construction $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000
41Packet 193 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
.
PROJECT NAME: Sports Field / Playground
Partnerships
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with locals school, organizations, or neighboring
jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create
neighborhood park facilities at non-City facilities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create
additional facilities.
SCHEDULE: 2010 - 2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000
42Packet 194 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center
at Yost Park
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 –
$23,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study
completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the
consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the
summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of
its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of
Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the
current pool.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
43Packet 195 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Interurban Trail
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000
Matching Grant Funds WWRC/ IAC, additional funding from PSRC / CMAQ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Trail Improvements
Major construction improvements to this abandoned interurban railway link including 1.37 miles of
trail, upgraded shared roadway, trail spur to Mathay Ballinger Park, and the creation of Ballinger
Station to house a shelter, kiosk, historical interpretation, water fountain and solar bollards.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Final trail system missing link to connect already completed
sections in Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace through the Ballinger neighborhood of Edmonds.
Increased safety and public enjoyment for recreationalists and bicycle commuters.
SCHEDULE: 2011
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
44Packet 196 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved
Trail/Bike Path/Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 30,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the
goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the
comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to
meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path
improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with
engineering funding.
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
* all or part of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
45Packet 197 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility
Needs Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts
facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high
priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008
update process.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for
public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority
creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related
facilities.
SCHEDULE: 2012
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study $15,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $15,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
46Packet 198 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Parks, Recreation & Open
Space Comprehensive Plan
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 60,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the plan is to identify the need for parks, open
space, and recreation facilities in the Edmonds area and to establish policies and implement
strategies to meet those needs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The plan identifies and evaluates existing park and
recreation facilities and programs and develops an approach to ensure their continuation and
expansion.
SCHEDULE: 2014
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study $60,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $60,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
47Packet 199 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh
Environmental Master Plan
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL
23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Produce comprehensive environmental master plan for the
Edmonds Marsh. Final document will include an ecological assessment and environmental
impact study with input from the public and local organizations.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh
water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird
sanctuary. Protection is vital. Plan will directly correlate with goals and recommendations
included in WRIA8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. Co-fund the completion of master
plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water
Management Plan.
SCHEDULE: 2012
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study $30,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000
48Packet 200 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Forest
Management Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hire consultant to develop a plan for best forest management
practices in Pine Ridge Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This forest park is under stress from over-mature trees
especially alder and others. This study will give the Parks Division necessary guidance to
better manage this park to become a more healthy forest and open space.
SCHEDULE: 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study $30,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000
49Packet 201 of 294
5
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
2
0
2
o
f
2
9
4
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved
Capital Projects and Acquisitions
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,846,723
00 (2013-2014), debt retired end of 2014
5
Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,777
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on:
City Hall: $417,000 (2010-2012), $312,0
Marina Beach / Library Roof: $182,428
PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $69,18
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects
SCHEDULE: 2010-2016
COST DOBREAKWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
Art 1% for
TOTAL $700,597 $699,312 $697,717 $596,418 $592,564 $279,032 $281,083
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
51Packet 203 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open
Space/Land
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $400,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens
that fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open
space.
SCHEDULE: 2012, 2015
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $200,000
52Packet 204 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront/Tidelands
Acquisition
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcels and tidelands wherever feasible to
secure access to Puget Sound for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open
Space Comprehensive Plan
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound
SCHEDULE: 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000
53Packet 205 of 294
5
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
2
0
6
o
f
2
9
4
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue Cultural
Corridor: Planning
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $225,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4th Avenue site design phase 2 for public right of way to build on
phase 1, 2009 design and implementation plan to minimum 30% engineering.
Construction phase to start 2015.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will
enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the
downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for
the Arts. Timing for 30% design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will
assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project implementation
phase.
SCHEDULE: 2011, 2014
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study $25,000 $200,000
Engineering & Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $25,000 $200,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
55Packet 207 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue Cultural
Corridor
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4th Avenue site development with temporary and/or moveable
surface elements and amenities to begin drawing attention and interest to the corridor and create
stronger visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Possible
projects may include surface art, signage and wayfinding, or low level lighting.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will
enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the
downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for
the Arts. Timing for 30 & design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will
assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project implementation
phase.
SCHEDULE: 2011
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering & Administration
Construction $50,000 $1 M
1% for Art
TOTAL $50,000 $1 M
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
56Packet 208 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Dayton Street Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $132,500
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works
building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to public gathering space and
creation of additional art amenities and streetscape improvements in downtown on main
walking route. Financial support from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Hubbard Foundation
and Edmonds in Bloom.
SCHEDULE: 2011
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $135,500
1% for Art
TOTAL $135,500
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
57Packet 209 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Interurban Trail
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,327,000
Matching Grant Funds WWRC/ IAC, additional funding from PSRC / CMAQ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Trail Improvements
Major construction improvements to this abandoned interurban railway link including 1.37 miles of
trail, upgraded shared roadway, trail spur to Mathay Ballinger Park, and the creation of Ballinger
Station to house a shelter, kiosk, historical interpretation, water fountain and solar bollards.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Final trail system missing link to connect already completed
sections in Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace through the Ballinger neighborhood of Edmonds.
Increased safety and public enjoyment for recreationalists and bicycle commuters.
SCHEDULE: 2011
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$1,327,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,327,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
58Packet 210 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Parking
Lot/Drainage
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitate South County Senior Center parking lot including
pavement re-surfacing, storm water/drainage management, effective illumination and
landscaping. Seek grant opportunities and partnership opportunities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety
and better accessibility for Seniors.
SCHEDULE: 2012
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $300,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $300,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
59Packet 211 of 294
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Park Spray Park
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $150,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate the former site of the City Park wading pool by
constructing a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. These structures have become
very popular in many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer
acceptable to increased health department regulations. These installations create no standing
water and therefore require little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary
donations for construction costs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: These amenities are very popular in all communities where
they have been installed. Using the former wading pool site allows existing plumbing, drainage,
pump house, connecting paths and fencing to be used. This will be a much valued attraction that
will increase the popularity of this much loved park.
SCHEDULE: 2011
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $150,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $150,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
60Packet 212 of 294
AM-3389 Item #: 8.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilwoman Lora Petso Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Finance Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion of a potential council policy dedicating a significant portion of unexpended
wages and benefits to the purpose of achieving and maintaining appropriate targeted
reserves in both the emergency financial reserve fund and the general fund ending cash
balance.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Mr. Clifton and the mayor have already recommended combining positions which will result in a
significant salary savings and have a positive impact on the 2011 budget. In addition, we should exercise
caution before moving any money prior to the end of a year. Perhaps the best approach would be for the
council to address issues such as these through a budget amendment each December.
Previous Council Action
Forwarded to full Council from the Finance Committee.
Attachment 1: Minutes of 9/14/2010 Finance Committee
Narrative
Councilmember Petso requested that the committee consider adopting a policy allocating all or a
significant percentage of budgeted but unexpended wages and benefits to the City’s emergency financial
reserve fund, and the general fund ending cash balance.
The proposed policy would assist the City in rebuilding and/or maintaining the recommended financial
position without requiring a new revenue source. The recommended financial position for the emergency
financial reserve fund is 5% of general fund expenditures. (See minutes 7/24/2001 Attachment 2).
The recommended financial position for the general fund ending cash is 15% of general fund
expenditures. (See budget at page ix, Attachment 3).
Under such a policy, when a position is vacant (recent examples include the Mayor, the Economic
Development Director, or the Development Services Director) all or a significant portion of money
budgeted for wages and benefits for the position would be placed in the City’s emergency financial
reserve fund, or, if that fund was at or in excess of recommended levels, the money would be specifically
directed to the general fund ending cash balance. Only if both funds were at recommended levels could
unexpended wages and benefits be administratively applied to other purposes, or used by council
direction for special funding requests.
Admittedly, much of this money makes it to the general fund ending cash balance under the status quo
Packet 213 of 294
anyway, including $781,280 in 2009. (See CAFR, p.16 Attachment 4). By implementing a formal
policy, however, council can assure that a significant portion of the money is guaranteed for use in
rebuilding and/or maintaining reserves prior to any administrative or council use of such funds for other
purposes.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:
Revenue:
Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
There is no known cost associated with this proposal.
Attachments
Attach 1 -Sept 14 2010 Finance Committee Minutes
Attach 2 - July 24 2001 Approved Council Minutes
Attach 3 - 2009-2010 Budget Book - page ix
Attach 4 - 2009 CAFR page 16
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 10:32 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/23/2010 02:10 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 02:11 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/20/2010 10:23 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/23/2010
Packet 214 of 294
Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2
D. Discussion of Mayor discretionary pay increases for vacant position
Debi Humann discussed the history and the supporting ordinance, which gives the Mayor
this discretion. The committee will keep the issue pending further discussion.
E. Discussion on unexpended wages and benefits
The committee members discussed alternatives for the deposition of unexpended wages
and benefits. The committee forwarded the issue to the full Council for discussion.
F. Interlocal Agreement with SERS for low cost dark fiber
Carl Nelson gave an overview of this issue, explaining the background, history, and the
positive impacts of this agreement. The committee forwarded the issue to the full Council
consent agenda.
G. Public Comments (3-minute limit per person)
Comments were made by the following members of the public in addition to committee
members:
Don Hall
Ron Wambolt
Roger Hertrich
Comments and questions were provided: 1) complimenting the quick length of the
Finance Committee meeting; 2) tardiness of city financial statements; 3) an accounting
issue pertaining to $2 million in the General Fund, raised by Councilman Plunkett at the
September 7, 2010 Council meeting; 4) Mr. Hines’ responses in Topic C, above; and, 5)
using consulting services to revise the NRC.
Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 PM.
Packet 215 of 294
Council Minutes
http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/CityCouncil/CouncilArchives/2001/07/Cm010724.htm[9/23/2010 8:44:49 AM]
(E) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED JUNE 12, 2001 FOR THE WOODWAY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
WALKWAY AND SEAVIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING AND PEDESTRIAN
IMPROVEMENTS, AND AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT ALL BIDS
(F) PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF NATIONAL KIDS DAY, AUGUST 5, 2001
(G) APPROVE TERMS OF AGREED JUDGMENT AND JUST COMPENSATION FOR TEMPORARY
EASEMENT IN ASSOCIATION WITH PERRINVILLE SEWER PROJECT
(H) REPORT ON THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER SELECTED FUNDS FINANCIAL POSITION
FOR THE MONTH ENDING JUNE 2001
3. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2001 BUDGET AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND
EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS; PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO REPEAL ORDINANCE NO. 2107 RELATING TO THE
CUMULATIVE RESERVE FUND; ACCEPT TREASURER’S CERTIFICATION OF SUFFICIENCY RELATING TO THE LOCAL
IMPROVEMENT GUARANTY FUND
Administrative Services Director Peggy Hetzler explained the first ordinance for Council consideration amends the
2001 budget for supplemental appropriations authorized by the Council during the first half of 2001 and included a
number of additional items that represented corrections to the 2001 budget. State law requires budget amendments be
authorized by ordinance; the City has traditionally adopted a budget amendment twice each year to capture the
changes. Earlier today staff realized one significant item approved by the Council had been omitted from the
ordinance; therefore, the Council was provided an amended ordinance. She indicated two revised tables, itemizing the
requested changes, were also provided to the Council.
Ms. Hetzler referred to Table 1, a compilation of budget amendments previously approved by the Council that provides
a description of the item, the date of Council approval, funding source and the amount of the appropriation. The total
of previously authorized appropriations was $1,393,330. Of this amount, approximately $1 million represents transfers
of funds set aside in various City funds for various purposes that did not require the use of General Fund cash in 2001.
She reviewed the transfers including a transfer from the Council Contingency Fund of $200,000 to the General Fund
for legal contingencies, $93,000 to the Multimodal Fund for the Pine Street Traffic Study, $200,000 to the Capital
Projects Fund for Fire Station 16, $30,000 for an ESA Study and Buildable Lands Inventory, $250,000 in the
accumulative reserve fund and $210,000 in the LID Guaranty Fund to the Capital Project Fund for Fire Station 16, and
a $34,000 transfer from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund to the Public Facilities District Fund. A new item was included in
Table 1, an appropriation of $220,000 from the Combined Street Construction/Improvement Fund ending cash for the
overlay projects approved by the Council at the June 6 meeting.
Ms. Hetzler reviewed Table 2, a compilation of corrections to the 2001 budget and one new item. The corrections total
$1,883,010. Of this amount $1.8 million relates to transfers and appropriations for the Marina Beach purchase. In the
2001 budget, staff budgeted receipt of an IAC grant in the amount of $900,000 within Fund 125; however, the City’s
local match of $900,000 was omitted during the budget process. A budget amendment is necessary to transfer IAC
grant funding from Fund 125 to Fund 126 and authorize the use of ending cash within Fund 126 for the City’s match.
Although both Fund 125 and 126 receive revenue from Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), they have different allowable
uses and the purchase of park property was more appropriately reflected in Fund 126. The remaining corrections
include the recognition of $17,000 in Fire Department grants, transfer of budgeting authority for the Domestic
Violence Coordinator from the Criminal Justice Fund to the General Fund in the amount of $16,000, authorization to
use $10,000 of ending cash within the Firefighters Pension Fund for an actuarial study, and corrections to the Police
Department budget in the amount of $9,590 for year 2000 carry-forward items that were omitted from the 2001 budget.
Packet 216 of 294
Council Minutes
http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/CityCouncil/CouncilArchives/2001/07/Cm010724.htm[9/23/2010 8:44:49 AM]
Ms. Hetzler explained Table 2 included one new item; an additional $30,000 appropriation from Ending Cash Balance
in the Combined Street Construction/Improvement Fund for one overlay project not included in the original $220,000
approved by the Council on June 6. The total of the supplemental appropriations in Tables 1 and 2 is $3,276,340. Of
this amount, the impact to the General Fund is a revenue increase of approximately $307,000 and an expenditure
increase of $337,000 for a net increase to the 2001 General Fund budget of only $30,000.
Ms. Hetzler advised the materials distributed to the Council also included a revised Exhibit 3, a summary of the
amendments required to adjust the various funds to accomplish the necessary appropriations. The total of Exhibit 3 is
$3,363,360, which is $86,000 more than the appropriations in Tables 1 and 2. She explained a phenomenon in
governmental accounting requires double counting of expenditures and revenues when they involve transfers between
two funds. The materials include a table illustrating the affects of the double accounting and reconciling Tables 1 and
2.
Ms. Hetzler explained Exhibit 4 was an ordinance repealing the Cumulative Reserve Fund and authorizing the transfer
of the fund balance of $250,000 to the Capital Projects Fund for Fire Station 16. Exhibit 5, also related to Fire Station
16, is a certification from her, as the City’s Treasurer, that the City’s Local Improvement Guaranty Fund has sufficient
cash balance to allow the transfer of $210,000 to the Capital Projects Fund.
Staff recommends Council approval of the ordinance amending the 2001 budget, approval of the ordinance to repeal
the Cumulative Reserve Fund, and approval of the Treasurer’s Certification of Local Improvement District Guaranty
Fund.
Councilmember Petso observed approximately $600,000 had been transferred from the Council Contingency Fund. She
inquired how much remained in the Council Contingency Fund. Ms. Hetzler answered approximately $236,000.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the new street overlay project in the amount of $30,000. Development Services
Director Duane Bowman answered the appropriation was for 12th Place N, the first alternate on the City’s overlay
projects. Staff discovered barricades had been erected to pave that roadway but it was actually the first alternate.
Because the neighborhood’s expectations were raised that the roadway would be paved, it was determined the overlay
could be done using the balance of the 112 Fund. He noted the condition of the roadway justified the overlay.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the Firefighters Pension Fund actuarial evaluation. Ms. Hetzler advised this was
done every three years and had been erroneously omitted from the 2001 budget.
Councilmember Petso asked why funding for the Domestic Violence Coordinator was moved from the Criminal Justice
Fund to the General Fund. Ms. Hetzler answered the funding would still come from Criminal Justice Fund. Judge
White requested the funding be moved to the General Fund, separating it from the municipal court budget to avoid any
appearance of conflict of interest.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why the Council was only learning of the Fire Department grants now and why they
had not been presented previously to the Finance or Public Safety Committee. Fire Chief Tom Tomberg explained
grant awards have not been brought to the Public Safety committee in the past. He noted staff is often not aware of
grants when the budget is compiled; when grants become available, staff takes advantage of the opportunity and
applies for the grant.
Councilmember Plunkett questioned why the grants were not presented to the Council as they occurred over the past
six months. Chief Tomberg explained budget amendments are done twice a year. Ms. Hetzler responded the grants
could be handled in that manner; the City has typically amended the budget twice a year to reflect increased revenue.
The 2001 budget is being amended to show the grant revenue and to amend the Fire Department budget to allow them
to expend the funds. She explained the items in Table 1 required specific Council action; the Fire Department grants
did not.
Councilmember Plunkett asked where in the budget amendment the other grants the City received were reflected. Ms.
Hetzler answered the Fire Department grants were the only unbudgeted grants, the other grants the City has received
Packet 217 of 294
Council Minutes
http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/CityCouncil/CouncilArchives/2001/07/Cm010724.htm[9/23/2010 8:44:49 AM]
were included in the budget.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public comment portion of this item. There were no members of the public present who
wished to address the Council regarding this item. Mayor Haakenson closed the public comment portion.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE
NO. 3369, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3336 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF
VARIOUS FUNDS.
Councilmember Petso commented the mid-year budget adjustment always resulted in some surprises. She suggested
the Council consider having the Finance Committee review the amendments prior to presenting them to the Council.
This would allow the Council adequate time to have staff address any concerns.
Councilmember Plunkett supported the motion and concurred with Councilmember Petso’s suggestion to have the
amendments reviewed by the Finance Committee in the future. He preferred something more than just a list of items
that had no supporting details in the packet and that had not been previously reviewed by the Council or a Council
committee.
Councilmember Miller pointed out the budget amendment had been a Consent Agenda item in the past. He concurred
with the suggestion to have the Finance Committee review the amendments.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved is as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3369 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3336 AS A RESULT OF
UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3370, REPEALING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 2107 AND
THE CUMULATIVE RESERVE FUND AND TRANSFERRING THE BALANCE OF THE FUND TO THE
GENERAL FUND.
Councilmember Petso reiterated her concern with repealing the Cumulative Reserve Fund. She pointed out the
Cumulative Reserve was an important part of the City’s financial reserves and the transfer would drop the City below
the level desired for a City of Edmonds’ size. She was also concerned with transferring the Cumulative Reserve in
view of the transfer of approximately $600,000 from the Council Contingency Fund.
Mayor Haakenson asked Ms. Hetzler to address Councilmember Petso’s comment that this dropped the City below the
required reserve funds for a City of Edmonds size. Ms. Hetzler explained the recommendation by the Government
Finance Officers Association is that cities maintain emergency reserves in the approximate amount of 5% of General
Fund expenditures. Edmonds is funded in excess of 5%, approximately at 6.5%.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO OPPOSED. The ordinance approved is as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 3370 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REPEALING THE PROVISIONS
OF ORDINANCE NO. 2107 AND THE CUMULATIVE RESERVE FUND FOR GENERAL FUND
EXPENDITURES NO. 002 CREATED THEREBY, TRANSFERRING THE BALANCE OF SUCH FUND TO
THE GENERAL FUND, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO ACCEPT
THE TREASURER’S CERTIFICATION REGARDING THE SUFFICIENCY OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
Packet 218 of 294
Council Minutes
http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/CityCouncil/CouncilArchives/2001/07/Cm010724.htm[9/23/2010 8:44:49 AM]
DISTRICT GUARANTY FUND TO ALLOW FOR THE TRANSFER OF EXCESS LID GUARANTY FUNDS
TO THE GENERAL FUND. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
National KidsDay, August 5 (Consent Agenda Item K)
Mayor Haakenson explained because America doesn’t currently designate an official day to celebrate kids, four youth-
serving organizations – Boys & Girls Clubs of America, 4-H, KidsPeace, and YMCA – have united to establish
National KidsDay as a new national tradition. The National KidsDay Alliance encourages children and adults to share
in relationship-building activities that create positive memorable experiences on National KidsDay and beyond.
National KidsDay will take place every year on the first Sunday in August, beginning this year on August 5. The long-
term goal is to place National KidsDay on the national calendar.
Mayor Haakenson advised a Proclamation in honor of National KidsDay would be presented to the Boys & Girls Club
on July 27 at their Olympic Games ceremony.
Parks and Recreation Director Arvilla Ohlde recognized Julie Barris and Karen Pearson, Boys & Girls Club, who
asked that she stress National KidsDay was an opportunity for children and parents to spend meaningful time together.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, agreed with Councilmember Petso’s suggestion and said
Councilmembers should not vote in favor of items that "did not come down right from staff." He referred to a
newspaper article provided to the Council regarding the Everett waterfront and urged the Council to read the Herald on
a regular basis as it contained a great deal of information such as the Public Facilities District Everett is forming.
Regarding the Council’s work session on the Planning Board’s recommendation to revise the Planned Residential
Development (PRD) provisions, Mr. Hertrich said the biggest fear with PRD’s was the possibility of shifting buildings
from steep slopes to a line of buildings that can potentially block views. He said the proposed ordinance would result
in major changes such as allowing attached structures, change the bulk and standards of buildings, and increase
density. He urged the Council to consider why the PRD ordinance was originally established versus the current goal of
inviting developers to use the ordinance. He pointed out the existing PRD ordinance only allowed a PRD with five or
more lots; the proposed revisions would allow a PRD with two or more lots. He urged the Council to carefully
consider the proposed changes.
Mayor Haakenson referred to Mr. Hertrich’s comment that Councilmembers should not vote for items that did not
come down right from staff, explaining in the six years he has been in the City, this was the correct way staff has
presented budget amendments. Mr. Hertrich responded that if the Council did not like the procedures, they should vote
no to affect change.
5. REPORT FROM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ON A NEW SPECIAL EVENT – "HOT AUTUMN NIGHTS"
Shari Nault, Executive Director, Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce , recognized the members of the Hot
Autumn Nights committee in the audience. She explained the Chamber wanted to put on a new event to attract visitors
and residents to downtown retail and services, to showcase Edmonds restaurants who will be serving in front of their
locations, tap a new demographic market, and to augment the Taste of Edmonds revenue (which provides 60% of the
Chambers operating budget).
Ms. Nault described characteristics of typical classic car show participants and spectators. She explained the goal was
to host a premiere, upscale event and attract a different crowd that may not have participated in Edmonds events in the
past.
Packet 219 of 294
Packet 220 of 294
Packet 221 of 294
AM-3397 Item #: 9.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:
Information
Subject Title
Discussion regarding Planning Board recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan
framework.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
No action is required; a public hearing will be held by Council.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
This year, in addition to updating several specific plans (e.g. water and surface water plans, streetscape
plan), there is a need to update some of the contextual discussion in the city's Comprehensive Plan. There
are several reasons for needing to make this update:
--The region, through PSRC, adopted Vision 2040 in 2008 (updated in 2009), which provided new
guidance and a new framework for planning in the Puget Sound region.
--Snohomish County Tomorrow is in the process of updating countywide planning policies to be
consistent with Vision 2040.
-- The Comprehensive Plan has been updated to include a new Community Sustainability Element which
proivdes a central framework for the plan.
--Some of the discussion in the city's comprehensive plan is out of date, specifically the introductory
sections on Scope, Purpose, Effect of Plan, and State and Regional Context.
The purpose of this agenda item is to enable the Council to review the recommendation of the Planning
Board in advance of Council holding a public hearing on the amendments.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Draft Amendments
Exhibit 2: Planning Board Minutes
Exhibit 3: Tupper Email Comment
Exhibit 4: Vision 2040 Multicounty Policy Overview
Exhibit 5: Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy
Packet 222 of 294
Exhibit 6: Vision 2040 Poster Map
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 10:32 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/23/2010 01:53 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 01:56 PM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 09/23/2010 10:01 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/23/2010
Packet 223 of 294
Purpose & Scope 1
Comprehensive Plan - Purpose and Scope
Scope
The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Edmonds consists of all of the elements specifically adopted
as part of this plan, set forth or incorporated in this title, including both text and maps, and those
specific plans adopted by reference (see the section entitled Comprehensive Plan – Elements, page
15).
Purpose
The Comprehensive Plan has the following purposes:
A. To provide a framework for moving the Edmonds community toward a sustainable future
that integrates and responds to environmental, economic, and social needs in a way which
“meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs.”1
B. To promote the public health, safety, and welfare consistent with the values of the
community.
A.C. To serve as the basis for municipal policy on land use and development and to provide
guiding principles and objectives for the development of regulations and programs that
support sustainable development within the city while seeking to conserve, protect, and
enhance the community’s assets and natural resources.
B. To promote the public health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and the general
welfare and values of the community.
C. To anticipate and influence the orderly and coordinated development of land and building
use of the city and its environs, and conserve and restore natural beauty and other natural
resources.
D. To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning
and inharmonious subdividing.
E.D. To facilitate adequate the provisions for of sustainable public services — such as
transportation, police and fire protection, water supply, sewage treatment, and parks —
that are consistent with the community’s values and needs.
1 Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, U.N.
GeneralAssembly Plenary Meeting, December 11, 1987.
Packet 224 of 294
Purpose & Scope 2
Effect Ofof Plan
A. Development Regulations. Development regulations adopted by the City of Edmonds
shall be consistent with and implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Development Projects. The goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan shall serve as
a guide for all development projects – both public and private – within the city. The
development regulations adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan shall apply to all
public and private development projects.
C. Programs and Implementation. The City shall strive to develop programs and actions
that implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and that are reflected in
its short-range, strategic, and long-range decision-making.
A. Private Projects. All private projects requiring city review and approval shall be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Public Projects. No street, park or other public way, ground, place, space, or public
building or structure, or utility [whether publicly or privately owned] shall be abandoned,
constructed or authorized until the Hearing Examiner has reviewed and reported to the
City Council on the location, extent and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The
Hearing Examiner's report shall be advisory only. Notice of the hearing by the Hearing
Examiner shall be given in the manner specified in each case by the City Council.
C. Street Vacations and Dedications. The Comprehensive Plan shall be consulted as a
preliminary to the establishment, improvement, abandonment, or vacation of any street,
and no dedication of any street or other area for public use shall be accepted by the city
council until the location, character, extent, and effect thereof shall have been considered
by the Hearing Examiner with reference to the Comprehensive Plan. The Hearing
Examiner's Report on the same will be at the time and part of his or her action on the
vacation and/or dedication.
Growth Management
A. General. Growth management is intended to provide a long-range strategy guiding how
communities develop and how services are provided. State, regional and local
jurisdictions undertaking growth management planning are adopting plans and
implementation strategies that form a coordinated approach to actively plan for the
future. A community such as Edmonds, with attractive natural features, a pleasant
residential atmosphere and proximity to a large urban center, is subject to constant
growth pressures.
Edmonds’ 2000 population is was 39,515. As part of the cooperative planning process
for the region, Edmonds has established a population planning target of 44,880 for the
Packet 225 of 294
Purpose & Scope 3
year 2025. This represents an average annual increase of less than one percent per year
(0.5%), and is similar to the growth rate experienced by the city during the past two
decades. In part, this moderate growth rate reflects Edmonds’ status as a mature
community with a small supply of vacant, developable land. Because current and future
development will increasingly occur as redevelopment or infill, the general philosophy
expressed in the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain the character of the community while
strategically planning for change in specific areas.
It is envisioned that the Comprehensive Plan will be implemented with a broad-based set
of implementation actions. Implementation measures will range from tying plan goals
and policies to budgeting and infrastructure decisions, to making sure that regulations are
coordinated and targeted to achieve expressed policies, to working with both public and
private entities to jointly achieve community goals. However, implementation approaches
must be designed to address not only the differences between neighborhoods in the city,
but also the variation in different situations over time. While general decisions on how
the region will grow are made collaboratively at a regional level, It it is up to the each
community to determine how to implement this vision at the local level.its desired growth
level and up to the government, particularly elected officials, to implement the desired
policies.
A. Goal. Growth management policies should insure that as a residential community,
Edmonds continues to be heralded as “The Gem of Puget Sound,” in accordance with the
following policies:
A.1. Decisions affecting the growth pattern of the community should be made with a
maximum of citizen participation.
A.2. The Comprehensive Plan and its implementation measures should be developed
and maintained in such a manner to guarantee assure that there are sufficient
resources to insure established levels of community services and that ample
provisions are made for necessary open space, parks and other recreation
facilities.
A.3. The role of commercial and industrial enterprises, the attendant tax base and
provision for consumer needs, should be considered as a supporting part of
achieving a sustainable community the residential nature of the area rather than
as the dominant activity of the community.
A.4. Any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors
the following values:
A.4.a. Light (including direct sunlight)
A.4.b. Privacy
A.4.c. Public Viewsviews, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features.
A.4.d. Freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution.
A.5. Any residential growth should be designed to accommodate and promote as
much as possible a balanced mixture of income and age groups.
Packet 226 of 294
Purpose & Scope 4
A.6. Edmonds should cooperate with surrounding communities to ensure that the
regional growth policy is consistent with the stated local policyhelp ensure a
coordinated implementation of the regional growth strategy.
Packet 227 of 294
General Background 5
State and Regional Context
State and regional goals have been adopted to provide a framework for developing local
comprehensive plans and implementation strategies. By addressing these goals, local governments
can be assured that they are also addressing some of the important issues facing the state and other
local governments in the Puget Sound region.
State Goals
A. Urban growth: Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities
and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
B. Reduce sprawl: Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling,
low-density development.
C. Transportation: Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on
regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.
D. Housing: Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of
the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types,
and encourage preservation of existing housing stock.
E. Economic development: Encourage economic development throughout the state that is
consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, promote economic opportunity for all
citizens of this state, especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons, and
encourage growth in areas experiencing Insufficient economic growth, all within the
capacities of the state's natural resources, public services, and public facilities.
F. Property rights: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected
from arbitrary and discriminatory actions.
G. Permits: Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in
a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability.
H. Natural resource industries: Maintain and enhance natural resource-based Industries,
Including productive timber, agricultural, and fisheries Industries. Encourage the
conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands, and discourage
incompatible uses.
I. Open space and recreation: Encourage the retention of open space and development of
recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, increase access to natural
resource lands and water, and develop parks.
Packet 228 of 294
General Background 6
J. Environment: Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life,
Including air and water quality, and the availability of water.
K. Citizen participation and coordination: Encourage the involvement of citizens in the
planning process and encourage coordination between communities and jurisdictions to
reconcile conflicts.
L. Public facilities and services: Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to
support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the
development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels
below locally established minimum standards.
M. Historic preservation: Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites, and
structures that have historical or archaeological significance.
N. The goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act as set forth in RCW 90.58.020.
Regional Goals
The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) is a Regional Transportation Planning Organization
under chapter 47.80 RCW. In its major planning document, Vision 2040, the PSRC is described as:
“…an association of cities, towns, counties, ports, and state agencies that serves
as a forum for developing policies and making decisions about regional growth
management, environmental, economic, and transportation issues in the four-
county central Puget Sound region of Washington state.”2
Vision 2040 establishes the regional vision and sets the Regional Growth Strategy for jurisdictions
planning in the Puget Sound region:
“VISION 2040 is a shared strategy for moving the central Puget Sound region
toward a sustainable future. The combined efforts of individuals, governments,
organizations and the private sector are needed to realize this vision. As the
region has continued to grow and change, its residents have stepped up to ensure
that what is most valued about this place remains timeless. Positive centers-
oriented development trends in recent years are a cause for optimism. Yet
VISION 2040 recognizes that "business as usual" will not be enough. As a result,
VISION 2040 is a call for personal and institutional change.
VISION 2040 recognizes that local, state, and federal governments are all
challenged to keep up with the needs of a growing and changing population.
VISION 2040 is designed to guide decisions that help to make wise use of
existing resources – and ensure that future generations will have the resources
they need.”3
2 Vision 2040, page ii. http://psrc.org/projects/vision/pubs/vision2040/vision2040_021408.pdf
3 Vision 2040, page 3. http://psrc.org/projects/vision/pubs/vision2040/vision2040_021408.pdf
Packet 229 of 294
General Background 7
Vision 2040 sets a framework for the region to provide for a sustainable future that:
“…ensures the well-being of all living things, carefully meshing human activities
with larger patterns and systems of the natural world. This translates into
avoiding the depletion of energy, water, and raw natural resources. A sustainable
approach also prevents degradation of land, air, and climate, while creating built
environments that are livable, comfortable, safe and healthy, as well as promote
productivity.”4
To implement this vision, VISION 2040 contains the following Overarching Goals:
Environment. The region will care for the natural environment by protecting and
restoring natural systems, conserving habitat, improving water quality, reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants, and addressing potential climate
change impacts. The region acknowledges that the health of all residents is
connected to the health of the environment. Planning at all levels should consider
the impacts of land use, development patterns, and transportation on the
ecosystem.
Development Patterns. The region will focus growth within already urbanized
areas to create walkable, compact, and transit-oriented communities that maintain
unique local character. Centers will continue to be a focus of development. Rural
and natural resource lands will continue to be permanent and vital parts of the
region.
Housing. The region will preserve, improve, and expand its housing stock to
provide a range of affordable, healthy, and safe housing choices to every
resident. The region will continue to promote fair and equal access to housing for
all people.
Economy. The region will have a prospering and sustainable regional economy
by supporting businesses and job creation, investing in all people, sustaining
environmental quality, and creating great central places, diverse communities,
and high quality of life.
Transportation. The region will have a safe, cleaner, integrated, sustainable, and
highly efficient multimodal transportation system that supports the regional
growth strategy, promotes economic and environmental vitality, and contributes
to better public health.
Public Services. The region will support development with adequate public
facilities and services in a coordinated, efficient, and cost-effective manner that
supports local and regional growth planning objectives.
In addition, Vision 2040 includes a Regional Growth Strategy to implement this vision. Components
of the Regional Growth Strategy include:
4 Vision 2040, page 7. http://psrc.org/assets/1735/sustainable.pdf
Packet 230 of 294
General Background 8
a. designation of geographic areas for regional growth centers, manufacturing
and industrial centers, as well as other centers such as town centers and activity
hubs in Urban Growth Areas and cities;
b. planning for multi-modal connections and supportive land uses between
centers and activity hubs;
c. promotion of sustainability in all decision-making; and
d. allocation of population and employment growth to regional geographies in
Snohomish County.
Regional goals address the strategy for regional development outlined in the adopted VISION 2020.
These goals form a long-range vision for transportation and land use linkages within the Puget Sound
region.
A. Create a regional system of central places framed by open space.
B. Strategically invest in a variety of mobility options and demand management to support
the regional system of central places.
C. Maintain economic opportunity while managing growth.
D. Conserve environmental resources.
E. Mitigate potential, adverse effects of concentrating development by early action.
F. Refine Vision 2020 based upon collaboration among all agencies in the region to ensure a
common vision. Refinements will recognize parallel planning by other public and private
agencies, including ports and emerging countywide growth management efforts.
Packet 231 of 294
General Background 9
Packet 232 of 294
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 9
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE, EFFECT AND
CONTEXT STATEMENTS, AND HEARING EXAMINER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW
REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Chave recalled that the Commission previously discussed the proposed amendments to the introductory sections of the
Comprehensive Plan addressing the plan’s purpose and scope. He said that, as previously noted, the reasons for making the
changes include:
The region, through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), adopted Vision 2040 in 2008. The document was
updated in 2009 to provide new guidance and a framework for planning in the Puget Sound Region.
Snohomish County Tomorrow is in the process of updating the countywide planning policies to be consistent with
Vision 2040.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan has been updated to include a new Community Sustainability Element, which provides a
central framework for the plan.
Some of the discussion in the City’s Comprehensive Plan is out of date, specifically the introductory sections on scope,
purpose, effect of plan and state and regional context.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the City Council directed them to update the various introductory sections (purpose,
effect and context statements). He noted that some of the language can be traced back to the original Comprehensive Plan,
which was adopted as part of the City’s Development Code. When GMA was adopted, the City revised the plan and made it
a separate document. However, some sections were not adequately updated to fit within the context of the GMA. Some of
the language in the Comprehensive Plan talks about code provisions that have been superseded by other processes such as
the Capital Facilities Element. For example, having the Hearing Examiner make legislative decisions is out of date and does
not separate the powers of the legislative authority (City Council) and the quasi-judicial authority (generally the Hearing
Examiner). The intent is to bring these sections up to date with current City practices.
Vice Chair Lovell observed that a lot of language from Vision 2040 was inserted into the draft language. Mr. Chave said
staff’s goal was to provide context and identify the high-level goals and statements from the Vision 2040 Plan so the casual
reader would have some idea of what the regional vision talks about. This is important because local plans must be
consistent with and ultimately implement the regional vision. Vice Chair Lovell said he finds the excerpts from Vision 2040
to be applicable to the City. He specifically referred to the language related to development patterns (Page 7), which
supports the policies called out in the Community Sustainability Element.
Board Member Reed asked staff to respond to the question of whether or not it is appropriate for the Hearing Examiner to
consider consistency with the Comprehensive Plan as part of his/her decision. He recalled that Finis Tupper submitted a
statement regarding this issue, which was read into the record at the Board’s May 12th meeting. Mr. Chave responded that
the Comprehensive Plan is a legislative document that establishes goals and a vision for the City. As required by GMA, the
City has adopted development regulations that are intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan, and these regulations are
used by the Hearing Examiner to review projects. The development regulations must be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan. He explained that because the Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide a balance of goals and policies, it would be
nearly impossible to find that a project is absolutely consistent with each and every one. The appropriate balance for the City
is reflected in their adopted Development Code. The City would essentially be mixing the legislative and quasi-judicial
standards for review if they were to look at the overall Comprehensive Plan policies and goals while reviewing projects for
compliance with the Development Code. He further explained that GMA requires that comprehensive plans set the policies
and guidelines, but the development regulations are intended to implement the goals and policies in comprehensive plans.
Cities must use their development regulations to evaluate projects.
Board Member Cloutier referred to Item A.4.c (Page 3) and explained that the Board previously discussed the proposed
amendment that would change “views” to “public views.” He suggested staff explain why this change is being proposed.
Mr. Chave explained that the City has taken the general approach that the overall height limits and bulk restrictions are the
blunt instruments for dealing with public views, but there are no tools to deal with individual views. The current language
seems to imply that the Development Code includes provisions to protect private views, which is not the case. The City
Packet 233 of 294
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 10
Council determined that all references to protection of private views should be removed from the Development Code, and
staff felt it would be appropriate to remove the reference from the Comprehensive Plan, as well.
Board Member Stewart noted that the Development Code includes a reference to “retaining view corridors.” Mr. Chave said
this term is used prominently in the shoreline regulations, but it is related to public rather than private views. In addition,
there is some discussion in the Comprehensive Plan related to public views in the downtown/waterfront area from streets,
and the issue is addressed in the Development Code via setbacks, step backs, height limits, etc. Board Member Reed
inquired if “public view” is defined in the Development Code. Mr. Chave answered no. Board Member Reed suggested that
perhaps the proposed change would be unnecessary if the Development Code does not include a definition for the term. He
observed that whatever language is used in the Comprehensive Plan will not change the fact that the Development Code will
not protect private views. Board Member Cloutier agreed that having a vision that public views should be protected will not
change the Development Code now, but it would guide future regulations. He emphasized that the City does not have the
ability to regulate private views, but they can regulate the public’s access to a view. Mr. Chave added that private views are
difficult to regulate in Washington State because property rights are very strong.
Board Member Stewart referred to Item B on Page 1 and asked if community values have been identified. Mr. Chave said
community values can be discerned from the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, but they are not laid out
specifically as the community’s values. Board Member Stewart noted that many municipalities innumerate their values and
adopt vision statements. Mr. Chave summarized that the City’s vision is inferred in the Comprehensive Plan as a whole, but
staff would not want to presume to write a vision statement at this time. He suggested the Board ask the City Council to take
this project on as part of the next Comprehensive Plan update.
Board Member Stewart requested clarification from staff regarding Section A.4.a, which references light. Mr. Chave
explained that one of the purposes of step back requirements is to provide some access for light to reach adjacent properties,
particularly in zones where development is allowed to occur lot-line-to-lot-line. Many of the zoning regulations draw to the
notion of air, light and open space. Board Member Stewart asked if this reference refers to buildings that block light or if it
includes trees, as well. Mr. Chave answered that trees could potentially fit into this category, as well.
Board Member Guenther said that, as an architect, clients come to him with a vague idea of what they want to develop, and
their description usually includes contradictions. It is up to him to balance the contradictions to create a plan that meets his
client’s needs. He said the Comprehensive Plan is also vague, contradictory and open to interpretation. It is intended to be a
tool to guide development regulations. It is the Development Code that leads the City in the right direction.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the proposed amendment on Page 1 that would eliminate reference to piecemeal or
spot zoning. He asked that the Board consider putting this language back in. He agreed with Board Member Stewart that
community values have not been clearly defined. He disagreed with staff’s position that the Comprehensive Plan language is
out of date and needs to be updated. Mr. Hertrich expressed concern about the amendments on Page 2, which would
eliminate the requirement that the Hearing Examiner must review all public projects, street vacations and dedications based
on compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and submit an advisory report. As per the proposed language, these projects
would become staff decisions. He encouraged the Board to discuss whether or not the value of the Hearing Examiner still
exists for these processes, or if Hearing Examiner’s role should be eliminated because staff has previously failed to follow
the rules and procedures outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hertrich referred to Item A.4.a on Page 3 and agreed it is
appropriate to regulate to ensure there is adequate light to adjacent properties.
Mr. Hertrich asked if the City Council directed the staff and Board to incorporate the Vision 2040 Plan. He agreed that some
of the language incorporated from the Vision 2040 Plan is good, but he questioned the definition of the term “central places”
in the third paragraph from the bottom on Page 7. He suggested that people can interpret this term in many different ways.
Rather than just incorporating large sections of the Vision 2040 language into the document, he suggested the Board review
each one to determine if they are worded well enough to be part of the code or if they are ambiguous.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, said he grew up in Woodway and moved to Edmonds in the early 1980’s when the City was in the
process of adopting their original Development Code. He participated in the Chapter 15 discussions at that time, and the
adopted language was a grand move for the City. It was through this process that he became acquainted with Roger
Packet 234 of 294
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 11
Hertrich, Bill Casper, Steve Dwyer, Lloyd Ostrom and other prominent community members who participated in the process.
He said the point of his email, which was entered into the record on May 12th, was to suggested the Board review the
Edmonds Municipal Code as it relates to the duties of the Hearing Examiner. He noted that the City has only had three
Hearing Examiners over the past 30 years. The current Comprehensive Plan requires that the Hearing Examiner review all
street vacations and dedications and submit an advisory report. He said he is opposed to the proposed amendment that would
eliminate this step in the review process. He pointed out that the Hearing Examiner has not participated in the review of
street vacations and dedications in the past, even though it has been a stated requirement in the Comprehensive Plan. These
decisions have been made by City staff. He expressed his belief that City plans, they should be executed rather than ignored.
Mr. Tupper observed that the current Hearing Examiner receives $3,500 per month from the City whether she holds a
hearing or not. In 2009, the fees for the hearings that were conducted were not enough to pay the Hearing Examiner’s salary,
let alone advertisements that were placed in the newspapers or the staff’s time. He felt the Board should be concerned that
the City is paying for a Hearing Examiner service, yet she is not being required to perform the services specified in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Hearing Examiner has cancelled numerous hearings in recent months because there are no items
on the agenda, but the City is required to pay her salary regardless. He suggested the City utilize this resource to implement
the plan. The Hearing Examiner has a completely different viewpoint than staff, and she can bring expertise to the table to
help determine whether or not a proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested that the last paragraph on Page 2 be updated to identify the population as of 2009 before
the draft amendments are presented to the City Council. He observed that there is not as much affordable housing available
in Edmonds as in other neighboring communities. He suggested the language be changed in Item A.5 at the bottom of Page
3 to specifically call out affordable housing. Mr. Rutledge advised that he has attended Hearing Examiner hearings for the
past four years, and the Hearing Examiner has set requirements that the lights on sports fields be turned off at 7 p.m. on week
days and 9 p.m. on weekends to address neighborhood concerns. He said the current Hearing Examiner firm does a good
job, but he voiced concern that not very many people attend the hearings to comment.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Chave advised that the language related to “spot zoning” was a hold over from the days when comprehensive plans were
far more general. At the present time, the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map are consistent. In order to have
spot zoning, there would need to be a spot Comprehensive Plan designation. He recommended that this language is no
longer necessary.
Mr. Chave agreed with Mr. Tupper that implementation is key, and that is the purpose of the development regulations. He
suggested it makes no sense to have an additional requirement of review contained in the Comprehensive Plan that either
conflicts with or adds to the already established process. For example, the review of street vacations and dedications is
already provided for in the City’s Development Code, and an additional Hearing Examiner review would be redundant and
could create conflicts.
Mr. Chave explained that the excerpts from Vision 2040 Plan are the broadest goal statements, and they are vague if read in
isolation. He suggested Mr. Hertrich review the Vision 2040 Plan, which provides details about what the broad statements
are talking about. He reminded the Board that they made the choice not to reiterate the entire Vision 2040 Plan in the
Comprehensive Plan. Including excerpts will lead people to be curious enough to perhaps read the Vision 2040 Plan. He
emphasized that the City cannot choose whether or not they want to implement the Vision 2040 Plan. It is the regional plan
that the City has signed onto so they need to be consistent and understand what it says.
Board Member Reed asked if affordable housing is addressed in other sections of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave
answered that it is addressed extensively in the Housing Element. Mr. Cloutier added that while Item A.5 on Page 3 does not
specifically reference affordable housing, he reads it as an implication that affordable housing is included.
Board Member Cloutier asked staff to explain the mechanism by which the City is required to follow the Vision 2040 Plan.
Mr. Chave answered that the PSRC is a creation of all of the governments in the Puget Sound Region, and the City has
signed on to be a part of the group. The PSRC is the mechanism that ensures cities implement the Vision 2040 Plan.
Packet 235 of 294
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 23, 2010 Page 12
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE UPDATES TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE, EFFECT AND CONTEXT STATEMETNS AND HEARING EXAMINER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PROPOSED. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE
MOTION.
Board Member Reed suggested that Mr. Tupper’s memorandum be added as an attachment to the record that is forwarded to
the City Council. The remainder of the Board concurred.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Vice Chair Lovell inquired when the amendments to Title 20 would be brought back to the Board. Mr. Chave said they
would be scheduled as an agenda item in the near future. Staff would also provide updates soon regarding other items on the
Commission’s work program such as wireless facilities.
Vice Chair Lovell announced that the July 14th meeting would include a public hearing on proposed amendments to the civil
enforcement procedures related to notice and fines, an update of the Capital Facilities Plan, a discussion regarding potential
amendments to the Home Occupation Regulations, a discussion of potential amendments to the Street Tree Plan, and a
discussion about the potential annexation of the Meadowdale Beach area.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Vice Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services staff has invited a Board Member to
help judge the sand castle contest on August 10th. Board Member Stewart agreed to judge the contest again this year.
Vice Chair Lovell said he received an email from Board Member Bowman announcing that he would resign his position on
the Board, and July 14th will be his last meeting. That means there will be two vacant Board positions. He stressed the
importance of good attendance over the next few months so that a quorum is present at each meeting. He said he reviewed
the Board’s attendance policy and determined that Board Member Clarke’s absences have not crossed the threshold that
would require him to resign his position.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Guenther said he has served on the Board since 2001, and he has reached a point where he feels it is time for
him to resign. He said his decision started last year when work-related responsibilities required him to miss several
meetings. He felt he was unable to contribute to the degree he should. He commented that they have an excellent Board and
all members are well qualified and have good opinions. He said he felt he was leaving at a good time.
Vice Chair Lovell thanked Board Member Guenther for his service on the Board. He said he helped him a lot when he first
joined the Board, and he has been a tremendous asset to the City.
Board Member Stewart thanked Board Member Guenther for his long years of service, and said it has been a pleasure
serving with him. He will be missed. She suggested that when new appointments have been made, the Board should
consider the idea of appointing a student representative to serve on the Board. She expressed her belief that the Board could
use an infusion of young, fresh ideas.
Board Member Cloutier reminded the Board of the decision they made at their retreat to continue their work on sustainability
indicators by starting with the Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan. He reported that he and Board Member
Stewart would meet with Mr. Chave and Public Works staff to discuss the implementation of appropriate indicators. They
would report back to the Board at a future meeting.
Packet 236 of 294
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 12, 2010 Page 14
priorities. The Board agreed it would make sense to combine the two. Mr. Chave cautioned that neighborhood compatibility
and the process will still be the main issues of concern, but they will not be insurmountable.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if a person who owns two, 20,000 square foot lots would be allowed to subdivide the properties to
increase density. Mr. Chave answered that the density could not be increased. For example, the RS-20 zone would only
allow two lots to be created with a 40,000 square foot lot. However, an RS-6 zone would allow up to six lots. The purpose
of the PRD Ordinance is to allow developers to cluster homes on a property in order to protect trees or a critical area
elsewhere on the site. However, the density would remain the same. Vice Chair Lovell said he would support whatever the
City can do to promote better use of land.
Mr. Chave said the issue staff hears time and time again with subdivision proposals is the surrounding property owners’
desire to protect vegetation. The codes related to existing vegetation are very weak at this time, and staff recommends that
more sensitivity be built into the regulations to encourage and even require tree retention. Instead of subdividing the easy
way, the code could provide tools to approach the issue from the standpoint of arranging the building sites to retain trees.
This would be a win/win situation for everyone. Board Member Cloutier said that rather than increasing density, the City’s
Regulations should focus on smarter density. The code should require the same density, but it is more a matter of locating
the density in the right place. For example, instead of having large yards in front of each house, they could have one
common open space.
Board Member Cloutier said he would support any amendments that eliminates the restrictions on lot size and width. He
would also support amendments that encourage passive measures that save overhead for the City, the developer and the
property owner. They should also mandate, as much as possible, anything that would facilitate solar access. He referred to
Attachment 3, which provides good ideas about setbacks and orientation to encourage better solar access. However, he
observed that if the City is going to encourage tree retention, solar access might not be possible in all locations. Mr.
Clugston agreed that solar access requirements would work well in some locations, but not in others.
Board Member Cloutier observed that requiring subdivisions to provide geothermal energy for the neighborhood would be a
good thing, but he does not know of any city that has been able to accomplish this goal. It must be done in a way that makes
sense and is affordable and effective. Mr. Clugston said he had a conversation with a gentleman in Woodinville about
whether or not it would be feasible to require subdivisions to provide geothermal energy. He responded that the option
might not be possible for small subdivisions, but it could be feasible for larger subdivisions because the payback would be
within five to ten years. He suggested that perhaps geothermal energy should not be mandatory but encouraged for larger
subdivisions.
Mr. Clugston said he would bring back options for the Board to consider at their next meeting, and the Board could discuss
and prioritize the various alternatives. They could also suggested additional options to consider. Mr. Chave said that rather
than providing the Board Members each with a copy of the entire code in draft form, they would offer a series of ideas and
explain how they could be incorporated into the code language. The items could be grouped together based on the outline
provided by Mr. Clugston.
Board Member Johnson said she would like to know more about the history of PUD’s and PRD’s in Edmonds. There is a
PRD in her neighborhood, and she would like to know how many of these developments exist in the City.
Board Member Cloutier questioned how the City could avoid developments such as the one that was recently constructed on
212th (referred to by Ms. Petso). Mr. Clugston said it is all about design standards. The current code allows this type of
development to occur on any multi-family zoned property. Board Member Cloutier encouraged staff to place this item on the
Board’s work list for future consideration. Mr. Chave agreed that the multi-family residential code language is out of sync
with new development types. It is predicated on the old style of large, multi-family buildings.
UPDATE ON COMPREHENSIVE PAN PURPOSE, EFFECT, AND CONTEXT AMENDMENTS AND HEARING
EXAMINER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
Packet 237 of 294
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 12, 2010 Page 15
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the draft of potential amendments to the introductory sections of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, which address the plan’s purpose and scope. He reminded the Board that the reasons for making the proposed changes
are:
The region, through the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), adopted Vision 2040 in 2008, which provided new
guidance and a new framework for planning in the Puget Sound Region.
Snohomish County Tomorrow is in the process of updating countywide planning policies to be consistent with Vision
2040.
The Comprehensive Plan has been updated to include a new Community Sustainability Element, which provides a
central framework for the plan.
Some of the discussion in the City’s Comprehensive Plan is out of date, specifically the introductory sections on scope,
purpose, effect of plan and state and regional context.
As Mr. Hertrich pointed out earlier in the meeting, Mr. Chave said the Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted as Title
15 in the Development Code. When the Growth Management Act (GMA) was adopted, the City revised the plan and made it
a separate document. When this change was made, some sections were not adequately updated to fit within the context of
the GMA. It is also important to keep in mind that the Development Code has changed a lot since that time. For example,
the processes are described in much more detail. The old language in the Comprehensive Plan points everything towards the
Hearing Examiner, which is in direct conflict with the current processes outlined in the Development Code. He explained
that, as per the current Development Code language, the Hearing Examiner role is to apply the development regulations to
projects, not to interpret and apply Comprehensive Plan policies. It is the Planning Board’s role to look for consistency
between the Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan policies.
Mr. Chave advised that the purpose of the proposed language is to clarify the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan
and the Development Code and describe how the processes work. He emphasized that the Growth Management Act is clear
that comprehensive plans are not intended to be looked at for consistency when reviewing development project applications.
Cities are supposed to adopt development regulations that are consistent with and implement their comprehensive plans. He
emphasized that the Development Code is the decision making point in the process where the City must decide which
Comprehensive Plan policies are preeminent and how they should be regulated. He disagreed with Mr. Tupper’s written
comments suggesting that more process is better. He cautioned that this could create conflict between the Development
Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
Vice Chair Lovell referred to the last sentence in the second paragraph on Page 3 of the draft proposal, which states that “It is
up to the community to determine its desired growth level and up to the government, particularly elected officials, to
implement the desired policies. He asked who “community” refers to. Mr. Chave answered that the citizens of Edmonds
would be considered participants in this process. He noted that this language already exists in the current Comprehensive
Plan. Board Member Cloutier explained that the desired growth level gets pushed on the City by the County as a target goal.
Mr. Chave agreed and said the City has more to say about how to accommodate the growth and less to say about how much
growth they must accommodate. He agreed to review the sentence to make sure it accurately reflects the current situation.
Vice Chair Lovell noted that Item A on Page 3 of the draft proposal states that Edmonds continues to be heralded as “The
Gem of the Puget Sound.” He questioned the use of this phrase. After a brief discussion, the Board agreed that it does not
matter whether this phrase is included in the language or not.
Vice Chair Lovell commented that the draft proposal is well done and accomplishes the goals identified by staff, to be
consistent with state, regional, and county goals. He recalled, however, that Mr. Murray raised a concern earlier about the
proposed amendment to change “view” to “public view.” Mr. Chave explained that this change is intended to recognize that
the City cannot protect private views, but they can protect public views. In his mind, it is a recognition of reality.
Vice Chair Lovell pointed out that affordability, low-income housing, and preserving existing housing stock is mentioned at
least twice in the proposed language. He asked if it staff believes the Growth Management Act will place more pressure on
cities to incorporate different types of housing options or convert existing housing to provide more affordable housing. Mr.
Chave said there are currently county and state initiatives to work around these concerns. However, he cautioned that the
Packet 238 of 294
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
May 12, 2010 Page 16
issue is not just about affordability, but about changing demographics and future housing needs. He said he would be in
favor of creating inclusionary programs to create more affordable housing into projects, but the City must be able to offer
some incentives to encourage developers to participate. In addition, inclusionary housing requires the support of an agency
to help implement and monitor the program, and the City does not currently have sufficient staff to accomplish this task.
However, Snohomish County has talked about putting together an agency for this purpose, and once it is in place, the City
will have an opportunity to do something more significant to encourage affordable housing. He pointed out that Edmonds
has much more affordable housing than people realize. Most of it is in the form of rental housing, but owner-occupied
affordable housing is more of a challenge.
Board Member Johnson asked about the time frame for completion of the countywide policies. Mr. Chave said he is not sure
of the specific timeline for completion, but he anticipates they will be done by the fall of this year. He noted that the county
is currently working towards a draft document that will allow them to start the hearing process in the near future.
Board Member Johnson asked if the City would be required to revisit their Comprehensive Plan again once again when the
countywide policies have been adopted. Mr. Chave agreed the City would need to review their Comprehensive Plan again to
make sure it is consistent with the countywide policies. However, it is important to keep in mind that as long as the language
acknowledges and pays heed to the regional vision, the consistency issue will be moot when looking at the countywide
material. The countywide plan will be based upon the regional vision.
The Board agreed to schedule a public hearing based on the draft proposal.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave announced that staff is in the process of updating the extended agenda.
Vice Chair Lovell announced that a retreat has been scheduled for June 2nd at 6:00 p.m. in the Fourtner Room of City Hall.
The Board agreed to discuss possible agenda topics at their next meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Vice Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Reed reported that he attended the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) Land Use
Subcommittee meeting in place of Board Member Johnson. Their goal is to establish a neighborhood planning process that
could be used in various locations throughout the City such as Five Corners, Westgate, etc. Rather than waiting for a private
developer to plan for these areas, which was the case for Firdale Village, the subcommittee was interested in a public process
that is led by the City.
Mr. Chave said he attended the subcommittee meeting, as well, and made the suggestion that they request help from the
Cascade Land Conservancy, which offers 25 complimentary staff hours to help local jurisdictions. The subcommittee met
with the Community/Development Services Committee of the City Council, and received approval to move forward. Mr.
Chave said he intends to work with the Cascade Land Conservancy, the University of Washington, and the Land Use
Subcommittee to put together a process to share with the full CEDC and then forward to the City Council for approval and
funding.
Board Member Reed said he mentioned to the Land Use Subcommittee that the Planning Board has expressed an interest in
talking to them about land use ideas at some point in time, and they were receptive to the idea. Mr. Chave suggested the
project would be a team effort with the staff, the Cascade Land Conservancy, the University of Washington, and
representatives from the CEDC and the Planning Board. He noted that because they are legislative issues, Board Members
can freely participate in the neighborhood planning processes.
Packet 239 of 294
Approved
Planning Board Minutes
March 10, 2010 Page 3
are interested in the environment, and many of them are planning activities that would take place on Earth Day (April 22nd).
He suggested it might be possible to hold a public event in association with Earth Day to solicit feedback about what the
community feels are important indicators for sustainability. The event could be advertised to the public and information
could be posted on the City’s website with a request that citizens identify additional indicators they would like the City to
consider.
Chair Bowman asked if it would be possible for the City to conduct a random mailing. He expressed concern that not
everyone in the City would receive adequate notification of the open house and many would not be able to attend. Mr.
Chave cautioned that a survey would be costly. He suggested a better way to make the information assessable to people who
cannot attend the open house would be to post it on the City’s website. People could be invited to vote on line for the
options they prefer.
Mr. Chave summarized that holding an open house in conjunction with Earth Day would be a natural way for the City to
solicit feedback from the public without expending a significant amount of money to create an outreach program from
scratch. However, he noted that the open house must be put together in a short time frame. Board Member Stewart
suggested the Board form a subcommittee to gather ideas for the open house. The Board concurred, and Chair Bowman,
Board Member Cloutier, and Board Member Stewart were appointed to serve on the subcommittee. They further agreed that
the subcommittee would provide an interim report to the Board on March 24th. It was noted that Board Member Cloutier
also serves on the Sustainable Edmonds Committee and the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee. Board Members were
invited to forward their questions to Mr. Chave, who would meet with the subcommittee sometime within the next week.
PREVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE, EFFECT AND CONTEXT
AMENDMENTS
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the PSRC, adopted Vision 2040 in 2008 (updated in 2009), which provided new
guidance and a new framework for planning in the Puget Sound Region. The updated regional goals were incorporated into
the Community Sustainability Element, but the references in the Comprehensive Plan to the regional plan need to be updated
since much has changed. He noted that the Board’s discussion would probably not include the countywide plan because
Snohomish County has not completed their work. However it would be worthwhile to recognize the different direction that
is emerging in the County’s work. At this time, Snohomish County Tomorrow is working to align the countywide planning
policies with Vision 2040, which is the same thing the City is talking about for their local plan. Therefore, it is less
important to deal with specific policy direction from Snohomish County Tomorrow; as long as they focus their update on the
Vision 2040 Plan, they will accomplish both. He cautioned that the City’s update should focus on Edmonds while
acknowledging that they are trying to be consistent with Vision 2040.
Mr. Chave reported that specific issues were raised before the City Council that the introductory sections (scope, purpose,
etc.) were out of date. He explained that the City’s Comprehensive Plan used to be contained in Chapter 15 of the
Development Code and was a much shorter document. However, as a result of the Growth Management Act (GMA), the
City adopted a stand-alone Comprehensive Plan, using many of the policies contained in Chapter 15. Unfortunately, they
forgot there were a few unique statements in the old Comprehensive Plan that were no longer applicable. For example,
having the Hearing Examiner rule on the consistency of projects to the Comprehensive Plan is no longer appropriate because
the City Council makes these decisions as part of the budget and capital planning processes. When a new Transportation
Element is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, it identifies all of the projects that are part of the plan. Therefore,
individual projects would automatically be consistent with the plan. Having the Hearing Examiner rule separately on
projects that are identified in the Comprehensive Plan would be redundant. Staff’s goal is to recommend amendments that
would make the Comprehensive Plan language consistent with the City’s current processes.
Board Member Cloutier referred to Item B on Page 3 of the Staff Report, which states “growth management policies should
insure that as a residential community Edmonds continues to be heralded as “The Gem of Puget Sound, . . .” He noted that
this concept has not been discussed by any of the City’s current committees or commissions. Mr. Chave noted that the
language has been part of the Comprehensive Plan for 20 years.
Packet 240 of 294
Approved
Planning Board Minutes
March 10, 2010 Page 4
Board Member Johnson asked the significance of italicizing certain language in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave did not
have an answer. He summarized that he does not anticipate the proposed amendments would change the purpose and intent
of the Comprehensive Plan. Instead, the changes would make the document consistent with the City’s current practices.
Board Member Reed said there are references to the “Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center” and “Edmonds Crossing”
throughout the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the current focus of the activity center and the Edmonds Crossing Project
has changed. He questioned if it would be appropriate to update the Comprehensive Plan accordingly. If so, he asked who
would be responsible for initiating the changes. Mr. Chave explained that Comprehensive Plan amendments can be initiated
by the staff, the City Council, the Board or a private citizen. However, amendments must be submitted by the end of the year
in order to be considered as part of the docket of amendments for the following year.
Board Member Guenther recalled that when the Board previously reviewed a series of Comprehensive Plan amendments,
they divided into subcommittees to work on specific areas such as the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor and the
Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. He asked if this would be an appropriate approach for addressing amendments
related to Edmonds Crossing. Mr. Chave said there have been no formal changes that would warrant the City announcing
that it would reexamine the Comprehensive Plan relative to Edmonds Crossing. He said there has been a lot of discussion
and potential work may surface in the near future, but until the City actually receives a proposal, it would be difficult for the
Board to consider unilateral changes to the Comprehensive Plan. He also cautioned that it would not be appropriate for the
Board to initiate a Comprehensive Plan change related to the Edmonds Crossing Project without direction from the City
Council. He summarized that if there are significant changes, perhaps they could be addressed as part of the City’s required
update of the Comprehensive Plan in 2011. He noted that even if the Legislature decides to push back the deadline until
2014, the City would not be precluded from updating their Comprehensive Plan in 2011 or 2012 to address this issue. Board
Member Reed agreed it would make sense to postpone the City’s review of the Comprehensive Plan related to Edmonds
Crossing until the 2011 update.
Board Member Guenther said he had a telephone conversation with a local developer regarding the process for changing the
Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the Hospital/Medical Activity Center. He observed that Swedish Medical has taken over
management of Steven’s Hospital, and they are planning to spend a significant amount of money to improve the facility. The
developer suggested the City should consider the potential of expanding the hospital area at some point in the future. Board
Member Guenther said he suggested the developer approach the City Council with his idea and first gain their support.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Mr. Chave agreed to meet with Chair Bowman and Vice Chair Lovell to complete an extended agenda for the first half of
2010. It would be presented to the Board at their next meeting.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Bowman apologized for missing meetings because of work-related responsibilities. He noted that he should be
available for future meetings.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Lovell said it appears from the minutes of the City Council’s retreat that there has been a formalized
suggestion or recommendation to place the aquatics center on the November ballot. Board Member Cloutier indicated that
he attended the City Council retreat. While the suggestion was made to place the aquatics center on the ballot, the City
Council did not take action to do so. There was discussion that if they did have an election in 2010 it would be on lifting the
levy lid. The City Council agreed it would be inappropriate to place both items on the ballot at the same time.
Board Member Lovell noted that at the retreat, Council President Bernheim once again presented a proposal for
redevelopment of the waterfront. Board Member Cloutier agreed that a few presentations were made about different ways to
redevelop the waterfront property to maximize revenue without raising the height limit. No commitment was made on the
Packet 241 of 294
From: finis tupper [mailto:finistupper@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 12:09 PM
To: 'John & Gretchen Reed'
Subject: Planning Board.
(Dear John: Would you please read this into the record at the next planning board meeting.)
Purpose of a Comprehensive Plan is to establish a long-range plan, looking into the future,
addressing the needs and vision relating to land use, transportation, parks and open space,
community facilities and economic development. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan sets a
foundation for decision-making from a broad and far-reaching policy standpoint for all
governmental action even though the plan itself is not regulatory.
The most important power and duty granted to the City of Edmonds is the authority and
responsibility to regulate land-use for the sole purpose of protecting and promoting public health,
safety and general welfare of current and future citizens.
All private projects requiring city review and approval should be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
All public projects should have Hearing Examiner review and advisory opinion. All public
projects and street vacations must be consistent with and satisfy the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan. Having this requirement of a Hearing Examiner advisory opinion for all public projects,
capital facilities projects and street vacations provides additional public participation and ensures
the city council has another legal opinion ensuring consistency.
Planning Staff’s recommendation to the Planning Board to make changes to the Effect of Plan is
inconsistent and contrary to the Edmonds Municipal Code (EMC) and Hearing Examiner duties.
Specifically EMC 10.35(F) requires hearing examiner review, Vacations and Dedications, The
hearing examiner will review the comprehensive plan and report on the same prior to any street
vacation of dedication as provided in ECDC 15.05.020.
ECDC 15.05.020 was the Comprehensive Plan, Effect of Plan prior to the 1997 adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan as a separate stand alone document. The Mayor and City Staff admit their
failure to not act according to the mandatory requirement of a Hearing Examiner advisory
opinion prior to Council decision-making in the adoption of the street vacations, capital facilities
and property purchases. This failure is not a good enough reason to make changes to the current
Comprehensive Plan. Saying long ago adopted procedure is forgotten and does not apply does
not make it ripe for wholesale edit and elimination.
The Planning Board should not accept any change to the current Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
that is inconsistent with the Edmonds Municipal Code. Action like this just makes the process
less certain and contentious for those of us who know the code and understand the meaning of
the words.
Packet 242 of 294
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 29
PART III: Multicounty Planning Policies
The multicounty planning policies provide an integrated
framework for addressing land use, economic
development, transportation, other infrastructure, and
environmental planning. These policies play three key
roles: (1) give direction for implementing the Regional
Growth Strategy, (2) create a common framework for
planning at various levels within the four-county region,
including countywide planning, local plans, transit agency
plans, and others, and (3) provide the policy structure for
the Regional Council’s functional plans (the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan and the Regional Economic Strategy).
Overview
Implementing the Regional Growth Strategy.
The multicounty planning policies call for concentrating
growth within the region’s designated urban growth
area and limiting development in resource and rural
areas. The policies address land use, including urban,
rural, and resource lands, urban growth area designa-
tions, target-setting for population and employment,
and focusing development in centers. They also ad-
dress the important related issues of providing needed
infrastructure and services to manage growth, includ-
ing transportation facilities. Finally, they recognize the
link between development, mobility, the environment,
and the economy, and have been designed to provide
an integrated approach to sustainability, development,
economic prosperity, and the provision of services.
A Common Framework. Under the Growth Man-
agement Act, multicounty planning policies provide
a common regionwide framework for countywide
and local planning in the central Puget Sound region.
The unified structure established by the multicounty
policies has both practical and substantive effects on
city and county comprehensive plans. The multicounty
policies provide a mechanism for achieving consistency
among cities and counties on regional planning mat-
ters. They also guide a number of regional processes,
including the Regional Council’s policy and plan review
process, the evaluation of transportation projects seek-
ing regionally managed funding, and the development
Packet 243 of 294
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council30
[The Growth Management Act
and Multicounty Planning Policies
The Growth Management Act states that “multicounty
planning policies shall be adopted by two or more
counties, each with a population of 450,000 or more,
with contiguous urban areas and may be adopted by
other counties.” (RCW 36.70A.210 (7))
of criteria for Regional Council programs and projects.
(These and other processes are described in fuller detail
in Part IV, the Implementation section.)
Countywide planning policies complement multicounty
policies and provide a more specific level of detail to
guide county and local comprehensive planning in each
of the four counties. Both multicounty and countywide
planning policies address selected issues in a consistent
manner, while leaving other issues to local discretion.
Much of the implementation of VISION 2040 occurs
through local planning and actions.
Multicounty planning policies also guide various regional
planning programs and serve as the framework for vari-
ous growth management, economic development, and
transportation projects carried out by the Puget Sound
Regional Council and others. Both the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (Destination 2030) and the Regional
Economic Strategy are guided by the multicounty plan-
ning policies in VISION 2040.
VISION 2040 POLICY APPROACH
VISION 2040’s focus on people, prosperity and the
planet challenges the region to develop healthy and safe
communities for all people, to apply an environmental
ethic in business and economic practices, to take steps
to conserve resources, and to enhance natural and built
environments. The policies and provisions in VISION 2040
have been developed with attention to social equity and
environmental justice.
To achieve this end, the multicounty planning policies
are grouped in six overall categories: (1) environment, (2)
development patterns, (3) housing, (4) economy, (5) trans-
portation, and (6) public services. (Note: A small set of
general policies is also included following this overview.)
The policies reflect the commitment in the vision state-
ment “to protect the environment, to create vibrant,
livable, and healthy communities, to offer economic op-
portunities for all, to provide for safe and efficient mobility,
and to use the region’s resources wisely and efficiently.”
GOALS — POLICIES — ACTIONS — MEASURES
The multicounty planning policies are presented in a
four-part framework with: (1) goals, (2) policies, (3) ac-
tions, and (4) measures.
Goals. Goals speak to the desired outcomes for each
of the topics covered in VISION 2040. They set the tone
for the integrated approach and common framework
A Framework
for Regional Planning in Central Puget Sound
VISION 2040 Policy Structure
PUBLIC SERVICES
ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMY
TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS
HOUSING
Regional
Growth Strategy
Packet 244 of 294
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 31
for the regional policies. Each policy section of VISION
2040 begins with an overarching goal that provides
the context for the policies and provisions that follow.
Additional goals are then provided for specific policy
topics in each section.
Policies. The multicounty planning policies are de-
signed to be broad. They provide overall guidance and
direction for planning processes and decision-making at
both regional and local levels. Given the strong integra-
tion across the various policy sections in VISION 2040,
the full body of multicounty policies is to be considered
in decision-making for various programs, projects, and
planning processes. The multicounty policies also serve
as planning guidelines and principles as required by state
law to provide a common framework for regional and
local planning, particularly in the area of transportation
planning and its relationship to land use.
Actions. VISION 2040 includes actions that relate to
implementing each policy section. These actions lay out
responsibilities and tasks for implementation. The actions
include a wide range of items — some directed at the
Puget Sound Regional Council, others geared to member
jurisdictions. Recognizing the different capacity of various
municipalities to work on plan-related provisions, the
Regional Council and/or the counties will make efforts to
assist smaller cities and towns in addressing these actions.
The actions are organized according to level of responsi-
bility for implementation. The regional level includes ac-
tions for which the Regional Council would primarily be
responsible. The county level includes actions identified
for each county or its countywide growth management
planning body. Finally, local-level actions are intended for
implementation by individual counties and cities. Each
action includes a brief statement describing the action in
general terms, followed by results or products related to
the action. Information is also provided on the expected
timeframe for carrying out the action. Short-term gener-
ally refers to a one- to three-year time period. Mid-term
refers to a three- to five-year time period. References are
included to specific policies or sets of policies to which
each action relates.
Measures. Finally, measures for assessing how the
region is meeting the goals and provisions of the policies
are included in the Implementation section (Part IV).
The purpose of these measures is to track whether ac-
tions are occurring and whether the region is achieving
desired results. This information will assist policymakers
[Analysis of Fiscal Impact
The Growth Management Act requires that countywide
and multicounty planning policies address an analysis of
fiscal impact. The Central Puget Sound Hearings Board
concluded in City of Snoqualmie versus King County
(1993), that “the purpose of the fiscal impact analysis is
to realistically assess the fiscal costs and constraints of
implementing countywide planning policies and thereby
to contribute to the design of an effective strategy to
overcome those constraints.” The Hearings Board stated
that “this task was imposed on cities and counties because
they are the units of government directly responsible for
creating and implementing the countywide planning
policies, as well as the parties most directly affected fiscally
by implementation of the countywide planning policies.”
Within the central Puget Sound region, analysis of fiscal
impact is deferred to the respective countywide planning
policies for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties.
Future Amendments to VISION 2040
Amendments to multicounty planning policies require
formal action by the Regional Council’s General Assembly.
However, revisions, changes, or additions to actions
or measures may be made by the Executive Board.
Substantive amendments to VISION 2040 will be made —
as needed — in advance of the regular schedule for major
updates to local comprehensive plans, as required by the
Growth Management Act.
as they assess policies and actions over time.
Regional monitoring is based upon two major compo-
nents: implementation monitoring and performance
monitoring. Implementation monitoring attempts to
answer the question, “Are we doing what we said we
would do?” Performance monitoring addresses, “Are we
achieving the desired results?” Answering these ques-
tions provides the guiding framework for the Regional
Council’s monitoring program.
The measures selected for this program are not intended
to be entirely comprehensive or to provide all of the
answers. Rather, they have been selected to provide the
region’s decision-makers a broad view of the state of the
region, with a high-level perspective about whether key
implementation actions are being accomplished, and if
the region is seeing desired results.
Packet 245 of 294
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 13
VISION 2040 is a shared strategy for how and where
the central Puget Sound region can grow to a forecast
5 million people and 3 million jobs by the year 2040. The
Regional Growth Strategy looks at how the region can
distribute forecast growth, primarily within the designated
urban growth area. The strategy is a description of a
preferred pattern of urbanization that has been designed
to minimize environmental impacts, support economic
prosperity, promote adequate and affordable housing,
improve mobility, and make efficient use of existing
infrastructure. The strategy provides regional guidance
for counties, cities, and towns to use as they develop new
local population and employment growth targets and
update local comprehensive plans. The Regional Growth
Strategy describes a pattern of vibrant urban areas and
healthy rural and natural resource landscapes that reflects
the region’s commitment to people, prosperity and planet.
The region’s first growth management strategy, adopted
in 1990 as the original VISION 2020, was developed to
better integrate land use and transportation planning.
Following guidance in the state Growth Management
Act, VISION 2020 was updated in 1995 to provide a
regional framework for focusing growth within the
defined urban growth area, especially within compact
urban communities and vibrant centers of activity. The
strategy was also designed to help preserve rural areas
and resource lands, address economic development, and
advance more orderly patterns of development.
VISION 2040 continues to emphasize the important role
of centers and compact urban communities in accom-
modating future population and employment. VISION
2040 envisions a future where:
• The overall natural environment is restored, protected,
and sustained.
• Population and employment growth is focused within
the designated urban growth area.
• Within the urban growth area, growth is focused in cities.
• Within cities, centers serve as concentrations of jobs,
housing, and other activities.
PART II: Regional Growth Strategy
Packet 246 of 294
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council14
• A better balance of job locations and housing is
achieved, facilitated, and supported by incentives and
investments.
• Rural development is minimized.
• Resource lands are permanently protected, supporting
the continued viability of resource-based industries,
such as forestry and agriculture.
Focusing Growth in the Urban Growth Area and in Centers
receive a significant proportion of future population and
employment growth when compared to the rest of the
urban area. Centers of different sizes and scales — from
the largest centers to the smallest — are envisioned for
all of the region’s cities.
Concentrating growth in centers allows cities and other
urban service providers to maximize the use of existing
infrastructure, make more efficient and less costly invest-
ments in new infrastructure, and minimize the environ-
mental impact of urban growth. Centers create improved
accessibility and mobility for walking, biking, and transit,
and as a result play a key transportation role in the region.
Regional growth centers are envisioned as major focal
points of higher density population and employment,
served with efficient multimodal transportation infra-
structure and services. These regionally designated
places are the primary locations for the arts, civic activity,
commerce, and recreation. The regional growth cen-
ters, with their concentration of people and jobs, form
the backbone of the transportation network for the
four-county region. Linking these centers with a highly
efficient transportation system allows the region to take
actions to reduce the rate of growth in vehicle miles trav-
eled, especially by providing and expanding transporta-
tion choices. Consequently, regionally significant centers
should receive priority in regional and local investments
in the infrastructure and services that are critical for sup-
porting growth.
Manufacturing/Industrial Centers. The region also
contains a number of manufacturing/industrial centers.
These are existing employment areas with intensive, con-
centrated manufacturing and industrial land uses that can-
not be easily mixed with other activities. Manufacturing/
The Growth Management Act identifies three distinct
landscapes: urban lands, rural lands, and natural resource
lands (i.e., agricultural, forest and mineral lands). The Act
makes clear that the long-term sustainability of rural and
resource lands is dependent on accommodating devel-
opment within the designated urban growth area.
Urban Land. Counties and cities are required to desig-
nate an urban growth area where growth is intended to
be concentrated as a means of controlling urban sprawl.
Since the Growth Management Act’s adoption, the
region’s counties, in consultation with their cities, have
identified and designated an urban growth area with
sufficient capacity to accommodate forecast growth.
Part of the intent of designating the urban growth area
is to help channel investments in infrastructure within
already built-up areas — especially cities — and to dis-
courage growth in rural areas.
Cities and Unincorporated Urban Areas. Within
the designated urban area, there are incorporated cities
and unincorporated urban growth areas. Portions of the
region’s unincorporated urban areas are designated as
potential annexation areas for cities. Since these potential
annexation areas can typically receive urban services
from adjacent cities, they should accommodate a greater
share of growth in unincorporated urban areas than
nonaffiliated areas.
Centers. The emphasis on the development of centers
throughout the region is at the heart of VISION 2040’s
approach to growth management. Centers are locations
characterized by compact, pedestrian-oriented develop-
ment, with a mix of different office, commercial, civic,
entertainment, and residential uses. While relatively small
geographically, centers are strategic places identified to
• Existing infrastructure and new investments are used
more efficiently and effectively, and are prioritized
for areas that are planning for and accommodating
growth.
• Meaningful steps are taken to reduce carbon emis-
sions and minimize the region’s contribution to
climate change.
Packet 247 of 294
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 15
industrial centers are intended to continue to accommo-
date a significant amount of regional employment.
Manufacturing/industrial centers have a different urban
form and purpose than regional growth centers. They
can be characterized as areas of large contiguous blocks
served by the region’s major transportation infrastructure,
including roads, rail, and port facilities. These centers have
generally developed an urban form suitable for outdoor
storage and facilities, with large spaces for the assembly
of goods. They do not typically contain residential uses.
Protecting these centers from incompatible uses, as well
as providing them with adequate public facilities and
services, requires deliberate and careful planning. Good
access to the region’s transportation system, in particular,
will contribute to their continued success.
Rural Land. The region’s varied rural areas offer a
diverse set of natural amenities. Common elements of
rural areas include small-scale farms, wooded areas, lakes
and streams, and open spaces. Technically, rural lands are
those areas that are not designated for urban growth,
agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. Rural develop-
ment can consist of a variety of uses and residential
patterns that preserve rural character.
Natural Resource Lands. Most of the region’s total
land area is designated as natural resource lands. These
areas include agricultural lands that have long-term sig-
nificance for the commercial production of food or other
agricultural products, forest lands that have long-term
significance for the commercial production of timber,
and mineral lands that have long-term significance for
the extraction of minerals. The vast majority of this land
falls under the forest lands designation, and much of this
is protected under federal, state, and local regulations.
Critical Areas. The Growth Management Act requires
that each city and county identify and protect critical
areas before identifying areas of urban growth. Critical
areas include both hazardous areas, such as floodplains
and steep slopes, and environmentally sensitive areas,
such as wetlands and streams. Critical areas also include
zones that are important for protecting groundwater, fish,
and wildlife habitat areas, frequently flooded areas, and
geologically hazardous areas. The Act requires that the
best available science be used in the designation and pro-
tection of critical areas. In practice, counties and cities do
allow a certain amount of development in critical areas.
In most jurisdictions, however, development can occur
only under certain circumstances, such as when disrup-
tion to critical areas is minimal. The Endangered Species
Act, a federal statute protecting threatened and endan-
gered species, can override rights to develop by prohibit-
ing activities that might interfere with protected species.
Development, Sustainability and the Climate.
Since the adoption of the Growth Management Act, a
transformational issue has emerged that has the po-
tential to affect nearly every topic addressed by VISION
2040 and the future of the region: global climate change.
Human factors associated with climate change include
not only the methods we employ to create energy, travel,
and manufacture and transport goods, but also the en-
ergy requirements of the very communities and patterns
of development created over the last 50 years.
In response to the central challenge to reduce energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions while creat-
ing more sustainable communities, VISION 2040 builds on
the state Growth Management Act framework, as well as
on the regional emphasis of focusing growth into centers.
[Development Patterns and Climate Change
Studies show that the infrastructure requirements, building
operations, and transportation needs associated with
low-density development patterns result in roughly two
and a half times the annual greenhouse gas emissions and
two times the energy used per capita compared to higher
density development patterns.
(“Comparing High and Low Residential Density” in Journal of
Urban Planning and Development — March 2006)
Packet 248 of 294
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council16
Distributing Growth Using Regional Geographies
A hallmark of VISION 2040 is its Regional Growth Strategy
that provides specific numeric guidance to achieve a
development pattern with fewer environmental impacts
and a more compact urban form. VISION 2040 provides
guidance for the distribution of growth to regional
geographies, which are defined by the idea that different
types of cities and unincorporated areas will play distinct
roles in the region’s future. Cities, towns, and neighbor-
hoods of various sizes and character will continue to
offer a wide choice of living options. The region’s original
growth center concept fits within the regional geog-
raphies framework, with centers of different sizes and
scales envisioned for all cities.
In the Regional Growth Strategy, the region’s landscape
has been divided into seven types of geographies.
Metropolitan Cities (five cities) and Core Cities (14 cities,
including unincorporated Silverdale) have cities with
designated regional growth centers. These two groups
of cities are and will be the most intensely urban places
in the region. The Larger Cities (18 cities) category groups
together the next tier of large cities that have similar
amounts of population and employment.
The Small Cities (46 cities) category is further subdivided
into three types to reflect the wide variety of smaller
cities and towns throughout the region, as well as the
different roles they will likely play in accommodating
forecast growth. Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas
capture a wide variety of urban lands, both lightly and
heavily developed. The transformation of these urban
lands will be critical to the region’s future success. Rural
Areas and Natural Resources Lands are categories that
describe the different types of unincorporated areas out-
side the urban growth area, and include very low-density
housing, working landscapes, and open space.
These regional geographies provide a framework for the
distribution of the region’s forecast growth for the year
2040. The use of these geographies provides more speci-
ficity than at the broader county level, yet it does not
get too specific at the individual city level. (However, in
some instances an individual city may stand alone within
a regional geography category.) This framework provides
clearer regional guidance about the roles of different
types of cities in accommodating regional growth.
A Guide for Growth Planning. The Regional Growth
Strategy focuses the majority of the region’s employment
and housing growth into both Metropolitan and Core
Cities, which together contain more than two dozen
designated regional growth centers. The centers in these
cities are intended to attract residents and businesses
because of their proximity to services and jobs, a variety
of housing types, access to regional amenities, high qual-
ity transit service, and other advantages.
Centers in other Larger Cities also play an important and
increased role over time as places that accommodate
growth. These are locations in and around traditional
downtown main streets, town centers, neighborhood
shopping areas, key transit stations, ferry terminals, and
other transportation and service centers. These centers
provide local and regional services and amenities, and
are also locations of redevelopment and increased activ-
ity, becoming more significant secondary job centers.
At a smaller scale, locally identified city and town centers
also serve similar roles for Small Cities, providing services
and housing that support vital and active communi-
ties at intensities appropriate to smaller municipalities.
Growth in the unincorporated urban growth area would
be prioritized in areas that are affiliated for annexation
into incorporated jurisdictions. In the Regional Growth
Strategy, significantly less residential growth would occur
in the region’s rural areas than the trend suggested in
current adopted growth targets and plans.
Future Adjustments. Cities were grouped into their
respective regional geographies based on year 2000
population numbers from the U.S. Census, and PSRC
employment numbers based on estimates derived from
the Washington State Employment Security Department.
The Regional Council recognizes that as cities continue
to grow, both through net increase and through an-
nexation of unincorporated areas, their population and
employment levels may change significantly. To reflect
these changes, it is anticipated that the Regional Coun-
cil’s Executive Board will make a technical amendment to
the Regional Growth Strategy to potentially reclassify cities
before the region’s counties undertake the next round
of Growth Management Act target-setting work. (This is
anticipated to occur in 2011 or earlier.)
Packet 249 of 294
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 17
The Regional Growth Strategy by the Numbers
The VISION 2040 growth strategy is com-
prised of two parts. First is a growth concept
that builds on the foundation provided in the
Growth Management Act, emphasizing the role
of the urban growth area and urban centers
in accommodating future population and
employment. The second part — the numbers
by regional geographies — contains specific
guidance for the distribution of growth.
The regional geographies framework calls for
focusing growth primarily into different catego-
ries of cities, and recognizes the different roles
of the region’s counties in accommodating
population and employment growth.
The Regional Growth Strategy is intended to
guide and coordinate the region’s cities and
towns as they periodically update local residen-
tial and employment growth targets — based
on population forecasts developed by the state
Office of Financial Management — and amend
their local comprehensive plans.
The Regional Growth Strategy calls for different
regional geographies to accommodate dif-
ferent shares of population and employment
growth — within the region as a whole, as well
as within each county. While relative amounts
may differ somewhat between counties, the
roles of regional geographies within each
county are consistent for the region as a whole.
Within each county, the relative distribution of
growth to individual cities will be determined
through countywide target-setting, taking into
account local circumstances.
The distribution of growth in the Regional
Growth Strategy was developed using Regional
Council small area regional population and
employment forecasts for the year 2040. When
looking at the numbers in the tables that fol-
low, the percentages of regional and county
growth may be more useful for local planning
than the specific numbers contained in the
forecasts, as the numbers will change margin-
ally in future rounds of regional forecasts.
Packet 250 of 294
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council18
Regional Growth Strategy for Central Puget Sound
Packet 251 of 294
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 19
Population Growth by Regional Geography and County, 2000–2040
Employment Growth by Regional Geography and County, 2000–2040
Snohomish County
Pierce County
Kitsap County
King County
Total Increase
2000 Base
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Population Growth by Regional Geography and County, 2000-2040
(Final Draft Techncial Amendment as of January 8, 2009)
600,000
Metropolitan Cities Core Cities Larger Cities Small Cities Unic’d UGA Rural Total
20% - 90,000 9% - 40,000 19% - 85,000 8% - 37,000 33% - 148,000 10% - 46,000 26% - 446,000
32% - 127,000 20% - 77,000 8% - 32,000 13% - 52,000 21% - 81,000 6% - 24,000 23% - 393,000
26% - 39,000 13% - 19,000 11% - 16,000 8% - 12,000 26% - 39,000 16% - 25,000 9% - 149,000
41% - 294,000 32% - 233,000 15% - 108,000 5% - 35,000 5% - 34,000 3% - 20,000 42% - 724,000
32% - 550,000 22% - 369,000 14% - 240,000 8% - 136,000 18% - 302,000 7% - 115,000 100% - 1,712,000
1,007,000 601,000 403,000 210,000 586,000 470,000 3,276,000
Snohomish County
Pierce County
Kitsap County
King County
Total Increase
2000 Base
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Employment Growth by Regional Geography and County, 2000-2040
(Final Draft Techncial Amendment as of January 8, 2009)
600,000
Metropolitan Cities Core Cities Larger Cities Small Cities Unic’d UGA Rural Total
37% - 91,000 14% - 35,000 23% - 56,000 6% - 15,000 14% - 34,000 6% - 14,000 20% - 246,000
46% - 97,000 19% - 41,000 7% - 15,000 14% - 30,000 10% - 22,000 3% - 7,000 17% - 212,000
22% - 14,000 23% - 15,000 8% - 5,000 13% - 9,000 27% - 18,000 7% - 4,000 5% - 65,000
45% - 311,000 38% - 262,000 11% - 74,000 3% - 22,000 3% - 20,000 1% - 5,000 57% - 695,000
42% - 513,000 29% - 354,000 12% - 151,000 6% - 76,000 8% - 94,000 2% - 30,000 100% - 1,218,000
931,000 532,000 161,000 74,000 133,000 60,000 1,892,000
Packet 252 of 294
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council20
Urban Regional Geographies
Metropolitan Cities. Each of the four counties in the region contains at least one central city that serves as a civic,
cultural, and economic hub. At least one regional growth center — if not more — has been designated within each of
these Metropolitan Cities to serve as a focal point for accommodating both population and employment growth.
The Regional Growth Strategy calls for the five Metropolitan Cities to accommodate 32 percent of regional popula-
tion growth and 42 percent of regional employment growth by the year 2040. (This is an increased role compared
to current adopted targets for the year 2025, which call for approximately 24 percent of regional population growth
and 40 percent of regional employment growth to occur in Metropolitan Cities.) It would be consistent with the spirit
of the Regional Growth Strategy for the region’s Metropolitan Cities to accommodate an even larger share of forecast
regional growth.
Metropolitan Cities (five cities, 222 square miles): Bellevue, Bremerton, Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma.
Metropolitan Cities in King and Pierce counties are expected
to accommodate larger shares of their respective counties’
growth than those in Kitsap and Snohomish counties.
City of Bellevue
Packet 253 of 294
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 21
Core Cities. The region also contains a number of other major cities with regionally designated growth centers,
which are intended to accommodate a significant share of future growth. These cities are called Core Cities in the
Regional Growth Strategy. These 13 cities (along with the unincorporated community of Silverdale) contain key hubs
for the region’s long-range multimodal transportation system, and are major civic, cultural, and employment centers
within their counties. The Regional Growth Strategy envisions a major role for these cities in accommodating growth.
The Regional Growth Strategy calls for the 14 Core Cities to accommodate 22 percent of the region’s population growth
and 29 percent of its employment growth by the year 2040. (This is an increased role compared to current adopted
targets for the year 2025, which call for approximately 17 percent of regional population growth and 26 percent of
regional employment growth to occur in Core Cities.)
Core Cities (14 total —13 cities plus Silverdale, 212 square miles): Auburn, Bothell, Burien, Federal Way, Kent,
Kirkland, Lakewood, Lynnwood, Puyallup, Redmond, Renton, SeaTac, Silverdale, and Tukwila.
King County’s Core Cities are expected to accommodate a
much larger share of King County’s growth than Core City
shares of Kitsap, Pierce and Snohomish counties.
City of Kent
Packet 254 of 294
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council22
Larger Cities. The region also contains other Larger Cities that are grouped together because they each have a
combined population and employment total over 22,500. This figure was a natural break among the region’s 82 cities
and towns. Many of these 18 cities are home to important local and regional transit stations, ferry terminals, park-and-
ride facilities, and other transportation connections. Central places within this group of cities are expected to become
more important subregional job, service, cultural, and housing centers over time. The Regional Growth Strategy envi-
sions an expanding role for these cities in accommodating growth.
The Regional Growth Strategy calls for the 18 Larger Cities to accommodate 14 percent of the region’s population
growth and 12 percent of its employment growth by the year 2040. (This is an increased role compared to current
adopted targets for the year 2025, which call for approximately 8 percent of regional population growth and 7 percent
of regional employment growth to occur in Larger Cities.)
Larger Cities (18 cities, 167 square miles): Arlington, Bainbridge Island, Des Moines, Edmonds, Fife, Issaquah,
Kenmore, Maple Valley, Marysville, Mercer Island, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace, Monroe, Mukilteo,
Sammamish, Shoreline, University Place, and Woodinville.
The shares of county growth going to Larger Cities are fairly
similar regionwide, with a somewhat lower share in Pierce
County.
City of Edmonds
Packet 255 of 294
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 23
Small Cities. The region’s 46 smaller cities and towns (see sidebar on the following page) are expected to remain
relatively small for the long term. Their locally designated city or town centers provide local job, service, cultural, and
housing areas for their communities. These central places should be identified in local comprehensive plans, and
become priority areas for future investments and growth at the local level. The Regional Growth Strategy envisions a
moderate role for most of these cities in accommodating growth.
The Regional Growth Strategy calls for 46 Small Cities to accommodate 8 percent of the region’s population growth and
6 percent of its employment growth by the year 2040, which is similar to their current role in accommodating growth.
This compares to current adopted targets for the year 2025, which call for approximately 10 percent of regional popu-
lation growth and 9 percent of regional employment growth to occur in Small Cities.
Small Cities (46 cities, 136 square miles): See sidebar on page 24 for a list of Small Cities.
Small Cities are located throughout the region and represent
nearly two-thirds of the region’s incorporated jurisdictions.
Small Cities in Pierce County are expected to accommodate
the highest share of regional Small City population growth.
City of Sumner
Packet 256 of 294
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council24
The Region’s Small Cities
The region’s Small Cities typically have a population well under 10,000, markedly smaller than the 31 Metropolitan, Core,
and Larger Cities. Among the region’s Small Cities are traditional suburbs, small residential towns, and cities in the rural area.
The Regional Growth Strategy recognizes these distinctions. The following list show the groupings of various small towns.[City of Port Orchard
City of Skykomish
Town of Hunts Point
• Cities Inside the Contiguous Urban Growth Area:
These cities will likely receive a larger share of Small
City growth due to their proximity to the region’s larger
cities, existing and planned transportation systems,
and other supporting infrastructure. Over time, some of
these cities may become Larger Cities, and assume an
even greater role in accommodating regional growth
and activity. Most, however, will remain relatively small
over the long term.
Algona, Black Diamond, Bonney Lake, Brier, Covington,
DuPont, Edgewood, Fircrest, Gig Harbor, Lake Forest
Park, Lake Stevens, Medina, Mill Creek, Milton, Newcastle,
Normandy Park, Orting, Pacific, Port Orchard, Poulsbo,
Ruston, Steilacoom, and Sumner.
• Small Residential Towns:
These very small towns are primarily residential, with
little potential for accommodating a great deal of
growth. They will likely remain quite similar to today,
and receive a lesser share of Small City growth.
Beaux Arts, Clyde Hill, Hunts Point, Woodway, and
Yarrow Point.
• Free-Standing Cities and Towns:
These cities are urban islands surrounded by rural and
resource lands and separated from the contiguous
urban growth area. They should serve as hubs for
relatively higher density housing choices, and as job and
service centers for surrounding rural areas. Due to their
isolation from the rest of the designated urban growth
area, they will likely receive a lesser overall share of Small
City growth, and are not expected to grow as much as
Small Cities within the contiguous urban growth area.
Buckley, Carbonado, Carnation, Darrington, Duvall,
Eatonville, Enumclaw, Gold Bar, Granite Falls, Index,
North Bend, Roy, Skykomish, Snohomish, Snoqualmie,
South Prairie, Stanwood, Sultan, and Wilkeson.
Packet 257 of 294
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 25
Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas. Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas represent the largest amount of
land area for any of the urban regional geography categories. These urban areas are quite diverse, with both lightly
developed fringe areas and neighborhoods that are much more urban and nearly indistinguishable from surrounding
incorporated jurisdictions. County buildable lands analyses suggest that these areas have the potential to accom-
modate significant growth for the long term, and that there will be little need to significantly expand the designated
urban growth area. The process for adjusting the urban growth area is provided in the Growth Management Act.
Approximately 60 percent of the lands within the Unincorporated Urban Growth Area has been identified by cities
as potential annexation areas, or is otherwise “affiliated” with cities for annexation. VISION 2040 envisions that in time
most of the unincorporated area inside the urban growth area will be affiliated with existing cities. It is assumed that
eventually all of this area will be annexed to or incorporated as cities.
Based on information from the region’s counties, approximately 70 percent of the population growth currently identi-
fied for the Unincorporated Urban Growth Area is planned for locations that are already affiliated for annexation with
existing cities and towns. These areas, which are closely related to their adjacent city, are expected to accommodate a
larger share of overall unincorporated urban growth than unaffiliated areas.
Careful planning and development of the unincorporated portions of the urban growth area are vital to ensure that they
assume appropriate urban densities and an urban form that can be efficiently supported by regional and local infrastruc-
ture and services. Planning and permitting that is well-
coordinated between the counties and adjacent cities will
be key to implementing the Regional Growth Strategy.
The Regional Growth Strategy calls for the Unincorporated
Urban Growth Area to accommodate 18 percent of the
region’s population growth and 8 percent of the em-
ployment growth by the year 2040. (This is a somewhat
decreased role in accommodating growth compared to
current adopted targets for the year 2025, which call for
approximately 30 percent of regional population growth
and 15 percent of regional employment growth in the
Unincorporated Urban Growth Area. Note that annexa-
tions have also reduced the overall land area of the
UUGA since 2025 targets were adopted.)
Unincorporated Urban Growth Areas (260 square
miles): All four counties have designated unincor-
porated urban growth areas, many of which are
affiliated for annexation with incorporated cities
and towns.
The unincorporated urban growth area in Snohomish
County has the highest share of anticipated population
and employment growth, followed by Kitsap, Pierce, and
King counties.
Packet 258 of 294
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council26
Rural and Natural Resource Regional Geographies
In addition to its focus on urban areas, the Regional Growth Strategy follows Growth Management Act guidance in sup-
porting the long-term use of rural and designated natural resource lands for farming and forestry, recreation, cottage
industries, mining, and limited low-density housing supported by rural levels of service. Cities and towns surrounded
by or adjacent to rural and resource areas should provide the majority of services and jobs for rural residents, as well as
more concentrated and varied housing options. The Regional Growth Strategy provides guidance on levels of residen-
tial growth in rural areas, encourages the transfer of development from rural and resource areas into urban areas, and
seeks to ensure that proposed levels of development are consistent with the character of rural and resource areas.
Rural Areas. Rural lands will not develop urban service levels or characteristics, or accommodate a great deal of
residential or employment growth. These areas are expected to retain important cultural, economic, and rural lifestyle
opportunities in the region over the long term. VISION 2040 calls for reduced rural population growth rates in all
counties. Rural population and employment growth in the Regional Growth Strategy represents a reduction in the
share of growth compared to current adopted growth targets for the year 2025. If they must identify growth for rural
areas at all, counties should be encouraged to plan for even lower growth — where possible — than contained in the
Regional Growth Strategy.
Rural Areas (1,464 square miles): All four counties have designated rural areas, which represent nearly
25 percent of the region’s land area.
Port Gamble, Kitsap County
Packet 259 of 294
Puget Sound Regional Council — VISION 2040 27
Natural Resource Lands. Lands designated as agriculture, forest, and mineral areas are grouped together as natural
resource areas. Resource lands will be permanently protected from incompatible residential and employment growth
to safeguard them as important economic, cultural, and environmental assets, and to protect the long-term viability of
resource-based industries. Even small amounts of residential growth in these areas can seriously interfere with produc-
tive natural resource harvest and processing. Fragmentation of large, contiguous acreages through subdivision is also
of particular concern. These areas will not accommodate significant future growth, and the Regional Growth Strategy
does not distribute population or employment to them.
Natural Resource Lands (3,863 square miles): Natural resource lands, representing 6o percent of the region’s
land area, have also been designated.
Pierce County
Packet 260 of 294
VISION 2040 — Puget Sound Regional Council28
Conclusion
The Regional Growth Strategy envisions Metropolitan,
Core, and Larger Cities playing a stronger role in accom-
modating forecast growth to help relieve development
pressure on rural and natural resource lands. New targets
will be developed that consider local circumstances and
conditions. Some cities may need to reexamine their
regional and local roles and approaches to accommodat-
ing growth in order to plan for the pattern of growth
presented in the strategy.
The region’s multicounty planning policies, presented in
Part III, are designed to implement the Regional Growth
Strategy. These policies guide countywide planning poli-
cies and local comprehensive plans, helping to ensure
that various planning efforts work together to achieve
the region’s vision for 2040.
(Detailed background information and county-level
detail for the guidance contained in the Regional Growth
Strategy are contained in a technical report: Regional
Growth Strategy Background.)
Packet 261 of 294
the Growth Management, Environmental, Economic and Transportation Strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region
How can the four counties of the central Puget Sound region grow to a forecasted
5 million people and over 3 million jobs by the year 2040 while enhancing the region’s
environment and overall quality of life? VISION 2040 answers that question with an
integrated growth management, environmental, economic and transportation strategy.
The Background
The Puget Sound Regional Council adopted VISION 2040 in April 2008. It is the
result of a 3 1/2 year public process undertaken by the region’s elected officials, public
agencies, interest groups, and individuals to establish a common vision for the future.
VISION 2040 consists of:
• An environmental framework
• A regional growth strategy
• Policies to guide growth and development
• Implementation actions
• Measures to track progress
Toward a Sustainable Environment: A Framework for the Future
VISION 2040 contains a new feature for regional planning, an environmental
framework that sets the stage for the document’s growth strategy, policies, actions
and measures to better assure that the region grows in ways that are consistent with
an environment that supports a high quality of life well into the future. It recognizes
that the needs of the region’s people, its economic prosperity, and the planet are tied
together in a mutually supportive and interdependent way.
A Regional Growth Strategy
VISION 2040’s regional growth strategy defines a preferred long-range growth pattern
for the central Puget Sound metropolitan area. It looks at the growth forecasted for
the region from the year 2000 through 2040, and provides guidance for how different
parts of the region can accommodate population and employment growth and fit into
an overall regional strategy. The growth strategy focuses the majority of the region’s
employment and housing growth into the largest cities, which contain more than
two dozen designated regional growth centers. Designated centers in these cities are
intended to attract residents and businesses because of their proximity to services and
jobs, a variety of housing types, access to regional amenities, mass transit service,
and other advantages. This focused strategy is designed to relieve growth pressure on
sensitive environmental, rural and natural resource areas, as well as on smaller cities
that will continue to offer a small-town lifestyle well into the future.
Multicounty Planning Policies
VISION 2040 establishes the region’s multicounty planning policies under the
Washington State Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). The region’s growth
management policies are organized into six subjects: Environment, Development
Patterns, Housing, Economy, Transportation, and Public Services. These policies
play three key roles: (1) give official direction for implementing the regional growth
strategy, (2) create a common framework for planning at various levels within the
region, including countywide planning, local plans, transit agency plans, and others,
and (3) provide the comprehensive policy structure for PSRC functional plans (the
Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Regional Economic Strategy).
Actions and Measures
VISION 2040 includes actions and measures. Actions identify ways to implement the
policies. Measures provide specific indicators and a monitoring and feedback program
to inform decision-makers on the progress being made to implement VISION 2040.
VISION 2040: Recommitment, New Features, and a Fresh Approach
VISION 2040 recommits the region to:
• Focus growth in urban areas, concentrated in centers and compact communities.
• Strengthen linkages between land use and transportation planning.
• Preserve and protect rural and resource lands.
• Address the needs of a diverse population.
New features of VISION 2040
• Moves from a conceptual plan to a clear and specific numeric regional growth
strategy based on forecast population and employment.
• A revised structure for multicounty planning policies that includes goals, policies,
actions, and measures.
• An environmental framework for decision making and integration of growth
management, transportation, and economic development planning.
• An expanded environmental policy section that addresses habitat, water and air
quality, and climate change.
• Transportation policies emphasizing increased safety, more choices and better
mobility through improved transit, ferries and roads, transportation pricing, and
mitigating environmental impacts, particularly greenhouse gas emissions.
• A strengthened economic section focused on business, people, and place based on
the Regional Economic Strategy.
• A new emphasis on housing affordability, supply and jobs/housing balance.
• New policies that address the relationship between the built environment and health.
• Attention to regional design.
For More Information
Please contact the PSRC Information Center at 206-464-7532 or info@psrc.org, or
visit the PSRC website at psrc.org.
V ISION 2040
people – prosperity – planet
Puget Sound
PORT OF
BREMERTON
April 2009
Puget Sound Regional Council
PSRC
psrc.org
VISION 2040
Regional Growth Strategy
Packet 262 of 294
AM-3401 Item #: 10.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilwoman Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Extension of sunset date for Citizens Economic Development Commission.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend Approval
Previous Council Action
April 21, 2009 - The Edmonds City Council approved Resolution No. 1198 related to addressing
long-term revenue challenges facing the City of Edmonds.
June 2, 2009 - The Edmonds City Council approved Ordinance 3735 which amended the
Edmonds City Code, Title 10, to add a new Chapter 10.75, thus creating a Citizens Economic
Development Commission.
Following several presentations by members of the 2009 Levy Review Committee, the City
Council approved Resolution No. 1198 which directed staff to create an ordinance forming a
Citizens' Economic Development Commission for the purposes of determining new strategies for
economic development within the City of Edmonds, and identifying new sources of revenue for
the City Council to consider. The City Council approved Ordinance 3735 which established an
Economic Development Commission through December 31, 2010.
Attachment 1: Resolution 1198
Attachment 2: Ordinance 3735
Narrative
As the City Council Liaison with the Economic Development Commission (EDC) it has become
apparent that the Commission will need another year in order to work through the seven items
listed on Resolution 1224. As such, Ordinance 3735 needs to be extended to 12/31/2011.
Attachment 3: Resolution 1224
Attachments
Attach 1 - Resolution CEDC 1198
Attach 2 -Ord 3735 Forming CEDC
Attach 3 Reso 1224
Packet 263 of 294
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 12:05 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/23/2010 02:09 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 02:11 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/23/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/23/2010
Packet 264 of 294
Packet 265 of 294
Packet 266 of 294
Packet 267 of 294
Packet 268 of 294
Packet 269 of 294
Packet 270 of 294
Packet 271 of 294
Packet 272 of 294
AM-3392 Item #: 11.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilman Strom Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Climate Solutions New Energy Cities.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize the Mayor to sign the contract with Climate Solutions and fully fund the contract with savings
from the Development Services Budget.
Previous Council Action
Climate Solution presented to Council on March 2, 2010 (Attachment 1) and to CS/DS Committee on
March 9, 2010 (Attachment 2). Council approved signing the contract with Climate Solutions on May
18, 2010 (5-1) (Attachment 3). On June 1, 2010 Council moved to reconsider because of uncertainty as
to the funding source (passed 3-1) (Attachment 4).
Narrative
Mayor Cooper, Councilmember Peterson, and staff identified unused revenues within the Development
Services Budget to fund the $15,000 contract with Climate Solutions. Since the June 1 meeting,
Councilmember Peterson also received unanimous support from the Mayor’s Climate Protection
Committee as well as unanimous support from the Citizens Economic Development Committee, to enter
into and fully fund the attached contract in the amount of $15,000.
Climate Solutions’ New Energy Cities program will help Edmonds channel investment into clean,
renewable, super-efficient energy systems that generate local jobs and economic development.
Key features on the New Energy Cities model include:
• A 20-year vision and policy framework for community-wide energy transformation
• An integrated approach of deep building efficiency retrofits, distributed renewable power, and new
energy infrastructure (smart grid, vehicle electrification, and district heating/cooling)
• Implementation strategies that overcome barriers to participation and that operate at scale
• Financing energy systems the same way cities finance traditional
infrastructure – long-term at modest interest rates – bringing both public and
private patient capital into play
• Authentic community engagement to bolster local policy leadership
Packet 273 of 294
• Local capacity-building and job training to maximize long-term community benefits
By deciding to work with Climate Solutions' New Energy Cities program, the City of Edmonds would be
joining a select group of innovative Northwest cities that are dedicating their resources to creating a better
life for their residents through deploying clean energy solutions. Joining the New Energy Cities program
will give the City of Edmonds exclusive access to the community of fellow New Energy Cities
practitioners, as well as to the network of New Energy Cities experts in energy efficiency, clean energy
financing, distributed renewable technologies, smart grids, and electric vehicles.
Attachment 5: 2010-09-10 Edmonds New Energy Cities Agreement.doc
Attachment 6: New Energy Cities FAQ
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:$15,000
Fiscal Impact:
Attachments
Attach 1 - March 2 2010 ApprovedCityCouncilMinutes
Attach 2 March 9 2010 CSDS Committee Minutes
Attach 3 -May 18 2010 ApprovedCityCouncilMinute
Attach 4 June 1 2010 Approved City Council Minutes
Attach 5 - Climate Solutions Agreement with City
Attach 6 - New Energy Cities FAQ
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 10:32 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/23/2010 01:53 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 01:56 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/21/2010 02:57 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/23/2010
Packet 274 of 294
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2010
Page 2
E. AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS CITY VEHICLES AND TO CONTRACT WITH
JAMES G. MURPHY AUCTIONEERS.
F. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND BUDGETED CONFERENCE REGISTRATION FUNDS
FOR EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSIONERS.
G. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY TO SURPLUS AND TRANSFER TITLE FOR ONE (1)
TOTALED POLICE VEHICLE.
H. PROPOSED SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUD DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT FOR THE
FIVE CORNERS BOOSTER PUMP STATION UPGRADE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.
I. CITY ATTORNEY ANNUAL REPORT.
J. ACCEPTANCE OF LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR
LIQUOR LICENSES WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD,
FEBRUARY 2010.
ITEM B: APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 23, 2010.
Mayor Haakenson referred to a memo from City Clerk Sandy Chase with several corrections to the
minutes.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 23, 2010 MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The amendments are as follows:
Page 1: Under “Staff Present,” Scott Snyder’s name is now removed.
Page 9: Last paragraph, changed the date “1980” to “1890” (the city’s incorporation date)
Page 10: Fifth paragraph, changed the date March 17, 2009 to September 16, 2008
Page 11: Fifth paragraph, changed “35-foot wide lots” to “30-foot wide lots.”
3. CLIMATE SOLUTIONS PRESENTATION.
Councilmember Peterson explained he was introduced to Climate Solutions when they made a
presentation at a Sustainable Edmonds meeting. Climate Solutions has worked with cities throughout the
Northwest via the creation of New Energy Cities. This is an opportunity for the Council and the
community to learn about clean energy, green building design, and other environmental efforts.
Eilene Quigley, Climate Solutions, New Energy Cities Program Director, explained Climate
Solutions is a northwest-based non-profit organization created over ten years ago with a mission of
accelerating practical and profitable solutions to global warming. Climate Solutions launched the New
Energy Cities program in 2009 to help pioneering northwest cities and counties lead the nation in an
economic strategy that creates jobs, saves money on energy, contributes to the nation’s energy
independence and furthers a robust, clean energy economy. New Energy Cities is about transforming the
way energy is delivered and used at the local level. Their systemic, non-incremental approach asks
communities to take charge of their energy destiny and think holistically about its energy consumption
and transition to a clean, renewable, super efficient energy system.
Climate Solutions works with elected leaders, the local business community, local non-profit
organizations, universities, community colleges and local utilities. They ask these key stakeholders to
invest in a 20-year vision that will achieve deep energy efficiency, deploy distributive renewable energy
and smart grid technology, pave the way for electric vehicles, incorporate a district energy approach and
secure capital, both public and private, that will finance these efforts over a 20-30 year period. She asked
Packet 275 of 294
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2010
Page 3
city leaders to think of energy in the same way they do roads, sewer and water and other amenities that
local jurisdictions provide to residents. Climate Solutions works with city leaders to craft a vision,
roadmap, action plan, financing model and implementation strategy.
Climate Solutions is seeking 6-10 pioneering cities throughout the four northwest states with a diverse set
of characteristics that will provide examples for similar cities and counties to emulate. She anticipated
success among the early innovators would translate into expansion to numerous cities through the
Northwest and potentially the United States. While they believe in the positive environmental benefits
that the clean energy economy will bring, they are equally excited about the potential for long term
economic development throughout the region and the country.
In 2008 Climate Solutions issued a report, “Carbon Free Prosperity,” that identified the case for how the
Northwest can create 41,000 – 63,000 direct jobs by 2025 in only 5 of the clean energy sectors. They are
also interested in supporting and growing a base of skilled workers and creating jobs that will last for at
least 20 years. As a non-profit organization, Climate Solutions raises money from foundations to support
their program which in turn enables them to offer their services at significantly discounted rates. For
example, they offer their workshop and road mapping exercise as well as their action plan for $15,000
when the actual cost of the hours spent is approximately $33,000.
The co-founder of Climate Solutions, Rhys Roth, and she met with a group of Edmonds citizens
assembled by Sustainable Edmonds to address efforts underway in the Puget Sound area to address
climate change. They are impressed with Edmonds citizens’ efforts to date with regard to sustainability.
Councilmember Peterson asked what other cities Climate Solutions has worked with. Ms. Quigley
explained the first city was Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Jackson wants to be the first destination resort in
the country to have at least an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the next 20 years. Jackson
has completed the workshop, action plan, and road mapping. Climate Solutions is working on financing,
and Jackson has already selected their first three pilot projects. They plan to begin with deep energy
efficiency and are considering wind, solar and other applications. Jackson created a tri-party council
between the City of Jackson Hole, Teton County and Lower Valley Energy and a 7-member steering
committee with membership from each agency that oversees the work of three taskforces.
Climate Solutions is also working with Spokane; Albany, Oregon; and Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater in
Thurston County. Albany has suffered during recent resource booms/busts; metal producers have
expressed interest in using their plant for energy generation; berry producers are interested in converting
their waste stream to energy; and Target’s distribution center is interested in using their flat roof for solar.
Albany also has a historic district where energy efficiency efforts are complex. A pulp mill in Albany
recently closed; consideration is being given to making that plant a co-generation plant. Thurston County
received approximately $1.5 million in a combination of Energy and Efficiency Community Development
Block Grant money from the Department of Energy and other competitive funds. They have identified an
energy efficiency project, hired a coordinator and formed the Thurston County Climate Action Team.
She explained applying for DOE grants requires very specific project plans; because Thurston has done
that exercise, they have a clear, critical path over the next 18 months. Climate Solutions will soon publish
a Financing Clean Energy white paper which she offered to provide to Edmonds when it was complete.
Councilmember Wilson commented the Council was interested in adopting sustainability policies that are
practical, impactful and progressive. The Council adopted a Sustainability Agenda last year. He asked
how a suburban, residential community such as Edmonds could take a leadership role. For example
Edmonds has fiber optic cable but does not yet have a plan for implementing that asset in a commercially
viable manner. Ms. Quigley agreed energy efficiency can be more challenging in residential areas than in
commercial. In the communities were pilot projects have been done in residential areas, they have found
that as soon as residents learn their neighbors are involved, they also want to be involved. They typically
Packet 276 of 294
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 2, 2010
Page 4
take a district-wide approach, an area of a community that is willing and interested and help with
identifying financing to make the retrofit a good economic investment for a homeowner. With regard to
fiber optics, she explained Climate Solutions would conduct an analysis of the community assets and the
workshop would address tying those assets to their vision and identifying options. She explained they do
not tell cities what to do; they facilitate the city creating a vision. They are seeking communities with a
diverse set of characteristics to provide examples for other cities. A community without industrial assets
that is primarily residential is very attractive to Climate Solutions.
Councilmember Wilson referred to Climate Solutions’ efforts to identify funding for Jackson Hole, noting
deploying fiber optics into commercial and residential areas was a matter of finances. Ms. Quigley
explained the Jackson Hole/Teton County area has 30,000-40,000 residents and 100,000-150,000 visitors
and their primary revenue source is sales tax. Financing in Jackson Hole was anticipated to be $5 million
from the government, $5 million via a special purpose excise tax and $2-3 million raised in the
community. She noted Jackson Hole was somewhat of an anomaly; most of the other communities would
not raise money from its citizens, they would ask citizens to invest in a program and gain the benefit of
improvements over time. She noted there were a wide variety of models for financing energy efficiency
including property taxes via a loan for financing, on-bill (utility) financing, and solar project financing.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about tidal power. Ms. Quigley answered they are having
discussions with Lincoln City, Oregon and other coastal cities. Tidal power is experimental at this point;
their focus in the initial stages of the program particularly in non-coastal cities is energy efficiency and
then adding solar as a renewable energy source. Their work plan includes studying tidal power and its
applicability in the Northwest. She noted turbines in the Spokane River have been discussed. She
provided further documentation regarding Climate Solutions to City Clerk Sandy Chase.
Councilmember Peterson urged the Council to consider becoming a New Energy City, noting there was
likely to be competition from other cities after the White Paper is published and Climate Solutions begins
more aggressively marketing the program. He suggested adding Climate Solutions to the March
Community Services/Development Services Committee meeting.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the cost and what services would be provided. Councilmember Peterson
responded it was similar to Cascade Land Conservancy; for $15,000 Climate Solutions would develop a
program. Ms. Quigley explained if Edmonds was interested, she would write a proposal for the Council’s
consideration. The proposal would outline the deliverables, scope of work, costs, hours, how hours are
spent, examples of what they have done, etc. She noted the materials she provided include frequently
asked questions and an outline of the workshop.
Mayor Haakenson concluded further discussion would occur at the March 9 Community
Services/Development Services Committee meeting and then return to the Council for further
consideration.
4. REPORT OF COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Plunkett explained at the retreat, the Council agreed to again allow community service
announcements at the beginning of Council meetings. Non-profit organizations that meet the standards
for using public microphones (standards available from Community Services/Economic Development
Director Stephen Clifton), may contact Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman to schedule a 5
minute presentation on a future agenda.
Councilmember Wilson invited the Edmonds Public School Foundation to make a presentation.
Packet 277 of 294
M I N U T E S
Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting
March 9, 2010
Elected Officials Present: Staff Present:
Council Member Strom Peterson, Chair Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Council Member Dave Orvis Rob English, City Engineer
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Mgr
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
The committee convened at 6:50 p.m.
E. Further discussion with Climate Solutions.
(This item was moved to the beginning of the agenda to enable the presenter to meet another
appointment) Eileen Quigley, representing Climate Solutions, reviewed her organization’s purpose
and indicated that the next step for Climate Solutions would be to develop a proposal for the city to
formally consider. This would be done if the city believes that there is an interest in pursuing this
collaboration. The Committee indicated that they believe the Council is interested; Ms. Quigley
indicated that Climate Solutions would proceed to develop a proposal for city consideration.
ACTION: The Committee indicated that the city is interested in exploring a potential partnership
with Climate Solutions, and that Climate Solutions should proceed to the next step of preparing a
formal proposal for further Council consideration.
A. Discussion on proposed amendments to Edmonds Community Development Code Title
18.
The City Attorney reviewed the proposed amendments to the Title 18 Appeal Provisions and
answered questions raised by the Council Members. Council Member Orvis recommended raising
the charge from $1.00 per month to $20.00 per month for unlawful utility connections under Section
18.10.030. Council Member Peterson concurred with the recommendation. The Committee also
discussed the current penalties provided in Section 18.45.070 for illegal tree cutting. The current
fine, established some years back, is $1,000 per day or $500 per tree, with that amount tripling to
$3,000 per day and $1,500 per tree for clearing in a critical area or critical area buffer. Given recent
discussions with Council regarding the value of trees and the City’s experience in the Point Wells
Development, staff suggested that the appropriate penalty for illegal clearing be considered when
the City Council reviews tree issues on an upcoming agenda.
ACTION: The CS/DS committee recommended this item be placed on an upcoming Council
meeting for consideration and approval.
B. Review of transportation capital project funding options.
In 2009, the Transportation Plan identified many different transportation improvement projects over
the next 16 years such as Walkway, Bikeway, Concurrency, and Operations and Maintenance
projects. The total cost of all these projects was $105M, with a $64M shortfall. Mr. Bertrand Hauss
(Transportation Engineer) discussed the option of increasing Transportation Benefit District (TBD)
Packet 278 of 294
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 18, 2010
Page 13
10. PRESENTATION ON CLIMATE SOLUTIONS NEW ENERGY CITIES.
Councilmember Peterson explained Climate Solutions is an organization working with cities throughout
the northwest to create new energy cities via reducing their reliance on fossil fuels, encouraging the use of
renewable energies, and smart grid technology, all things that the Council has advocated in recent years.
Climate Solutions has provided a proposal to partner with the City on a professional basis to create a
roadmap/guideline for Edmonds to become a leadership city in energy independence. Their proposal
includes short term (in the next few months), mid-term (18 months – 5 years), and long range planning
(up to 20 years). Climate Solutions requests the City provide $15,000. For that investment, the City will
receive approximately $35,000 worth of work due to Climate Solutions’ ability to leverage their
connections.
In the short term, Climate Solutions will create an action plan specific to Edmonds in consultation with
government, business, environmental and community leaders as well as the public. Climate Solutions has
reviewed the City’s Sustainability Element as well as work done by Sustainable Edmonds and the
Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee. Although he has long been a supporter of this type of effort,
Councilmember Peterson noted it is clear in light of the recent environmental disaster in the Gulf of
Mexico that the public needs to take responsibility for its addiction to oil. Other advantages to this effort
include economic development, job creation, public safety and public health and investing locally.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas expressed support for the City’s participation. She asked the source of
the $15,000 expenditure. Councilmember Peterson answered options include, 1) the funds from Fire
District 1, or 2) the Council Contingency Fund. He noted although the Council dedicated the Fire District
1 funds to capital investment, he viewed the end product as an investment in infrastructure.
Council President Bernheim recalled the only appropriations from the Council Contingency Fund were
$5,000 for Cascade Land Conservancy and $5,000 for Sustainable Edmonds. Councilmember Wilson
advised the total amount in the Council Contingency Fund was $20,000. Council President Bernheim
preferred not to use the Fire District 1 funds without further discussion.
Councilmember Wilson suggested the $15,000 be taken from the ending cash balance. Although there
may be good reasons to use the Fire District 1 funds, he preferred not to set that precedence. He noted the
savings from not filling the Development Services Director position could be allocated toward this
expenditure.
Councilmember Peterson commented Cascade Land Conservancy was another excellent example of a
partnership. The City has 25 hours of staff time from Cascade Land Conservancy and they have expressed
willingness to work with the Economic Development Committee on the neighborhoods of Westgate and
Five Corners. He urged the Council to make a decision regarding Climate Solutions tonight; one of the
reasons they are able to provide Edmonds a good deal is economy of scale with other cities joining at the
same time.
Council President Bernheim expressed support for partnering with Climate Solutions but preferred to wait
until a specific funding source was identified. He suggested Councilmember Peterson provide funding
options at a future meeting including the balance in the Council Contingency Fund. Mayor Haakenson
advised there was a sufficient amount in the Council Contingency Fund for this expenditure. Council
President Bernheim expressed his support with funding from the Council Contingency Fund.
Councilmember Wilson advised approximately $76,000 was budgeted for Council professional services
and anticipated funding was available from that source. He anticipated the funds in the Council
Contingency Fund would be needed for a levy committee.
Packet 279 of 294
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 18, 2010
Page 14
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
ACCEPT CLIMATE SOLUTIONS’ PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED WITH FUNDS FROM THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PORTION OF THE COUNCIL BUDGET. MOTION CARRIED (4-
1), COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
11. DISCUSSION OF INTERNET WIRELESS ACCESS FOR COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
Council President Bernheim commented it would be useful for Councilmembers to have internet access
during Council meetings as it would allow them to access the City’s databases and codes, minutes of past
meetings, etc. He recalled the issue was raised when Councilmember Wilson was Council President and it
was resolved at the Council retreat to have internet access installed at the dais. It was originally planned
to be installed in March and was later promised for mid-May. If staff was too busy to do the installation,
he suggested the Council Assistant engage someone to do the installation.
Student Representative Marmion asked if the Ethernet ports under the dais were active. Council President
Bernheim advised they were not currently functional. He asked if City Clerk Sandy Chase had wired
internet at her seat in the Council Chambers. Ms. Chase answered certain areas in the Council Chambers
have wired internet. Mayor Haakenson advised Finance Director Lorenzo Hines was working on it and
had emailed Council President Bernheim an updated timeline. He assured staff would get it done although
it was not a top priority. The Council was welcome to hire an independent contractor. Council President
Bernheim requested Mr. Hines be removed from the project and he would coordinate it himself.
Councilmember Wilson commented the Council had given the Council President authority to move
forward expeditiously. He recognized Mr. Hines had other more important priorities. Mayor Haakenson
answered it was not Mr. Hines; it was the City’s Information Technology staff of 2½ people that do not
have time. Councilmember Wilson recognized the City was so under capitalized it did not have the
resources to undertake the Council’s requests whether it was financial data, inventorying carbon
emissions, etc. He suggested Council President Bernheim provide information to the Council regarding
hiring someone to provide internet access in Council Chambers.
12. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON REQUEST TO MAYOR OF CITY OF EDMONDS
BY EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL FOR INFORMATION REGARDING LEGAL FEES PAID BY
THE CITY OF EDMONDS FROM JANUARY 1, 2009 THROUGH APRIL 28, 2010.
Council President Bernheim commented this was another example of accommodating the busy City staff.
He requested a printout of the 2009 legal fees from the vouchers that indicated who it was paid to, the
amount, and the description. That information would allow the Council to see what law firms are paid by
the City and for what purpose which could be used in the analysis of the City’s legal fees. He advised the
2009 budget for legal fees did not divide it into payee such as the fiber optics lawyer, bond counsel,
Ogden Murphy Wallace, etc. He expressed concern that the information he requested had not been
provided by staff and asked whether the Council supported his request for that information. He had been
offered as an alternative all the legal bills from Ogden Murphy Wallace; however, his intent was to
determine the total amount the City expended on legal services.
Mayor Haakenson assured Council President Bernheim that his request had not been ignored but as his
email stated, the Finance Department is very busy and understaffed; Mr. Hines would get to his request at
some point but it could be several months. Council President Bernheim responded he was interested in
receiving the information sooner.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas observed the answer was provided by Ms. Bloom via her public records
request. The underlying issue is an in-house attorney versus a contract attorney. Recognizing little could
be done at the present time because the City is contracted with Ogden Murphy Wallace through 2011, she
recommended the Council continue to evaluate an in-house versus a contract attorney and whether there
Packet 280 of 294
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2010
Page 8
10. RECONSIDERATION OF FUNDING SOURCE FOR CLIMATE SOLUTIONS NEW ENERGY
CITIES.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson explained on May 18 the Council approved funding for a partnership
with Climate Solutions to become a New Energy City and to increase the City’s energy independence. At
that meeting the $15,000 cost was funded from the Council’s professional services budget. Further
research by Council President Bernheim and staff determined the Council Contingency Fund was the
appropriate funding source.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether a reconsideration motion was necessary.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the Council authorized a contract on May 18 and the source of
funding was now an issue. The Council’s designation of funding is not confirmed until approval of the
mid-year budget amendment.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MAY 18 MOTION TO ACCEPT CLIMATE
SOLUTIONS’ PROPOSAL AS PRESENTED WITH FUNDS FROM THE PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES PORTION OF THE COUNCIL BUDGET. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PETERSON MOVED THAT THE FUNDING SOURCE
COME FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A
SECOND.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson asked whether the City still had a contract with Climate Solutions
and was it only the source of funding that was in question. Mr. Snyder responded the City Clerk was not
certain whether the contract had been signed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she had been approached by a citizen regarding the need to
spend $15,000 on this when the City was experiencing budgetary issues. She was in favor of the Council
having further discussion regarding the $15,000 expenditure. After rereading an earlier packet, it appeared
Climate Solutions’ proposal would be an interesting endeavor for the City but she was uncertain citizens
were supportive of the expenditure at this time or whether it should be considered during the budget
process.
Mayor Haakenson suggested having the City Clerk determine whether the contract had been signed and
schedule the matter on a future agenda. Mr. Snyder suggested the Council direct Mayor Haakenson and
the City Clerk not to execute the agreement and hold it for reconsideration. Mayor Haakenson commented
it was possible the contract had been signed based on previous Council action.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO DIRECT MAYOR HAAKENSON NOT TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT.
Councilmember Plunkett explained he did not support acceptance of Climate Solutions’ proposal on May
18 and did not support it at this time. He preferred to consider the expenditure as part of the budget
process.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised she received three phone calls and one person approached her
regarding the $15,000 expenditure. She suggested the City think locally, pointing out the numerous
citizens involved in Sustainable Edmonds. She also preferred to learn more about Climate Solutions.
Packet 281 of 294
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 1, 2010
Page 9
Council President Pro Tem Peterson was uncertain what information was lacking with regard to Climate
Solutions and the contract, pointing out this topic had been on the agenda twice before tonight as well as
considered twice by the Community Services/Development Services Committee. He also provided the
May 18th materials to Councilmember Buckshnis who indicated that was the first time she had heard of it.
He explained Climate Solutions’ proposed contract described in detail how the funds would be used. To
Councilmembers Fraley-Monillas and Buckshnis’ comments that they had been contacted by citizens, he
assured he had been contacted by many more people thanking him for entering into a contract with
Climate Solutions. He commented an informal survey based on citizens contacting Councilmembers after
a vote was taken was not a good way to govern.
Council President Pro Tem Peterson pointed out Sustainable Edmonds was the organization that brought
Climate Solutions to Edmonds. He assured Climate Solutions was one of the most respected
environmental groups in the country if not the world. Their annual breakfast featured speakers Van
Johnson and King County Executive Dow Constantine, was attended by several State Senators, and raised
over $300,000. He assured Climate Solutions was not a fly-by-night organization but a group with years
of experience and provided the City the opportunity to be on the leading edge of a clean energy future. He
cited the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as an example of the need for the City to make a difference in its
energy future. He summarized the Council was elected to make smart investments and tough decisions.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented her decision was not based on one phone call or Senators
and Councilmembers who attended a breakfast, it was because this was a $15,000 expenditure of the
City’s budget, 1/4th the amount provided to the Senior Center and 1/5th provided for Yost Pool. She
suggested delaying the expenditure until the Council had a better idea of its fiscal future.
Councilmember Buckshnis acknowledged she was biased toward Climate Solutions. Her issue was the
need for additional information such as whether it was possible to fund the contract in $5,000 increments
rather than $15,000 which was 75% of the Council Contingency Fund. She agreed Climate Solutions was
a good group, concluding she needed time to determine whether local resources such as the Mayor’s
Climate Protection Committee could provide these services.
Councilmember Plunkett commented his motion was subject to someone returning the contract with
Climate Solutions to the Council in the future. He suggested it be considered during the budget process,
advising he would not support it then either.
MOTION CARRIED (3-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PRO TEM PETERSON VOTING NO.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson informed the Council on June 8 at 6:00 p.m. they would be interviewing the three
finalists for the Public Works Director position. An interview team interviewed 6-7 candidates last week
from a pool of approximately 40-50 excellent applicants. He invited the Council to provide him their
feedback before he made his selection.
Mayor Haakenson reported yesterday’s Memorial Day ceremony was very well attended despite the rain.
He recognized the Cemetery Board for the amazing job they do organizing that event.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Pro Tem Peterson echoed Mayor Haakenson’s comments regarding the Memorial Day
service. He recognized Mayor Haakenson for his impassioned speech that acknowledged the meaning of
the day. He thanked the nearly 200 people who attended the service in the wind and rain to honor past and
present members of the military.
Packet 282 of 294
Climate Solutions
Agreement with
City of Edmonds, WA
For:
New Energy Cities Program
Workshop & Action Plan
September 10, 2010
Contact: Eileen V. Quigley
eileen@climatesolutions.org
206.443.9570 x 34 (o)
206.579.9644 (m)
AGREEMENT
ATTACHMENT 5
Packet 283 of 294
Climate Solutions New Energy Solutions Contract Page - 2 -
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is dated as of the [ ] ____day of
____September___, in the year _2010____, by and between the City of Edmonds (hereinafter
“CLIENT”), and CLIMATE SOLUTIONS, an Olympia, WA-based nonprofit organization
(hereinafter “CONTRACTOR”).
CLIENT and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth,
agree as follows:
Article 1. WORK
CONTRACTOR shall complete all WORK as specified or indicated in the Contract Documents
referenced and incorporated in, including but not limited to Exhibit A
(Climate Solutions
Scope of Work and Deliverables). The WORK is generally described as follows:
One and one-half day workshop and Action Plan described as Scope of Services
and Deliverables in attachment Exhibit A
.
Article 2. CONTRACT TIME
The WORK shall be conducted between and including the dates of November 2-3, 2010.
Article 3. CONRACT PRICE
CLIENT shall pay CONTRACTOR $15,000 for performance of the WORK.
Article 4. PAYMENT TERMS
Upon completion of the WORK, CONTRACTOR shall submit invoice for Payment of
completed services as set forth in Exhibit A
.
Article 5. INTEREST
Should the CONTRACTOR request that an interest-bearing account be set up prior to the start
of WORK, all monies not paid when due hereunder shall bear interest at the maximum rate
allowed by law at the place of WORK.
Article 6. CONTRACTOR’S REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 CONTRACTOR has familiarized itself with the nature and extent of
the Contract Documents, WORK, site, locality, and all local conditions and Laws and
Regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance, or furnishing
the WORK.
Packet 284 of 294
Climate Solutions New Energy Solutions Contract Page - 3 -
6.2 CONTRACTOR has given the CLIENT written notice of all conflicts, errors, or
discrepancies that it has discovered in the Contract Documents, and the written
resolution thereof by the CLIENT is acceptable to CONTRACTOR.
Article 7. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
7.1 The Contract Documents that comprise the entire agreement between CLIENT and
CONTRACTOR are attached to this Agreement, made a part hereof and
incorporated herein, and consist of the following:
This Service Agreement
Exhibit A:
Scope of Services and Deliverables
7.2 There are no Contract Documents other than those listed in Article 7. The Contract
Documents may only be altered, amended, or repealed by means of an Amendment,
which both the CLIENT and CONTRACTOR must agree in a written letter signed by
both.
Article 8. MISCELLANEOUS
8.1 Terms used in this Agreement that are defined in the General Conditions or
Supplemental Conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A shall have the meanings
indicated in the General Conditions or Supplemental Conditions attached hereto as
Exhibit A
.
8.2 No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interest in the Contract
Documents will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the
party sought to be bound; and specifically by, without limitation, monies that may
become due and monies, which are due, may not be assigned without such consent
(except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and
unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no
assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility
under the Contract Documents.
8.3 CLIENT and CONTRACTOR each binds itself, its partners, executors, administrators,
successors, heirs, assigns, and legal representatives in respect to all covenants,
agreements, and obligations contained in the Contract Documents.
Article 9. OTHER PROVISIONS
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Agreement in duplicate.
One counterpart each has been delivered to CLIENT and CONTRACTOR. All portions of
the Contract Documents have been signed or identified by CLIENT and CONTRACTOR.
Packet 285 of 294
Climate Solutions New Energy Solutions Contract Page - 4 -
THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE EFFECTIVE ON
[ ]
CLIENT: City of Edmonds
ATTEST: BY:
NAME:
TITLE: ITS
ADDRESS:
CONTRACTOR:
ATTEST: BY:
NAME:
TITLE: ITS
ADDRESS:
Packet 286 of 294
Climate Solutions New Energy Solutions Contract Page - 5 -
EXHIBIT A
Climate Solutions Scope of Services and Deliverables
Phase 1 Workshop – November 2-3, 2010
CITY OF EDMONDS
Preparation - Climate Solutions
a. Assemble readily available information on community energy profile
i. Sources of energy
ii. Uses of energy – by sector, by month, base/peak
iii. Key impacts related to energy use
b. Assess general readiness of community for action
i. Review engagement efforts to date – climate, energy, economic stimulus
ii. Determine any established linkages to economic development efforts
iii. Gain insights into institutional readiness – local government, residents,
businesses
c. Refine the agenda for the working session based on advance work – this
refinement step is critical to ensuring that we get the balance of time right for the
various topics, that enough background is included, and that we create the proper
expectations about the end product of the working session.
d. Provide strategic advice and direction with regard to community engagement,
including Workshop invitees and critical stakeholder relationships. Advise on
broader public engagement in advance or immediately following the Workshop.
Workshop Culminating in a Roadmap for Action
a. Presentation materials and background information–includes materials that can be
provided to participants in advance and the materials used at the Workshop
i. Basic capacity-building on energy systems thinking–key energy system
elements
ii. The New Energy Cities framework
iii. Policy and program development, engagement, and resource development
iv. Prioritization and direction-setting for key community stakeholders. This is
a takeaway product of the Workshop itself, produced in real time during
the session.
b. Agenda customized for the community that explores the key elements of the New
Energy System and explores their potential application in Edmonds, WA:
Packet 287 of 294
Climate Solutions New Energy Solutions Contract Page - 6 -
i. Buildings/performance retrofits (efficiency and self-generation): This
segment addresses the policy considerations for local government, our
understanding of the potential for improved performance, and the
economic returns associated with efficiency investments. Where possible,
we seek to identify opportunities where various efficiency projects can be
build at a large enough scale to enhance their overall economic potential.
ii. Infrastructure/smart grid, thermal networks: This part identifies the
critical components of infrastructure related to energy, discusses the policy
and resource needs for creating 21st
iii. Distributed technologies/ electric mobility options: This section provides
general information about strategic directions for renewable energy and
electric vehicles, and discusses the economic development potential
associated with clean technology deployment.
century energy infrastructure, and
considers the opportunities for strategic economic development
c. Action Plan
i. New Energy City strategy
ii. Policy and resource development
iii. Community engagement recommendations
iv. Project development and implementation steps
v. Institutional roles and capacities
vi. Learning and adapting processes
Deliverables
Workshop Materials
New Energy Cities Framework
Workshop Agenda
Template invitation for the City of Edmonds to customize
Presentation materials
o Overview of the New Energy System
o Building performance & efficiency
o Strategic infrastructure development, deploying clean, renewable technologies
o Policy & program development, resource development & capacity building
Roadmap – The visual representation of the mapping exercise that is conducted
during the Workshop.
Action Plan – Strategy document (approx 10-15 pages) describing the multiple
elements needed to develop a New Energy System, addressing all of the system
components: infrastructure, building systems, and distributed technologies.
Packet 288 of 294
Climate Solutions New Energy Solutions Contract Page - 7 -
Action Plan
Policies and programs to align incentives and mobilize capital for investments
Engagement, outreach, and communications efforts needed to develop support for
policies and to align interests and investment capital
Active project development priorities, focusing on early, catalytic projects and the
need for functional integration of infrastructure, building systems, and technologies
Identification of institutional roles, including local government, utility service
companies, financial institutions, energy companies, and workforce development
organizations
Project phasing and implementation timing, based on catalytic project schedule and
communications needs
o 1-6 months – Engagement, policy and program development, demonstration
project initiation
o 6-18 months – Ongoing engagement, with demonstration project
implementation, measurement
o 18-36 months – Iterative policy and program refinement, re-alignment of
implementation plan based on demonstration project results
Identified resources needs and a financing plan for project implementation
o Initial program development resource needs
o Public and private capital investment resource opportunities
Recommendations for ongoing process management to support accelerated actions,
ensure linkages to economic development efforts.
Packet 289 of 294
New Energy Cities Frequently Asked Questions
What is the New Energy Cities Program?
The New Energy Cities program is a partnership between Climate Solutions and innovative Northwest
cities and counties that wish to be early adopters of the 21st Century clean energy system. The New
Energy Cities program embraces four key components of an integrated energy system—very efficient
and intelligent buildings, smart power grids, plug‐in electric vehicles and energy storage, and renewable
power sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass.
Our goal is to help the cities and counties that we work with embrace this integrated program in ways
that create local jobs, spur economic development, reduce vulnerability to energy price swings, and
leverage public investment with large‐scale private investment.
Climate Solutions brings expertise in policy leadership, program design, finance, public engagement, and
technology to help communities develop practical, comprehensive strategies customized to their unique
circumstances and assets.
Our goal is to leverage the leadership of the pioneering communities we work with to provide model
strategies that will translate into similar success elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest and the country.
What are the components of the New Energy Cities program?
The New Energy Cities program offers the following services:
Workshop
Action Plan
Implementation Planning Consultation
Financing Framework
Communications/Public Outreach Planning
Ongoing Consultation
How does the Workshop work?
New Energy Cities experts conduct a two‐day workshop during which they provide an intensive review
of energy systems; instruct participants about the way that energy will work in the future; build capacity
among local leaders to adopt a new energy approach; and develop a common strategic focus around
which to build toward carbon‐neutrality by 2030.
New Energy Cities FAQ 1 | Page
Packet 290 of 294
New Energy Cities FAQ 2 | Page
New Energy Cities workshops are geared toward 25‐50 key City and or County decision‐makers—elected
officials, utility representatives, city managers, finance directors, top staff, influential local business and
nonprofit leaders. The workshop is designed to create a meaningful strategy for action, based on a 20‐
year timeline to achieve the dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions called for by the
international scientific community, and by doing so capture substantial economic benefits for the
communities who participate.
The workshop format is presentational as well as interactive focusing on five essential modules:
Buildings and Efficiency
Clean, Distributed Energy Production
Next‐Generation Infrastructure, including Smart Grid and Electrical Vehicle Interface
Financing Strategy and Tools
Leadership and Capacity‐Building
The workshop includes a visual mapping exercise to translate the emerging vision and collective
knowledge into a road map for the whole energy system. This road map is the basis for developing a
three‐year action plan for the community, which is the final outcome of the workshop.
What is the Action Plan?
The Action Plan is crafted to provide a community with three years of actions that will put it on the path
to achieve its 20‐year objectives and in this respect represents a unique transformative process for
communities that are mired in incremental processes. It distills the concepts and community input from
the workshop into a roadmap for action by each local jurisdiction—mapping the most important steps to
take in the next three‐six months, the next six‐12 months, and the next 18‐36 months.
The Action Plan recommends program structure, policy, capacity building, community engagement, and
finance strategies based on an understanding of what’s needed in every community, but tailored to the
local context.
The core purpose of the Action Plan is to affirm the community’s ability to achieve this great challenge—
long‐term transition to a clean energy system that drives economic development, upgrades local
infrastructure, attracts large‐scale private investment, and achieves needed greenhouse gas reductions
and environmental performance.
What is in the Implementation Plan?
Implementation of this Action Plan requires a community to be strategic and committed to the
transformation of its energy systems. Once a community has gone through the process of developing its
Action Plan, Climate Solutions works closely with community leaders and key staff to design an
Implementation Plan, identifying short‐term resource needs and sources, facilitating rapid development
of pilot projects at scale, and supporting an intensive engagement of the broader community about the
Action Plan and what it will mean for the community.
What is in the Financing Plan?
Success in the New Energy Cities program is based on the proven reality that each of the components of
the Action Plan represents investments that can be tied to appropriate investors. Climate Solutions
Packet 291 of 294
provides the support and expertise necessary to create the financing tools essential for the scope and
scale of work by helping a community think and operate with an investor orientation.
We help identify the critical elements of policy and institutional structure necessary to leverage very
large amounts of investment capital available to finance improvements in building performance,
infrastructure, and clean, distributed energy producing technologies. The Financing Plan provides the
necessary capital for an aggressive approach to transforming the energy system by emphasizing the role
that scale and risk management play in enabling private investment capital to participate in these
activities.
What does the Ongoing Consultation provide?
While the Action Plan and associated implementation and financing support is critical to the New Energy
Cities, we also understand that every community needs help building their capacity to have the
wherewithal to carry on for the next 20 years. Our role can include ongoing, direct support to key staff
and leadership as they build their own expertise, confidence, and track record of success.
For information please contact:
Eileen V. Quigley
New Energy Cities
eileen@climatesolutions.org
http://www.climatesolutions.org/solutions/initiatives/NES
206.579.9644 (m)
206.526.8657 (o)
New Energy Cities works with Northwest cities to accelerate the transition to a clean, renewable, super‐
efficient energy system that integrates smart power grids, green intelligent buildings, plug‐in electric
vehicles, and renewable power sources.
New Energy Cities FAQ 3 | Page
Packet 292 of 294
AM-3398 Item #: 12.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilmen Wilson and Plunkett Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and potential action regarding hiring a City Council budget analyst.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Due to the City Council recognizing and understanding the City of Edmonds Finance Department’s
pressing work load and the City Council’s pressing needs for finance information for budget and
potential levy, it is hereby proposed that the City Council direct Human Resources to immediately post
for a Policy Analyst for up to 20 hours per week for the remainder of 2010. This posting shall be done in a
matter and time-frame that is the most expeditious as possible.
Policy Analyst would work under the direction of the Council President.
The Policy Analyst’s primary objective would be to work with Council to interpret and develop reports
based upon financial information provided by the City of Edmonds Finance Department for the budget
and working toward a potential levy.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 11:28 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/23/2010 01:54 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 01:56 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/23/2010 10:26 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/23/2010
Packet 293 of 294
AM-3404 Item #: 13.
City Council Meeting
Date: 09/28/2010
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Mike Cooper Submitted By:Mike Cooper
Department:Mayor's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Report on Mayor’s Community Survey.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
This is for information only
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Mayor recently conducted an online Customer Satisfation Survey. 212 residents of our community
responded. Mayor Cooper will share a summary of the survey results with the council and make available
the complete survey at the council meeting.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 01:54 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/23/2010 01:55 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/23/2010 01:56 PM
Form Started By: Mike Cooper Started On: 09/23/2010 12:59 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/23/2010
Packet 294 of 294