2010.10.05 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
OCTOBER 5, 2010
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-3420 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 28, 2010.
C. AM-3419 Approval of claim checks #121433 through #121603 dated September 30, 2010 for
$188,383.31.
D. AM-3414 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Donna L. Breske ($9,563.76) and
Eileen Johnson Hauglie (amount undetermined).
E. AM-3418 Report on final construction costs for Old Woodway Park Project and Council
acceptance of project.
F. AM-3417 Ordinance amending the provisions of ECC 10.75.010(B) in order to extend a sunset date
for the Economic Development Commission for an additional twelve (12) months .
G. AM-3411 Proclamation declaring October Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
3. (15 Minutes)
AM-3424
Continued discussion and potential action on the 2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget
Adjustment.
4. (5 Minutes)
AM-3391
Community Service Announcement: Adopt-a-Dog
Packet Page 1 of 384
5. (5 Minutes)
AM-3390
Community Service Announcement: Edmonds Chamber of Commerce - Halloween
event.
6. (15 Minutes)
AM-3413
Sustainable Edmonds community solar power proposal.
7. (15 Minutes)
AM-3422
Mayor's Budget Presentation
8. (30 Minutes)
AM-3421
Public Hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan Element update for 2011-2016 to City's
Comprehensive Plan. The proposal updates the City's Capital Facilities Plan to
include improvements, additions, upgrades or extensions of City infrastructure such
as transportation, parks and stormwater along with other public facilities necessary
to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan; incorporates projects from the
recently updated Storm and Surface Water Management Plan; and adds additional
capital projects which extend beyond 2016.
9. (10 Minutes)
AM-3387
Public hearing on a proposed ordinance designating the Edmonds Elementary
School (Frances Anderson Cultural Center) located at 700 Main Street, Edmonds,
Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and directing
the Community Services Director or his designee to designate the site on the official
zoning map with an “HR” designation.
10. (10 Minutes)
AM-3386
Public Hearing on an ordinance designating the Dr. Palmer House located at 820
Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places, and directing the Community Services Director or his designee to
designate the site on the official zoning map with an “HR” designation.
11.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
12. (15 Minutes)
AM-3407
Proposed amendment to Edmonds City Code 10.90, Composition of the Historic
Preservation Commission.
13. (20 Minutes)
AM-3415
Review of the Planning Board’s recommendations on civil enforcement procedures.
14. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
15. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 2 of 384
AM-3420 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:Consent
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 28, 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
09-28-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/30/2010 01:43 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 01:44 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/30/2010 10:30 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/30/2010
Packet Page 3 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 28, 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 Human Resources Director Debi Humann and City Clerk Sandy
Chase. At 7:03 p.m., the executive session was extended for 10 minutes by Ms. Chase. The executive
session concluded at 7:17 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:21 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 PRESENT
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
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
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Kris Gillespie, Cultural Services Assistant
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Council President Bernheim requested Item E be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE 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 21, 2010.
Packet Page 4 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 2
C. 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. AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) FOR
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE INTERURBAN TRAIL
PROJECT.
ITEM E: AUTHORIZE $82,415 IN MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAX FROM THE STREET
CONSTRUCTION/IMPROVEMENT FUND (FUND #112) FOR THE 2009 ASPHALT
OVERLAY PROJECT.
Council President Bernheim explained this was approval of an overage for a street project. He suggested
continuing the past practice of a preliminary review by Council Committee. It was the consensus of the
Council to refer this item for review by the Community Services/Development Services Committee.
3. PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF OCTOBER AS NATIONAL ARTS & HUMANITIES
MONTH.
Mayor Cooper read a proclamation declaring October as National Arts and Humanities Month in
Edmonds. He presented the proclamation to Cultural Services Manager Francis Chapin.
4. EDMONDS ARTS COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT.
Cultural Services Manager Francis Chapin thanked the Council and Edmonds citizens for their support of
arts and culture in the community. She pointed out the proclamation notes the importance of arts in the
national economy, the same is true for Edmonds. Of the 1700 registered businesses in Edmonds, 164 are
arts related. Those arts-related businesses employ approximately 500 people. The number of arts-related
businesses does not include the many individual artists who live and create art in Edmonds.
Ms. Chapin urged the public to take time for art during October by participating in an art-related event in
the City or in the region. Arts Crush, a regional arts festival, features 350 free and discounted events
during October. In Edmonds Seattle artist Marita Dingus will lead a free hands-on public art making
project using recycled materials on Sunday, October 10.
Ms. Chapin introduced Mary Monfort, Chair, Edmonds Arts Commission; and Pam Harold, Arts
Commissioner; and Kris Gillespie, Cultural Services Assistant.
Ms. Monfort explained this is the Edmonds Arts Commission’s 35th year. The Arts Commission is very
involved in cultural resources and opportunities in Edmonds as well as the participation of citizens and
visitors. This is accomplished in four ways:
1. Arts and Culture – arts and culture bring visitors to Edmonds. Cultural tourism includes Write on
the Sound, a writing conference celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. The event has expanded
from one day to three days and is self supporting. Many of the people who visit Edmonds for its
cultural tourism stay for the weekend, adding to economic development. The Arts Commission
also provides tourism promotion support awards. Over the last 12 years, the Commission has
given out 84 awards to 20 different local cultural organizations to support events that attract
visitors to Edmonds as well as entertain local citizens. Recipients have included the Olympic
Ballet Theater, Cascade Symphony, Driftwood Players, Third Thursday Art Walk, Jazz
Connection, Arts Studio Tour, SnoKing Chorale and many others.
2. Arts Education – arts education for youth assists in creating a community of problem solvers with
collaborative and strategic thinking abilities. Over the past 25 years, the Arts Commission has
Packet Page 5 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 3
awarded 53 student scholarships in literary and performing arts. Scholarships are funded by
donation and the proceeds from the writers conference. Recipients have become Rhode Scholars,
students at Julliard and other prestigious programs as well as musicians, actors and music
teachers. The Commission has sponsored an Artist in Residence program in the Edmonds School
District since 1993. As part of the Best Book Poster Contest, a collaboration between the
Commission, the Edmonds School District and Friends of the Edmonds Library, 560 awards have
been given to third graders for poster art celebrating their favorite book.
3. Concerts in the Park and Public Art – the original mandate for the Commission included
providing a variety of arts to enhance the quality of life for citizens of Edmonds. The
Commission has been active in providing both programs and leadership in cultural planning for
the future through their concerts in the park. Over the last 20 years, 160 concerts have been
provided. In the last 8 years, the Commission received $4000 each year from two community
sponsors, Lynnwood Honda and Acura of Lynnwood. Attendance averages 400 people per
concert, 1/3 to 1/2 are visitors to Edmonds. There are over 150 original artworks with 30
permanently sited, many of which have become iconic such as the downtown fountain. Many
artworks are funded by donations primarily from the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation. The
newest artwork is a transportation project on Hwy. 99 at the Swift stations.
4. Partnerships – the Arts Commission has been very successful at leveraging a limited budget via
partnerships with Edmonds Community College, Edmonds Library and Edmonds Center for the
Arts. The Commission has worked with the Friends of the Edmonds Library on the Best Book
Poster Contest, with local schools to augment arts education, business sponsorships for concerts
and the writers conference, joint visual arts exhibits presented with the Edmonds Arts Festival
Foundation and funding provided by the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation for public art
maintenance and art acquisition.
Ms. Monfort thanked the Council and citizens for their foresight in establishing the Arts Commission in
1975. She thanked the Council for their support and continued recognition of the arts as a critical
component in the identity and economic vitality of the community.
Mayor Cooper thanked the Arts Commission for all their efforts.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, explained that absent an answer to her question regarding the $26 million
expenditure in the WSF’s long range plan, she would assume it would be used to construct a second slip
at the Main Street terminal. She anticipated a second slip would triple existing ferry traffic. One slip can
accommodate three ferries, two slips can handle six ferries. There are currently two ferries in use which
are anticipated to handle the volume until 2031. The increase in traffic will be the result of population
growth as well as WSF’s plans to divert ferry traffic from the Bainbridge Island ferry route. She urged the
Council to establish a policy opposing a second slip at the Main Street terminal.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to Council comments at last week’s meeting that they lost a
tremendous amount of faith in the information provided during the Fire District 1 (FD1) process and
reached a conclusion that none of the numbers would be 100% accurate. There was also concern
expressed that the previous Finance Director developed the numbers and left for employment at FD1. He
took offense to those comments due to the amount of time he worked on the FD1 proposal as a
Councilmember, attending every meeting with FD1, meetings with the firefighters union and spending
time researching the issue. He encouraged those Councilmembers to listen to the presentation made by
Mayor Haakenson on September 15, 2009 or read the minutes of that meeting. Mayor Haakenson
provided a very comprehensive presentation that covered all aspects of the contract offer. He read from
the September 15, 2009 minutes with regard to documents provided to the Council regarding the FD1
contract offer, proposed purchase of the fire stations by FD1 and due diligence done on the contract offer
Packet Page 6 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 4
by Finance Director Lorenzo Hines following the resignation of Finance Director Kathleen Junglov. At
that time, he (Mr. Wambolt) requested an analysis of selling versus retaining the fire stations. Mr.
Wambolt summarized when the contract was concluded, instead of saving $800,000, the proposal
indicated savings of $900,000. To the comment the City is losing the EMS revenue, he clarified the City
retains the EMS levy revenue; the EMS transport fees go with the stations and when the City retained the
fire stations, it retained the transport fees.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested the City recognize three long time Ballinger area residents who
passed away recently. Next, he suggested the City provide an explanation regarding the proposed increase
in the TBD license fee in the newspaper or mailed to residents and not just online. With regard to Fire
District 1, he relayed there may be an increase in the contract in 2013.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled concern that was expressed last year regarding the proposed Fire
District 1 contract. Due to the transition in Finance Directors at the same time, he felt the City should
have hired a consultant to assist the City. The purpose of the recent scrutiny of the budget is citizens and
the Council’s interest in clarity. He viewed the recent response by staff to Council and citizen questions as
defensive rather than open and helpful. He recommended the current system be amended to show all the
money in all reports and not just in the CAFR. He also expressed concern with the small size print used in
the reports for Agenda Item 6.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, referred to the 2009-2010 Mid-Year Budget Amendment, displaying a
magnifying glass that was needed to read the reports. He referred to regulations regarding the biennium
budget in RCW 35A, Section 34.130, mid-biennial budget and modification, states public hearings shall
be provided on the proposed modification. He pointed out the proposed budget adjustment has never been
advertised as a public hearing. He referred to the Emergency Financial Reserve Fund as “magical money”
because it appears in some reports and not in others. He expressed concern with the use of different
names for funds such as REET 2 which is often referred to as Fund 125. He urged the City to improve the
quality of its reports.
6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON THE 2009-2010 MID-YEAR
BUDGET ADJUSTMENT.
Councilmember Plunkett requested staff comment on Mr. Tupper’s reference to State law requiring a
public hearing on budget amendments. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines responded the Council had a
public hearing on the mid-biennial budget on December 15, 2009. He offered to research the RCW
regarding the requirement for a public hearing on amendments to the budget. Mayor Cooper relayed his
understanding that the requirement for a public hearing was for adjustments at the mid-biennium. He
noted City Attorney Scott Snyder had not advised the Council of the need for a public hearing during
previously discussion regarding the mid-year budget amendment.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE MID-YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT, ORDINANCE NO. 3808.
Councilmember Petso referred to Exhibit A, recalling the Council’s action last week was to take B Fund
contributions that had been suspended and make them for 2010. She could see the expenditure lines had
increased for the General Fund to reflect that contribution but there was not a corresponding deposit in the
511 Fund. Mr. Hines advised the 2010 budget had not been amended to reflect General Fund
contributions not being made to the B Fund; therefore nothing needed to be done. As a result it would be
reflected in the General Fund but there was no need to adjust the 511 Fund because that contribution was
already reflected. Councilmember Petso asked whether the 511 Fund already reflected the contribution
but the General Fund did not reflect that it would be made. Mr. Hines suggested Councilmember Petso
visit him for an explanation of the mechanism between funds. Councilmember Petso advised she would
Packet Page 7 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 5
not support the motion because it seems like both numbers should have moved together. Mr. Hines
assured the Council’s action regarding the B Fund contribution would be implemented.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained she was able to reconcile the revenue and the expenditure by
comparing the second amendment to the third amendment. She recommended the reports be labeled more
appropriately such as with a date rather and amendment 1, amendment 2 and amendment 3.
Mayor Cooper inquired about his authority to break a tie vote on an ordinance. City Clerk Sandy Chase
advised pursuant to State law, the mayor may vote to break ties but not in relation to the passage of an
ordinance, an appropriation for the expenditure of money or the granting of a franchise.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND
COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
BUCKSHNIS, PLUNKETT AND PETSO VOTING NO.
Council President Bernheim commented in his opinion this was an excellent exercise, having specific and
sophisticated discussions about the City’s budget. He referred to a newspaper headline, “Lynnwood
Officials Blamed for Red Ink,” commenting Edmonds was doing a good job avoiding such headlines via
this type of discussion. He encouraged Councilmembers to have the basis for their objections addressed
and said he would scheduling the mid-year budget amendment on next week’s agenda.
Mayor Cooper suggested since the Council will be asked in November to deliberate on a yearend budget,
he and Council President Bernheim discuss whether to simply bundle the mid-year budget amendments
with the yearend amendment. Council President Bernheim preferred to give the Council the opportunity
to consider the mid-year adjustment again next week.
Mr. Hines clarified by the Council’s non-action on the mid-year budget amendment, reversing the
suspension of B Fund contributions, moving the money in Fund 511 related to the sale of fire equipment
into the Public Safety Reserve Fund and moving the original fire safety funds into the Public Safety
Reserve Fund and to the Facilities Fund will not occur. Mayor Cooper summarized none of the changes
would take place until the ordinance was approved.
7. DISCUSSION ON THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (2011-2016).
City Engineer Rob English explained the Council packet contains the draft 2011-2016 Capital Facilities
Plan (CFP) and the 2011-2016 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). In response to Council direction last
year, the CFP and CIP have been separated in order to identify projects related to growth in the CFP. In
prior years the CFP and CIP were contained in one document.
The CFP dates from City’s first GMA comprehensive plan completed in 1995. It identifies improvements
tied to a six-year project and funding plan. The CFP is in response to a GMA mandate. The improvements
in the CFP accommodate the City’s projected population growth. The CIP is a budget planning tool
(2011-2016). It includes preservation and maintenance projects as well as CFP projects. It is a 6-year plan
with estimated expenditures and funding sources.
Mr. English provided a diagram showing components found only in the CIP and only in the CFP and
components found in both the CIP and CFP. The CIP contains 6-year maintenance projects with funding
sources as well as 6-year capital projects with funding sources; the CFP contains long range (20-year)
capital project needs as well as 6-year capital projects with funding sources.
He provided a comparison of the CIP and CFP:
Packet Page 8 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 6
CIP CFP
Mandate? None GMA
Reason? Budget GMA
Time Frame? 6 year 6 year
20 year
Must include Capital? Yes Yes
Must include Maintenance? Yes No
The draft 2011-2016 CFP contains 3 project sections:
• General
o Parks, Buildings & Regional projects
• Transportation
o Safety/Capacity & Pedestrian/Bicycle
• Stormwater
The CFP identifies the purpose and potential funding sources for projects. The CFP include individual
descriptions sheets for each project.
The draft CIP provides supporting information for the CFP. The CIP contains two project sections:
General and Parks. The CIP is organized by the City’s financial fund numbers. The CIP contains
preliminary estimates on six year expenditures and revenues.
He provided a list of fund numbers:
Fund Description Department
112 Transportation Public Works
113 Multimodal
Transportation
Community
Services
116 Buildings Maintenance Public Works
125 REET-2 Transportation Public Works
125 REET-2 Parks
Improvement
Parks & Recreation
126 Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation
129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation
132 Parks- Construction (Grant
Funding)
Parks & Recreation
412-100 Water Projects Public Works
412-200 Storm Projects Public Works
412-300 Sewer Projects Public Works
414 Wastewater Treatment Plant Public Works
Mr. English reviewed the CFP schedule:
September 8, 2010 Introduction to Planning Board
September 14, 2010 Community Services/Development Services Council Committee
September 28, 2010 Introduction to City Council
October 5, 2010 Public hearing at City Council
December 2010 Adopt with Comprehensive Plan Update
He invited the Council to provide feedback prior to the October 5 public hearing. He corrected the agenda
memo, stating staff was seeking approval of the CIP with approval of the CFP next week.
Packet Page 9 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 7
Councilmember Wilson commented staff was in a difficult position because there was a great deal of
political reality in these somewhat bureaucratic documents. He found it disappointing that the City had
not identified enough money to do any of the projects in the CFP. Although there was a great deal of good
planning by staff, the political leaders have identified nine elements on the list including building a new
aquatic center, fixing the Boys & Girls Club and acquiring the Civil Playfields, yet no funds are expended
in the Plan until 2017 and those funds are only placeholders. By adopting the CFP, the Council was not
committing to do anything because there was no money to do anything with.
With regard to the CIP, Councilmember Wilson reiterated his concern with the Transportation Benefit
District’s proposed increase in the vehicle license fee to $60. He recognized the difficulty for staff to plan
for capital improvements when the outcome of the TBD vote was not yet known. He was hesitant to
support the CIP without that information.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained two subcommittees of the Citizen Levy Committee are considering
a capital plan. Mill Creek has placed a capital improvement levy on the ballot that will fund 7-8 projects.
She noted the Levy Committee subcommittees may not agree with the $5-23 million estimate for an
aquatics center; they have received information that the pool could be fixed for $950,000. The Levy
Committee also plans to conduct a survey to determine what projects citizens would be willing to support.
Councilmember Petso relayed her understanding that the Economic Development Commission was
discussing a permanent farmers market. She asked whether planning was far enough along that that
project could be included in the CIP/CFP. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen
Clifton responded the farmers market was not at the point where it could be included in the CFP; only
conversations were taking place now. There is already a garden and summer market that includes
products from the farming community; the need for a larger farmers market has not yet been determined.
Council President Bernheim asked whether staff was asking the Council to prioritize/rank the projects. He
asked the purpose of the public hearing and whether the Council would be asked to adopt a wish list that
had no funding. Mr. English answered the public hearing next week is on the CFP. Staff recommends at
the conclusion of the public hearing that the Council approve the CFP and the CIP. The CFP and CIP will
also be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan in December. The projects in the CIP are staff’s
projection of what capital improvement projects are needed. There are many sources used to develop the
CIP including the Storm and Surface Water Plan and the Water Plan; both plans have CIPs and these
documents reflect the projects in those plans. The Council approved the Transportation Plan in 2009
which also contains a CIP. Those plans and staff’s recommendations were used to create the project lists.
Council has the ability to address priorities if desired.
In response to Councilmember Wilson’s comments, Public Works Director Phil Williams pointed out the
plan has numerous funded projects. The utilities have the current resources or the ability to acquire
resources to complete their CIP elements. He acknowledged funding for transportation projects was
tenuous. The first three years of the CIP are required to be financially constrained. Because the outcome
of the TBD vote is unknown, there is little funding included in the first three years for transportation
projects unless there are existing or anticipated grants. The speculative revenues from the TBD are in the
last three years of the CIP.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the nine projects listed in the CFP that do not have any funding
identified in the next six years and Mr. Williams’ comment that the Utility funds have funding for some
elements of the CFP. Mr. Williams advised the majority of the Utilities’ capital projects are not in the
CFP because they are not related to growth, they are typically scheduled or necessary replacement of
aging infrastructure. Councilmember Wilson asked whether any capital facility investments were being
Packet Page 10 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 8
made with funds that did not appear in the CIP/CFP. Mr. Williams responded his comment was related to
both documents.
Mr. English explained there were three sections in the CFP, 1) General which includes aquatics, Edmonds
Crossing, etc.; 2) Transportation and 3) Stormwater. He referred to projects in the Stormwater section of
the CFP, advising they would be funded via the Stormwater Utility.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the projects in the General section were ranked in years 4-6. Mr.
Williams welcomed the Council’s input regarding priority in years 4-6. Mr. English advised the
Transportation and Stormwater sections reflect Comprehensive Plan elements previously approved by
Council. A priority system was established and there was public input on those projects. Mr. McIntosh
advised the nine General projects were not in any prioritized order. Some of the projects could be
considered further along than others such as the Aquatics Center due to the Yost Pool Feasibility Study
and the Parks Maintenance Facility due to the conceptual study that has been completed for that facility.
Councilmember Wilson relayed his understanding that staff viewed the Parks Maintenance Facility as
about to fall down. He asked whether that would increase its priority. Mr. McIntosh responded
establishing a priority would require evaluation of all the City’s buildings. The Parks Maintenance
Facility was constructed by Parks crews in 1968; he did not consider it falling down but rather a facility
inadequate for the City’s needs. Councilmember Wilson referred to the Arts Center on the list of General
projects, noting there may be people interested in making that the top priority. He preferred the projects
be prioritized.
8. 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.
Councilmember Petso explained every year there are significant amounts in salary savings as a result of
positions that are not filled or are vacant for a period of time. In the past those funds flowed into the
General Fund ending balance. The policy she proposed would check those funds against the balance in
the Emergency Reserve Fund and the targeted ending cash balance of the General Fund prior to diverting
those funds for other purposes. In the past staff used salary savings responsibly to fund a number of items.
There have now been recommendations from members of the public to fund items from salary savings.
She asked whether the Council was interested in her pursuing a policy that would ensure at least a
significant portion of the salary savings were checked against reserves prior to being expended. She
envisioned working with staff to determine a workable portion. She also planned to work with the Citizen
Levy Committee who is considering appropriate reserve levels. If there was not a recommendation from
staff, she would consult the Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA) regarding an
appropriate reserve level. Her research of typical reserve levels found 5% for the Emergency Reserve
Fund and an ending cash target of 15%.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Citizen Levy Committee is considering appropriate levels. The
GFOA recommends two months; Edmonds’ policy is one month. She recommended a determination be
made regarding whether the position is needed and if not, the funds could be moved and if the position is
needed, the funds should remain.
Council President Bernheim expressed support for the approach due to his preference to bank savings as
much as possible. He supported Councilmember Petso developing a policy for Council consideration.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed interest in the concept subject to the details.
Packet Page 11 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 9
Councilmember Wilson commented the idea had merit; in practice the funds would be included in the
ending fund balance assuming it was not spent elsewhere. He envisioned City Attorney Scott Snyder
would say the policy did not matter; when the Council appropriated dollars in the budget, the mayor can
spent up to that budgeted amount. Actually limiting the spending of savings from a vacant position would
require the passage of a budget amendment. Mayor Cooper advised he has not nor will he spend salary
savings without the Council’s approval.
Councilmember Peterson agreed it would be difficult in practice, noting when a director’s position was
vacant, there may be additional expenses due to the lack of a director such as hiring a consultant. At the
end of the year, it has been the practice of the City not to spend leftover funds. He summarized it was
worth considering but may be difficult in reality.
Councilmember Petso summarized she would continue her efforts to develop a policy for Council
consideration.
9. DISCUSSION REGARDING PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FRAMEWORK.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the proposed changes were primarily to the introductory section
of the Comprehensive Plan. The update is scheduled for public hearing at a future meeting. He explained
there are several reasons for this update:
• PSRC updated the regional plan via adoption of Vision 2040. The City’s Comprehensive Plan
refers to the previous 2020 plan
• The Comprehensive Plan was 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
Councilmember Buckshnis advised Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) is in the process of updating the
countywide planning policies. She compared the policies being considered by SCT with the update and
found them very similar. She anticipated additional revisions would be required as SCT completes their
review of the countywide planning policies. Mr. Chave commented SCT’s recommendations and the
Snohomish County Council adoption of new countywide planning policies will set the stage for the more
extensive update of the Comprehensive Plan in 2014. The intent is to reflect the regional plans in the
countywide planning policies.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether it would be preferable to make amendments to the document
tonight or at the public hearing. Council President Bernheim advised the public hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan framework was scheduled on October 19. He suggested Councilmembers circulate
any amendments as soon as possible and make the amendments on October 19.
Councilmember Plunkett commented many of his questions had been addressed by the Planning Board
and were reflected in their minutes. Councilmember Plunkett referred to the Purpose section, and inquired
why the language in paragraph D (To encourage coordinated development and discourage piecemeal, spot
or strip zoning and inharmonious subdividing) was proposed to be eliminated. Mr. Chave explained the
question at the Planning Board focused specifically on spot zoning. The language regarding coordinated
development is contained in other paragraphs. Spot zoning can be traced to the early GMA planning
process when the City’s Comprehensive Plan map was very general, containing “bubbles” with general
Comprehensive Plan designations. As a result questions arose over zoning in those areas as well as
concern that an area could be zoned in a manner that was unrelated to its surroundings, a spot zone. There
is now a one-to-one relationship between the Comprehensive Plan map and the Zoning map, leaving little
opportunity for spot zoning.
Packet Page 12 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 10
Councilmember Plunkett asked why the language regarding spot zoning could not be retained in the
Purpose section. Mr. Chave answered since zoning must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, a
spot zoning request/action would require that the Comprehensive Plan provided for a land use that was
inconsistent with its surroundings.
Next, Councilmember Plunkett referred to language proposed to be removed in the Effect of Plan section,
Paragraph A (Private Projects. All private projects requiring city review and approval shall be consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan). He commented consistency with the Comprehensive Plan was an
important consideration in quasi judicial decisions. He also expressed concern with the removal of
language in Paragraph B regarding public projects. Mr. Chave answered the GMA did not provide for a
consistency measurement of development projects against the Comprehensive Plan. The GMA requires
development projects be measured against the development regulations and the development regulations
are adopted to implement the Comprehensive Plan. In the review of site specific development projects,
consideration typically is given to development regulations, not the Comprehensive Plan.
Similarly the Growth Management Hearings Board does not review development projects, it considers
consistency of development regulations with the Comprehensive Plan and consistency of the
Comprehensive Plan with State goals. The GMA creates a hierarchy; the Comprehensive Plan is the
policy level document, development regulations weigh the Comprehensive Plan policies and that drives
the adoption of development regulations. That same balancing does not occur in site specific reviews; the
project is evaluated against the adopted development regulations. He envisioned inconsistent decision
could result if consistency with the development regulations was considered as well as consistency with
the very broadly worded Comprehensive Plan goals and policies.
Councilmember Plunkett commented consistency with the Comprehensive Plan had been a consideration
in the recent past. Mr. Chave explained it depended on the development regulations. The Comprehensive
Plan was only considered when required by the development regulation. The language in Paragraphs A
and B introduce consistency with the Comprehensive Plan where it is not necessarily relevant. For
example, rezone criteria in the development code requires consideration of the Comprehensive Plan.
Rezone regulations have a much closer nexus with Comprehensive Plan purpose, intent and land use
patterns than other development regulations. Conversely accessory dwelling units have little to do with
the Comprehensive Plan; there would be little in the Comprehensive Plan policies that could be used to
compare one ADU to another. He summarized it was not appropriate to have a blanket statement that all
projects would be reviewed relative to the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the language would still apply to rezones. Mr. Chave answered
yes because the development code includes a criteria regarding Comprehensive Plan consistency. He
concluded none of the proposed revisions would change that.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to population targets in the Growth Management section, inquiring
whether this was a change in the City’s population targets. Mr. Chave answered it was not.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether staff anticipated the City’s population targets would change in
the future. Mr. Chave answered the next change that will reflect the new planning period and growth
targets will occur in 2014. The Comprehensive Plan was originally required to be updated in 2011; the
legislature extended that deadline due to the economy.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested the sentence at the end of the second paragraph on page 3 be revised
to read, “While general decisions on how the region will grow are made collaboratively at a regional
level, it is up to each community, particularly elected officials, to determine how to implement this vision
at the local level.’ He felt community was too broad. Mr. Chave answered it was intended to be broad;
elected officials adopt policies, there was a community process to establish them. He preferred the more
broad reference to community.
Packet Page 13 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 11
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the proposed change in A.3 on page 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.” He believed that sustainable community meant more multi family
density in urban areas. Mr. Chave disagreed with that conclusion. Councilmember Plunkett suggested
adding “and the residential nature of the area” after “sustainable community.” Mr. Chave explained he did
not think of Edmonds as a residential community; it was a multi-purpose mixed use community. There
are a variety of uses including commercial, single family, mixed use, multi family, etc. He did not agree
with characterizing a sustainable community as being more multi family. The nature of the community
was a decision made as part of land use plans. The key is for the community to be sustainable regardless
of how it is configured.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed his belief there was a clear distinction between a sustainable
community and eliminating residential area as a preference. Mr. Chave explained the Planning Board
recognized that the City includes much more than residential uses and characterizing the entire Edmonds
community as residential is not appropriate. Councilmember Plunkett responded the citizens believe
Edmonds is a residential community and he did not want that removed from the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the change in A.4.c on page 3 that was revised to read “Public
Views views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features” on page 3. Mr. Chave answered that
change reflected changes the Council has made in recent years in the development code with regard to
unenforceable statement regarding views. The development regulations and City policies support public
views but recognize the difficulty identifying/protecting private views. The proposed change is an attempt
to reflect that direction.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to A.6, page 4, “Edmonds should cooperate with surrounding
communities to ensure that the regional growth policy is consistent with the stated local policy help
ensure a coordinated implementation of the regional growth strategy,” suggesting that “and” be added
before “to” and leave the language that is proposed to be removed. He commented although others were
trying to regionalize things, he wanted to resist it. Mr. Chave responded that decision had been already
been made at the PSRC level.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to language on page 4, “Centers will continue to be a focus of
development,” inquiring what centers meant. Mr. Chave answered it was any urban center discussed in
the regional plan, such as metropolitan centers. Centers are specifically identified in the regional growth
strategy; for example Everett is identified as a growth center and Lynnwood has a regional growth center,
Edmonds does not. In the classification of cities, Edmonds is defined as a large city but not a growth
center.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about language on page 8 that is proposed to be removed, “Create a
regional system of central places framed by open space.” Mr. Chave advised that specific language was
contained in Vision 2020. Pages 6 and 7 are the restatement of the new regional plan which actually
elevates the importance of open spaces and natural areas. He referred to page 7 that indicates environment
is one of the overarching goals in Vision 2040. The regional plan still addresses contiguous open space
areas but it is in the detail of the plan.
Councilmember Petso recommended retaining paragraph B on page 1 (To encourage coordinated
development and discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning and inharmonious subdividing that addresses
coordinated development) in the Comprehensive Plan. She commented on the importance of coordinated
development in sustainability.
Packet Page 14 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 12
Councilmember Petso asked why sustainable was added to paragraph D on page 1, “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. She
remarked when she called the fire department, she cared little for what type of fuel they were burning, she
just wanted them to arrive. Mr. Chave responded sustainability is much broader than climate change or
greenhouse gas reduction, it has to do with overall financing, health of a service, how the service is
provided long term, etc. That is what the Sustainability Element is about, climate change is one aspect of
sustainability and there is a section regarding climate change in the Sustainability Element. Many
governments are discussing what level of service is sustainable long term as budgets decline.
Councilmember Petso referred to the proposal to remove the Hearing Examiner language and a letter
from a citizen stating the code requires Hearing Examiner review. Mr. Chave answered an old
Comprehensive Plan provision required that review. Councilmember Petso pointed out there was an
ECDC citation. Mr. Chave explained the Comprehensive Plan originally was in the ECDC Title 15 and
that section no longer exists. The Hearing Examiner is a quasi judicial body, not a legislative advisor. An
additional requirement for Hearing Examiner review was contained in the Comprehensive Plan but was
superseded by processes the City created over time and contained in specific titles. For example Title 20
contains a specific process for dedications, vacations, etc. The old language also inserted the Hearing
Examiner in capital facilities and capital improvement planning which have nothing to do with the quasi
judicial or Hearing Examiner process. He summarized in some cases it would have no effect but in other
cases it would duplicate the legislative process.
10. EXTENSION OF SUNSET DATE FOR CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION.
Councilmember Buckshnis, Council liaison to the Economic Development Commission (EDC),
recognized Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton, Planning Manger Rob
Chave, Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin and Executive Assistant Cindi Cruz who also assist the
EDC. She explained the EDC was originally intended to sunset at the end of 2010. The EDC has great
momentum and would like to extend the sunset date an additional year.
City Clerk Sandy Chase advised an ordinance was required to make a change to an ordinance.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO
EXTEND THE SUNSET DATE OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR
ONE YEAR.
Councilmember Petso commented the EDC was formed before she joined the Council. She has reviewed
the seven points of emphasis in the resolution and does not feel the EDC is necessary to accomplish some
of the items and she did not support spending money on some of the proposed projects.
With regard to ensuring the Economic Development Director is devoted full-time to economic
development, she pointed out if Mr. Clifton is needed for other tasks, the Mayor will assign/ask him to
perform other functions/duties. The seven points also include ensuring adequate funding for the proposals
which she noted was the Council’s role, not the EDC’s. The seven points include four plans and one
vision; she did not support funding plans that were not used. Another of the seven points is to be
publically involved in the Harbor Square development. She pointed out the 17 EDC members could do
that as individual citizens.
Councilmember Buckshnis urged Councilmember Petso to attend EDC meetings; they are very
productive. The EDC began with 17 people with very different ideas; they developed seven initiatives
Packet Page 15 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 13
which the Council can enact or act upon. To date the Council has acted on two – the fiber optics and the
study by UW students – and work continues on plans for a Strategic Plan. She acknowledged there have
been numerous plans in the past that have been shelved but she has been very impressed with the efforts
of this group to date. If the members are willing to volunteer their time and spend another year developing
more economic development, she was willing to extend the Commission.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether approving an extension in the EDC’s sunset date required the
expenditure of any funds. Councilmember Buckshnis responded it did not.
Councilmember Peterson expressed support for the motion. With regard to Councilmember Petso’s
comment regarding previous studies that were shelved, he pointed out those were conducted by outside
consultants with some input from citizens. Because this Commission is citizen-driven, they are unlikely to
allow their work to be shelved. The Commission understands the frustration with past studies that have
been shelved and that is why they want to extend the sunset date. If the EDC’s efforts were stopped at the
end of 2010, much of the Commission’s hard work would be for nothing. By extending the sunset date,
the EDC will keep the Council accountable for the next steps. He found the EDC an incredible group of
dedicated, smart, proactive citizens who are asking tough questions of the City, the Council and
themselves. He summarized the EDC was one of the most effectively committees the City has formed.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed support extending the sunset date of the EDC clarifying his support in
no way should be interpreted as endorsement of their ultimate ideas/plans. For example, the Council
passed a resolution expressing support for the EDC working on a strategic plan. Now the EDC’s work on
a strategic plan has resulted in a potential $100,000 expenditure. He reserved the right to interpret the
resolution in the manner he saw fit.
Councilmember Petso commented the Council’s discussion had convinced her, she would support
extending the sunset date.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. CLIMATE SOLUTIONS NEW ENERGY CITIES.
Councilmember Peterson explained Climate Solutions has asked to contract with the City for Edmonds to
become a New Energy City in an effort to transition to a clean, renewable, super-efficient energy system
with a comprehensive systems approach that integrates smart power grids, green intelligent buildings,
plug-in electrical vehicles and energy storage and renewable power sources such as wind, solar,
geothermal and biomass. The Council previously approved the contract with Climate Solutions but that
approval was later rescinded due to uncertainty regarding the funding source. In addition, Councilmember
Buckshnis, who was not present for the initial vote, had some concerns with community buy-in. He has
since received unanimous and enthusiastic support for the program from the Mayor’s Climate Protection
Committee and from the Economic Development Commission.
Councilmember Peterson requested the Council authorize the Mayor to sign a contract and fund the
$15,000 to partner with Climate Solutions to conduct a citywide workshop to determine a way to achieve
the goals mentioned above. Mayor Cooper and staff have identified unused revenues from the
Development Services budget to fund the $15,000 expenditure.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she met with Mr. Clifton and Mr. Chave as well as Mr. Peterson and
Climate Solutions representatives and attended Councilmember Peterson’s presentation to the EDC. She
was supportive of the contract with Climate Solutions due to the tremendous amount of potential grant
funds in the area of energy. Climate Solutions has been a very powerful lobbyist and have now moved to
conducting hands-on training. Edmonds has a very environmentally knowledgeable citizenry including
Packet Page 16 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 14
Dr. Rebecca Wolfe and Dr. Rich Senderoff who are working on a Green Business Partners Program. The
EDC also discussed how the work related to New Energy Cities could be included in a strategic plan.
COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN AND TO FULLY FUND THE CONTRACT WITH
CLIMATE SOLUTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION REGARDING HIRING A CITY COUNCIL BUDGET
ANALYST.
Councilmember Wilson explained the draft Request for Qualifications (RFQ) includes many of the
changes suggested by staff and the Council. He referred to an explanation in the materials he provided of
the problem to be addressed via a City Council Budget Analyst, why hiring an Analyst would be a
solution and how the RFQ process differed from hiring an employee. He acknowledged it was an
ambitious timeline and suggested the Council approve a work group consisting of Council President
Bernheim, Councilmember Plunkett and him to work with staff to publish the RFQ, review applications,
and return 3-5 finalists to the Council.
Council President Bernheim expressed his opposition to the proposal to hire a City Council Budget
Analyst. He was confident the Mayor could provide the City Council with the necessary information and
save the money that would be spent on this consultant.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the funding source and the cost. Councilmember Wilson responded
the position would be paid the competitive market rate. He preferred to allow the market to inform the
Council of the rate. He suggested the Analyst be funded via the Council Contingency Fund.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the respondents to the RFQ would be provided a scope of
work. Councilmember Wilson answered page 2 of the RFQ contained a scope of work. He commented
the concept of a Budget Analyst had been suggested by both staff and Mayor as an alternative for Council
consideration. He reviewed the RFQ introduction, scope of work, qualifications, information about the
City, non-discrimination policy, timeline and process for response. He explained the problem was
communication. The intent was not to hire an auditor; the question was not whether the numbers
accurately reflect the amount of money in the bank, the problem is there is not enough finance staff to
answer all the Council’s questions. The Budget Analyst would be an advocate hired by the Council who
could meet with Finance Staff and relay information to the Council. He clarified this was not intended as
a slight to the Finance Department but a recognition that the finance team used to consist of 7 members
and now has only 5.
Councilmember Buckshnis estimated the cost at $24,000-$34,000 for two months.
Councilmember Peterson commented he may be one of the few Councilmember who are not as concerned
about the communication gap. He agreed the Council did not need to hire an auditor. His primary
concerns with hiring a Budget Analyst were funding the consultant although it would be appropriate to
fund it from the Council Contingency Fund. He was also wanted to ensure that the Analyst did not
become burdensome on staff. He suggested the Council consider reinstating the positions in the Finance
Department to avoid this same situation in the future as many of the recent issues could have been
addressed if the City had a fully staff Finance Department. If the end result is seven Councilmembers who
are comfortable with the budget, it would be a worthwhile expenditure. Councilmember Peterson
concluded he would support hiring an Analyst with some reservations. He asked whether the RFQ would
go through Human Resources or whether the would Council post the RFQ. Councilmember Wilson
responded the Human Resources staff has offered to provide whatever resources the Council needs.
Packet Page 17 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 15
Councilmember Wilson explained his intent was to establish a path for moving forward toward adopting a
budget. He was concerned the Council would not be able pass a budget without the assistance of an
Analyst. This action is only to post the RFQ, a future action will be required to hire a consultant. He noted
this may be a strong enough message to administration about the Council’s concerns that things will be
different in the future. He did not want to reach the last week of December and have the situation that
happened last week or tonight with regard to the budget amendment happen again.
Councilmember Plunkett advised he assisted Councilmember Wilson with the development of the RFQ;
the RFQ addresses his concerns. To Councilmember Peterson concerns, he commented it would be a
relief to know he was not the seventh person to call or email Mr. Hines and ask him the same question
that others have asked.
Councilmember Wilson provided an analogy regarding the City’s streets, the capital infrastructure. The
City does not fix potholes or maintain the infrastructure adequately and occasionally an emergency
allocation is required to repair a problem that arises. Had the City maintained that asset, the problem may
not have arisen and the cost of the emergency repair could have been avoided. The same was true for the
City’s human infrastructure; the City does not have enough staff to provide the services citizens expect.
As a result the staff is overworked, their morale suffers, they burn out and they leave. The Council is
driving the Finance staff crazy, creating frustration for them as well as the Council. This is the emergency
expenditure, $25,000-$30,000 for two months. If the City had staff in place, had that investment been
made, this action may not be necessary.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT A WORK GROUP LEAD BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT AND HIMSELF TO IMPLEMENT THE RFQ
AND TIMELINE AND BRING BACK A HANDFUL OF QUALIFIED RESPONDENTS TO
COUNCIL ACCORDING TO THE TIMELINE.
Councilmember Peterson recommended when the Financial Analyst is hired, the Council make a
concerted effort not to email Mr. Hines regarding the budget and utilize the Analyst as a resource. He also
urged Councilmembers to support the Analyst and not hire him/her in an effort to “pass the buck.”
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
13. REPORT ON MAYOR’S COMMUNITY SURVEY.
Mayor Cooper explained the City conducted an online survey beginning approximately three weeks ago
to measure the community’s satisfaction with the work the City is doing and to ask citizens to establish
some priorities. He explained 400 people visited the site and 212 completed the survey. This is a non-
scientific survey and does not represent any certain cross-section of the community. A link to the survey
and details regarding the responses was forwarded to Councilmembers and will be available on the City’s
website tomorrow. He reviewed the survey questions and responses:
Question Response
How do you feel about the overall direction the
city is headed? (5 being strongly agree we are
headed in the right direction, 1 being we are
headed in the wrong direction)
2.917
In the following areas, please rank your
satisfaction with the services the city provides. (5
being very satisfied, 1 being not satisfied)
Parks Maintenance 3.91
Recreation Programs 3.72
Art and Cultural Activities 3.98
Traffic Enforcement 3.28
Packet Page 18 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 16
Animal Control 3.34
Parking Enforcement 3.30
Emergency Police Response 4.06
Emergency Medical Aid 4.22
Fire Prevention 3.92
Emergency Fire Response 4.13
Street Maintenance 3.01
Sidewalk Maintenance 2.87
Flower Program 4.17
Permitting Process 2.68
Economic Development 2.55
Utility Maintenance 3.44
Customer Service 3.36
Senior Services 3.38
In the following areas, please rank each area 1 - 5
based on your individual opinion of how the city
should be spending your money. (5 being the
highest and 1 being the lowest)
Parks Maintenance 3.50
New Parks 2.21
Yost Pool 3.12
Recreation Programs 3.14
Art and Cultural Activities 3.18
Street Flower Program 3.04
Traffic Enforcement 3.21
Crime Prevention Officer 3.36
Animal Control 2.86
Parking Enforcement 2.53
Emergency Police Response 4.16
Economic Development 3.89
Street Maintenance 3.70
Sidewalk Maintenance 3.51
New Sidewalks 2.78
New Bike Lanes 2.48
Emergency Preparedness 3.49
Maintenance of City Bldgs 3.30
Utility Maintenance 3.73
High School Officer 2.93
Traffic Congestion Relief 2.73
Senior Center 3.05
By the end of 2011 the city will need to either
make program reductions or have additional
revenue to be sustainable into the future. Please
rank each item in the following list of solutions
based on your individual priorities
New Council approved revenue 2.706
New voter approved revenue 3.743
Eliminate programs 2.767
Across the board reductions 2.795
A combination of new revenue
and reductions 3.575
Below is a list of possible revenue sources. Please
rank each area 1 – 5 with 5 meaning you strongly
agree and 1 meaning you strongly disagree
Increase property tax 2.75
Increase sales tax 2.55
Increase vehicle license fees 2.62
Charge for parking downtown and in
City owned lots 2.57
Implement a B&O tax 2.38
How often do you visit our city parks? Daily 12.50%
Several times per week 28.12%
Once a week 17.19%
Monthly 17.19%
Packet Page 19 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 17
Less than once a month 19.79%
Not at all 5.21%
Have you ever visited City Hall? Yes 84.74%
No 15.26%
Do you follow city council meetings on the city
cable TV channel 21/39?
Yes 52.60%
No 47.40%
Do you find the City cable TV channel a helpful
source of information? Please rank 1 -5, with 5
being very helpful and 1 no help at all.
Average score 3.044
What news source do you use to find information
about city government? (Select as many as you
use)
Beacon 28.60%
Myedmondsnews.com 13.67%
Enterprise 22.66%
Herald 14.93%
Seattle Times 12.77%
Edmonds.komonews.com 7.37%
Is the city website a helpful way for you to find
information about Edmonds? Please rank 1 - 5,
with 5 being very helpful and 1 being not helpful
at all?
Average score 3.15
14. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Councilmember Peterson reported the Highway 99 Task Force discussed changing the borders of the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. The Task Force also discussed establishing a transition zone
between Highway 99 and the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Mr. Clifton, Mayor Cooper and Council
President Bernheim are encouraging Dick’s Drive In to locate in Edmonds.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported Human Resources Director Debi Human provided a report to the
Citizen Levy Committee meeting on compensation policies and salary surveys conducted with similar
cities as well as surrounding cities. The Economic Development Commission meeting included
discussion regard the Strategic Plan and the study of Five Corners and Westgate that will be conducted by
UW students, Councilmember Peterson provided a presentation on Climate Solutions, and Rich Senderoff
provide a presentation on a Green Business Partners Program.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Port Commission meeting included a presentation from Cascade
Land Conservancy regarding Complete Streets. The Port also asked about daylighting Willow Creek. She
commented on the possibility of funding available from WRIA 8 for daylighting Willow Creek. The Port
is working on their budget process and the Harbor Square Master Plan Phase 2 is underway.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the WRIA 8 meeting that a presentation regarding the Cedar River.
The presentation is available on DVD. WRIA 8 is working on legislation to help endangered salmon and
to clean up Puget Sound. She also attended the Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting which focused on
the continued review of countywide planning policies.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Plunkett reported on the Parking Committee, advising parking permits are at an all time
high of 395. He also reported on the Historic Preservation Committee, explaining about five years ago a
consultant was hired with the proceeds of a grant to inventory historic structures. As a result of Mr.
Packet Page 20 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 18
Chave’s efforts, another grant was secured to expand the survey. He thanked Mr. Chave for his assistance
acquiring the grant.
Councilmember Wilson reported of the six entities that formed the Lake Ballinger Forum, only three and
possibly four remain. Shoreline and Lynnwood have decided not to participate. Next, he referred to an
article in the Enterprise regarding SNOCOM and accusation by the union of inappropriate conduct by the
Executive Director. He expressed his confidence in SNOCOM’s Executive Director Debbie Grady. When
the employees expressed their concerns to the SNOCOM Board, the Board hired an outside, independent
investigative authority to review the complaints; they were all found to be without merit. SNOCOM is
going through a significant cultural change that some people may not like. That cultural change will be a
significant benefit to the citizens of Edmonds. During his time on the Board he became aware of several
unacceptable things about the operation of SNOCOM; Ms. Grady is attempting to correct them. He was
proud to have Ms. Grady working on the Council’s and the citizens’ behalf.
15. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper referred to information about Sound Transit’s budget situation and their intent to delay or
cancel projects primarily from ST2. It appears Edmonds took a larger than average hit on the project
cancellations and delays. Mr. Clifton and he plan to ask the Sound Transit Board and CEO to meet with
them which will be followed by a presentation to the City Council. He recommended the Council make
its position clear regarding the importance of completing the Sounder station and other Sound Transit
improvements in Edmonds as well as ensuring that both written and verbal communication is provided at
Sound Transit public hearings.
Mayor Cooper reported AWC has asked him to serve on a Puget Sound Partnership Working Group that
will met from now until next summer to discuss oil spills on Puget Sound, a topic he is very interested in.
He will serve as one of two city representatives on that group.
Mayor Cooper explained after watching last week’s Council meeting, he was compelled to make remarks
to the community. First, in the heat of the moment he commented that all four of the Levy Committee
members who met with Mr. Hines had emailed him. While all four indicated verbally to Mr. Hines that he
was helpful, only two emails were sent and copied to him. One of the emails gave him the impression the
person was speaking for all four meeting attendees. If that was not the case, it was a misunderstanding on
his part. Second, while he is frustrated with the perceived lack of respect shown by Council toward staff
at times, he make a commitment to run Council meetings with a level of decorum and professionalism the
community deserves and he did not do that. He felt he had let the community down by letting his Irish
temper show through. That was yesterday and this today; his commitment to the community and his
challenge to the Council is to look through the windshield and not the rearview mirror and work together
in a professional manner treating each other, staff and residents with the highest level of respect and
decorum they deserve. He quoted the Chair of the Democratic Caucasus in the House of Representatives,
the late Representative Bill Grant from Walla Walla who used to say at the conclusion of meetings, “Nuff
said.”
16. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Petso commented it was discovered tonight that economic development means different
things to different people and that sustainability means different things to different people. Over the next
few weeks she challenged the Council to reach agreement on those terms before they were adopted into
law. For example, she did not read sustainability to mean density. Using her son’s soccer schedule as an
example, she explained home games for this primarily Edmonds-based team are in Bothell, 11 miles from
their home because someone’s interpretation of sustainability meant the City did not need to provide
fields. A recent away game against a Mountlake Terrace/Brier club was held in Mountlake Terrace, only
Packet Page 21 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 19
5 miles from home. She summarized the system was possibly broken if home games were twice as far
away as home games and none of them were in the City where the players live. If the City takes care of its
citizens needs, whether by common sense or because it is sustainable, 17 families would not be driving 11
miles to play a game in another city. She assumed the other 50+ Sno-King teams were doing the same
thing. If the aspects of sustainability that involve meeting the needs of Edmonds citizens were taken
seriously, the result would be something other than density at all costs.
Councilmember Wilson reported his new fence has been installed and he finished his first triathlon last
weekend. Next, he referred to Mr. Wambolt’s criticism of Councilmembers comments regarding the
credibility of the FD1 numbers. He referred to the July 7, 2009 presentation by Fire Chief Tomberg that
included numbers and information. The information is not available online. On September 1, 2009, the
Council received updated numbers, numbers he assumed differed from the July 7, 2009 numbers. He
reviewed the numbers at that time and raised several questions. The Council then received new updated
numbers on September 15, 2009. When the Council reviewed those numbers and numerous questions
were raised about the policy implications of the FD1 contract, a new set of numbers were provided on
October 20, 2009. By that time he was convinced that it did not matter what questions were raised, he
would simply be provided a new set of numbers that would make his questions less of a concern.
Councilmember Wilson explained one of his questions was in regard to the EMS transport fees. As
presented to the Council, the transport fees went with the sale of the stations. It was later learned that the
transport fees could have been negotiated separate from the sale of the stations. He explained one of the
reasons the City did not sell the stations was in addition to the stations, Edmonds was going to give FD1
$700,000 in EMS transport fees. In that scenario, the City would sell real estate asset as well as the
financial asset, the EMS transport fees, for no additional compensation. That cashflow was more valuable
than the real estate asset. When the sale of the fire stations and the EMS transport fee was pulled from the
contract, Mayor Haakenson said without the stations and the transport fees, the contract was not
worthwhile; the reason behind the contract was to sell the assets and use the revenue for operations.
Mayor Haakenson later recanted that statement.
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern that these issues continue. For example, the City was trying to
determine Fire Department overtime but learned overtime was also included in two other line items.
Another discrepancy is the City continues to pay SNOCOM for 911 calls. The PowerPoint presentation
repeatedly states one of the savings of the contract with FD1 was SNOCOM fees. He concluded this was
relevant because the Council was trying to figure out how to get through a budget when they could not
even figure out the story behind the FD1 contract, much less the real numbers. He continued to have
doubts regarding the credibility of some of the numbers related to the FD1 contract.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 10 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Peterson announced the Chamber Candidates Forum on Monday, October 4 in Council
Chambers at 7:00 p.m. The forum will be aired on Channels 21 and 39 throughout the week. He advised
another Candidates Forum hosted by D. J. Wilson at Edmonds Community College was available via a
link on Myedmondsnews.com.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the volunteers who help with the International Coastal Cleanup Day
on Saturday, September 25, spearheaded by the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Habitat group.
Council President Bernheim reported to date the Council budget is under budget; for three-quarters of the
year the Council has spent approximately two-thirds of the budgeted amount. He explained it was
professional services, primarily legal services that were most in danger of being over budget. He
encouraged Councilmembers to hold their demands on legal services to ensure the legal budget was not
Packet Page 22 of 384
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 28, 2010
Page 20
exceeded. He reminded the deadline for a February levy was December 22. He thanked Mayor Cooper
and the Council for moving through tonight’s lengthy agenda. He encouraged Councilmembers to
moderate their comments with the goal of ending meetings on time.
17. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
Packet Page 23 of 384
AM-3419 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
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 #121433 through #121603 dated September 30, 2010 for $188,383.31.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim 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:188,383.31
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $188,383.31
Attachments
Claim Checks for 09-30-10
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Lorenzo Hines 09/30/2010 04:36 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 04:37 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/01/2010 08:00 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2010 08:40 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 09/30/2010 09:53 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/01/2010
Packet Page 24 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121433 9/30/2010 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 286262 1-13992
PEST CONTROL
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 69.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.56
Total :75.56
121434 9/30/2010 070628 ACHESON, ALICE ACHESON100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: MARKETING YOUR WRITING
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 170.00
Total :170.00
121435 9/30/2010 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND OCTOBER 2010 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 10/10 EDMONDS AC
ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 10/10
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 2,032.66
Total :2,032.66
121436 9/30/2010 063819 ADKINS, LESLIE ADKINS100310 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTATION: PITCH PARTY
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00
PRESENTATION: CONFESSIONS OF A CONTEST
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00
Total :312.00
121437 9/30/2010 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 10-453 JANITORIAL SERVICE
JANITORIAL SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00
Total :334.00
121438 9/30/2010 073399 ALCHEMY WEST INC FRITZ100210 WOTS PRESENTER
ROBYN FRITZ PRESENTER: MANUSCRIPT
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 200.00
ROBYN FRITZ PRESENTER: OUTLINING YOUR
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :330.00
1Page:
Packet Page 25 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121439 9/30/2010 063862 ALPINE PRODUCTS INC TM-111607 Traffic Control - Yellow TrafficPaint
Traffic Control - Yellow TrafficPaint
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 5,910.00
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 363.77
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 596.01
Total :6,869.78
121440 9/30/2010 065413 ALPINE TREE SERVICE 7125 STUMP GRINDING/CITY PARK
GRIND STUMP
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 150.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 14.25
TREE REMOVAL/7TH & FIR7126
TAKE DOWN ALDER TREE @ 7TH & FIR
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 300.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 28.50
YOST PARK TREE REMOVAL7127
REMOVE LEANING, DEAD TREES @ YOST PARK
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 1,275.00
9.5% Sales Tax
125.000.640.576.800.480.00 121.13
BRANCH REMOVAL/7TH & FIR7128
REMOVE ALDER BRANCHES/7TH & FIR
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 125.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 11.88
Total :2,025.76
121441 9/30/2010 001528 AM TEST INC 61119 OIL & GREASE ANALYSIS
OIL & GREASE ANALYSIS
411.000.656.538.800.410.31 50.00
Total :50.00
2Page:
Packet Page 26 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121442 9/30/2010 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE ANDERSON0925 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR:
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 315.00
Total :315.00
121443 9/30/2010 065378 APPLIED INDUSTRIAL TECH 04030538 Fleet Returns
Fleet Returns
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -11.29
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -1.07
Unit 98 - Roller Chain40358540
Unit 98 - Roller Chain
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 94.40
9.2% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.68
Total :90.72
121444 9/30/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5134456 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
121445 9/30/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5110827 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.26
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.39
21580001655-5122565
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.38
Total :147.21
3Page:
Packet Page 27 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121446 9/30/2010 001835 AWARDS SERVICE INC 74849 ENGRAVED PLATES
ENGRAVED PLATES
117.200.640.575.500.490.00 77.67
Freight
117.200.640.575.500.490.00 3.90
9.5% Sales Tax
117.200.640.575.500.490.00 7.75
Total :89.32
121447 9/30/2010 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 011648460 Canon 5870 copier lease (11/1 -
Canon 5870 copier lease (11/1 -
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 101.35
Canon 5870 copier lease (11/1 -
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 101.32
Canon 5870 copier lease (11/1 -
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 101.33
Supply Charge
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 25.00
Supply Charge
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 25.00
Supply Charge
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 25.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 12.01
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 12.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 11.99
Total :415.00
121448 9/30/2010 073396 BARRETT, Q LINDSEY BARRETT100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: WARP & WEFT ... HISTORICAL
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
121449 9/30/2010 073397 BARRON, DAWN PICHON BARRON100310 WOTS PRESENTER
4Page:
Packet Page 28 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121449 9/30/2010 (Continued)073397 BARRON, DAWN PICHON
PRESENTER: SETTING & NARRATIVE
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00
Total :156.00
121450 9/30/2010 070634 BAUGHER, JANEE BAUGHER100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTATION: FLASH FICTION: WRITE
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
121451 9/30/2010 073407 BENDER, SHEILA BENDER100310 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: ON WRITING MEMOIR ..
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 363.00
Total :363.00
121452 9/30/2010 073395 BLUE FLOWER ARTS LLC BLUEFLOWER100210 KEYNOTE LECTURE/NATALIE GOLDBERG
KEYNOTE LECTURE: NATALIE GOLDBERG
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 5,500.00
Total :5,500.00
121453 9/30/2010 069638 BREWSTER, DAVID BREWSTER100310 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: SMALL PRESS PUBLISHING
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00
Total :156.00
121454 9/30/2010 066578 BROWN AND CALDWELL 14132253 C-311
C-311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 2,367.25
Total :2,367.25
121455 9/30/2010 071510 BUCK, ALICIA BUCK13132 FANCY NANCY SOIREE
FANCY NANCY SOIREE #13132
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 176.40
Total :176.40
121456 9/30/2010 071766 CAMPBELL, CONNIE CAMPBELL12886 LACONNER/GOAT ISLAND KAYAK TRIP
LACONNER/GOAT ISLAND KAYAK TOUR #12886
5Page:
Packet Page 29 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121456 9/30/2010 (Continued)071766 CAMPBELL, CONNIE
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 248.40
Total :248.40
121457 9/30/2010 071942 CAMPBELL, JULANN CAMPBELL13049 OIL PAINTING CLASSES
OIL PAINTING #13049
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 400.40
OIL PAINTING #13048
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 431.20
Total :831.60
121458 9/30/2010 068484 CEMEX 9420120681 Street - Sidewalk Repair Materials
Street - Sidewalk Repair Materials
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 160.00
9.2% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 14.72
Total :174.72
121459 9/30/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 160973 Fleet Shop Supplies - Acetylene
Fleet Shop Supplies - Acetylene
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 91.69
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 8.71
Total :100.40
121460 9/30/2010 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT12951 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #12951
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 67.20
Total :67.20
121461 9/30/2010 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 26660631 INV#26660631 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD
FUEL FOR NARCOTICS VEHICLE
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 43.23
Total :43.23
121462 9/30/2010 073398 CHRISTIANSON, LAURA CHRISTIANSON100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: SHAPING YOUR SOCIAL MEDIAL
6Page:
Packet Page 30 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121462 9/30/2010 (Continued)073398 CHRISTIANSON, LAURA
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
121463 9/30/2010 073430 CHUPRINA, LARISSA CHUPRINA12890 UKRAINIAN EGG DECORATING
UKRAINIAN EGG DECORATING #12890
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 30.00
EGG DECORATING #12891
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 75.00
Total :105.00
121464 9/30/2010 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 1-218359-279832 2203 N 205TH ST/METER 762972
2203 N 205TH ST/METER 762972
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 16.47
Total :16.47
121465 9/30/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2231364 FAC - Solenoid Valve Kit
FAC - Solenoid Valve Kit
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 185.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.58
Fac Maint - Fresheners, cleaners, seatW2235213
Fac Maint - Fresheners, cleaners, seat
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 540.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 51.34
Total :794.34
121466 9/30/2010 070300 CODE 4 INC 8321 INV 8321 EARL YAMANE - BULLETPROOF MIND
BULLETPROOF MIND - YAMANE 10/5
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 99.00
Total :99.00
121467 9/30/2010 073387 COLELLA, CAROL COLELLA0923 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT @ MEADOWDALE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 200.00
7Page:
Packet Page 31 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :200.001214679/30/2010 073387 073387 COLELLA, CAROL
121468 9/30/2010 065891 CONLEY, LISA CONLEY13147 MINI EXPLORER CLASS
MINI EXPLORER #13147
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 54.60
Total :54.60
121469 9/30/2010 071328 COOMER, PAULA COOMER09202010 WOTS JUDGE & PRESENTER
WOTS JUDGE: NONFICTION WRITING CONTEST
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 100.00
PRESENTATION: THE ROLE OF PERSEVERANCE
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 306.00
Total :406.00
121470 9/30/2010 073423 CREATIVE SERVICES OF D10-05-6071 INV#D10-05-6071 - EDMONDS PD
JUNIOR OFFICER BADGE STICKERS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 279.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 19.95
Total :298.95
121471 9/30/2010 072189 DATASITE 65532 INV#65532 - EDMONDS PD
SHREDDING 1-64 GALLON TOTE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 40.00
INV#66104 - EDMONDS PD66104
SHREDDING 1-64 GALLON TOTE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 40.00
Total :80.00
121472 9/30/2010 073087 DAVENPORT, TONI DAVENPORT13116 GOURD ART - INTRODUCTION
GOURT ART - INTRODUCTION #13116
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 132.60
Total :132.60
121473 9/30/2010 062669 DIETRICH, WILLIAM DIETRICH100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: USING TRUTH TO PUMP UP YOUR
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
8Page:
Packet Page 32 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :130.001214739/30/2010 062669 062669 DIETRICH, WILLIAM
121474 9/30/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3135 MINUTE TAKING
09/21 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 456.00
Total :456.00
121475 9/30/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001232/1 SIGNS
ASSORTED SIGNS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 58.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.55
PRUNING SAW001234/1
FOLDING PRUNING SAW 7"
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 22.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.18
Total :89.17
121476 9/30/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 27241 SEALANT
SEALANT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.26
Total :14.55
121477 9/30/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-07490 16113 75TH PL W
16113 75TH PL W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 71.85
18410 92ND AVE W3-38565
18410 92ND AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.58
CITY MARINA BEACH PARK6-00025
CITY MARINA BEACH PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,203.08
CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM6-00200
CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM
9Page:
Packet Page 33 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121477 9/30/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,099.68
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH6-00410
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 877.30
MINI PARK6-00475
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,077.62
CITY PARK BALLFIELD6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,517.13
CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,057.74
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 596.99
310 6TH AVE N6-02727
310 6TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 267.63
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRINKLER6-02730
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 188.58
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER)6-02900
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,492.97
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 320.21
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 291.77
CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK6-03575
CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 174.28
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400
10Page:
Packet Page 34 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121477 9/30/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,321.69
8100 185TH PL SW6-04425
8100 185TH PL SW
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 321.47
SIERRA PARK6-04450
SIERRA PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 864.76
BALLINGER PARK6-07775
BALLINGER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 187.32
YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,256.25
YOST PARK POOL6-08525
YOST PARK POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 3,339.04
Total :17,552.94
121478 9/30/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-01127 WWTP WATER
WWTP WATER
411.000.656.538.800.473.64 232.47
WWTP WATER6-01130
WWTP WATER
411.000.656.538.800.473.64 25.63
WWTP WATER6-01140
WWTP WATER
411.000.656.538.800.473.64 1,335.76
Total :1,593.86
121479 9/30/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11
LIFT STATION #11
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 25.58
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE3-03575
MEADOWDALE CLUB HOUSE
11Page:
Packet Page 35 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121479 9/30/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 213.64
LIFT STATION #123-07525
LIFT STATION #12
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 60.87
LIFT STATION #153-07709
LIFT STATION #15
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 25.58
LIFT STATION #43-09350
LIFT STATION #4
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 63.07
LIFT STATION #103-09800
LIFT STATION #10
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 32.17
LIFT STATION #93-29875
LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.97
Total :450.88
121480 9/30/2010 069882 EMIL'S CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION 0017270 CEMETERY COLUMBARIUM REPAIRS
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.480.00 462.18
COLUMBARIUM REPAIRS
130.000.640.536.500.480.00 4,865.00
Total :5,327.18
121481 9/30/2010 071922 ENGLISH, CRAIG ENGLISH100310 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: HUMOR IN NONFICTION
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00
Total :156.00
121482 9/30/2010 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0267335 Water - 12"Plastic Meter boxes, 5'
Water - 12"Plastic Meter boxes, 5'
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 256.37
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 19.74
12Page:
Packet Page 36 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121482 9/30/2010 (Continued)009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC
Water Inventory - w-flngbr-02-0100267881
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 146.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 51.83
Water Inventory - w-flngbr-02-010
411.000.654.534.800.341.00 398.92
Total :873.50
121483 9/30/2010 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 296843 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent for Sep &
001.000.390.519.900.450.00 600.00
Total :600.00
121484 9/30/2010 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH13192 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE 13+
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 172.90
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #13192
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 41.60
IRISH DANCE 13+
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 132.60
Total :347.10
121485 9/30/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 53.92
Total :53.92
121486 9/30/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-206-1108 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 145.47
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 270.16
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR425-206-1137
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
13Page:
Packet Page 37 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121486 9/30/2010 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.50
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-1141
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.53
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.41
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-4810
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 78.58
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.32
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE425-712-8347
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 56.14
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM425-775-2455
PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 50.11
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST425-778-3297
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.87
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 35.05
Total :776.14
121487 9/30/2010 071945 GILL-ROSE, SUE GILLROSE12945 WATERCOLOR & DRAWING CLASSES
WATERCOLOR #12945
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 385.00
DRAWING #12941
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 369.60
Total :754.60
121488 9/30/2010 073424 GIRARDI, KRISTINE GIRARDI0927 REFUND
REFUND FOR CANCELLED CLASS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 147.00
14Page:
Packet Page 38 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :147.001214889/30/2010 073424 073424 GIRARDI, KRISTINE
121489 9/30/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9350917895 RUST REFORMER
RUST REFORMER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 87.65
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.28
Total :106.92
121490 9/30/2010 070638 HARDWICK, MELINDA HARDWICK100310 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: WHEN YOUR CHARACTERS FALL
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00
Total :156.00
121491 9/30/2010 073425 HENG, PEGGY HENG0927 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 48.00
Total :48.00
121492 9/30/2010 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 73 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 22.52
Total :22.52
121493 9/30/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 6037621 0205
ROPE CLAMPS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 39.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.78
02058048061
NYLON POLY
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 23.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.20
020581983
15Page:
Packet Page 39 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121493 9/30/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
COUPLINGS, OUTLET BOXES, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 39.44
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.76
02059082282
SCREWS, ANCHORS, FILLER, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 33.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.21
Total :149.14
121494 9/30/2010 069952 HUGHES, HOLLY HUGHES100110 WOTS PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOP
TEACH WOTS PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOP IN
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 510.00
Total :510.00
121495 9/30/2010 070742 HURLEY, DAN HURLEY10012010 WOTS PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOP
TEACHING WOTS PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOP
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 510.00
Total :510.00
121496 9/30/2010 072041 IBS INCORPORATED 466233-1 Traffic Control - Street - Paint &
Traffic Control - Street - Paint &
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 110.34
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 33.29
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 13.65
Total :157.28
121497 9/30/2010 070042 IKON 83267841 INV#83267841 467070-1005305A3 EDMONDS PD
COPIER RENTAL 09/13-10/12/10
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 340.00
ADDITIONAL IMAGES
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 169.72
16Page:
Packet Page 40 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121497 9/30/2010 (Continued)070042 IKON
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.450.00 48.43
Total :558.15
121498 9/30/2010 070042 IKON 83283352 COPIER LEASE
PARKS & RECREATION OFFICE COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 328.50
Total :328.50
121499 9/30/2010 070042 IKON 831578172 COPIER LEASE
Cannon Image Runner 8/30-9/29
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 803.12
Total :803.12
121500 9/30/2010 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5015063612 Copies/DSD Rcept sm copier
Copies/DSD Rcept sm copier
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 7.64
Total :7.64
121501 9/30/2010 068814 INDUSTRIAL FABRICS CORP 386156 5840
DUROTEX BELTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6,358.00
Total :6,358.00
121502 9/30/2010 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS ED5499 INV#ED5499 ACCT#ED03 - EDMONDS PD
AAA BATTERIES
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 71.92
CR123 BATTERIES
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 29.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 9.67
Total :111.49
121503 9/30/2010 065980 ISS WONDERWARE 400542 On Site Support for upgrade from
On Site Support for upgrade from310-00142
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 2,800.00
17Page:
Packet Page 41 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :2,800.001215039/30/2010 065980 065980 ISS WONDERWARE
121504 9/30/2010 069264 J & K ASSOCIATES 1322 Roadway - Crack Sealer
Roadway - Crack Sealer
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 5,042.88
Freight
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 866.67
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 561.41
Total :6,470.96
121505 9/30/2010 065056 JOHNSON, TROY Johnson, Troy Lobby Monitor 9/23/2010 for 2010 CLC
Lobby Monitor 9/23/2010 for 2010 CLC
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
121506 9/30/2010 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD13141 PHOTOGRAPHY FIELD TRIP
PHOTOGRAPHY FIELD TRIP #13141
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 94.50
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHYULVESTAD13197
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 101
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 147.00
Total :241.50
121507 9/30/2010 072728 KAVADAS, JANET KAVADAS13113 PERSONAL TRAINER
PERSONAL TRAINER
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 28.00
Total :28.00
121508 9/30/2010 066913 KDL HARDWARE SUPPLY INC 439683 Fac Maint - Locksmith Supplies
Fac Maint - Locksmith Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 215.18
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.62
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 20.97
18Page:
Packet Page 42 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :241.771215089/30/2010 066913 066913 KDL HARDWARE SUPPLY INC
121509 9/30/2010 069355 KLEINFELDER INC 662101 C-311
C-311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 300.00
Total :300.00
121510 9/30/2010 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARDEN KRUCKEBERG13166 GARDEN TOURS & WORKSHOP
CLASS #'S 13166, 13155 & 13162
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 247.50
Total :247.50
121511 9/30/2010 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 09132010-03 City Car Washes (3)
City Car Washes (3)
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 15.09
Total :15.09
121512 9/30/2010 069083 LAMPHERE, KAREN LAMPHERE13233 COOLING INFLAMMATION WITH FOOD
COOLING INFLAMMATION WITH FOOD #13233
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 175.00
Total :175.00
121513 9/30/2010 073401 LASKIN, DAVID LASKIN100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: CREATING A NF NARRATIVE
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
121514 9/30/2010 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 9010-233 NITRILE GLOVES
NITRILE GLOVES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 124.77
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 12.37
Total :142.55
121515 9/30/2010 068694 LONG, SOKHOM Y000392 OT from sick leave buy back not bought
19Page:
Packet Page 43 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121515 9/30/2010 (Continued)068694 LONG, SOKHOM
OT from sick leave buy back not bought
411.000.655.535.800.110.00 9.48
Total :9.48
121516 9/30/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105064 INV#105064 - EDMONDS PD
2,500 #10 WINDOW ENVELOPES
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 180.68
2,500 BLUE REMITTANCE ENVELOPES
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 114.78
1,000 APPLICATION ENVELOPES
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 173.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 44.58
Total :513.89
121517 9/30/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105094I ORGANIZER, FLAGS
Organizer, flags
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 51.55
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 4.90
Total :56.45
121518 9/30/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105049 LASER PAPER
LEGAL LASER PAPER
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 11.99
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 1.14
Total :13.13
121519 9/30/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 104802 VHS Tapes for Council Meetings
VHS Tapes for Council Meetings
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 25.32
Total :25.32
121520 9/30/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105047 DSD Office Supplies
DSD Office Supplies
20Page:
Packet Page 44 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121520 9/30/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 420.13
Legal folders - Planning Div105054
Legal folders - Planning Div
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 36.12
Total :456.25
121521 9/30/2010 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 589909 Fleet Shop Filters
Fleet Shop Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 44.48
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.23
Fleet - Repair Kit591122
Fleet - Repair Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.76
Total :57.45
121522 9/30/2010 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 719164 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 22.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.18
Total :25.13
121523 9/30/2010 073429 MALLOY, GLORIA MALLOY12931 ZUMBA CLASSES
ZUMBA #12931
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 75.60
Total :75.60
121524 9/30/2010 019583 MANPOWER INC 20917374 Temp for 9/9 & 9/10/10 for pm reception
Temp for 9/9 & 9/10/10 for pm reception
001.000.620.558.800.410.00 137.96
Total :137.96
121525 9/30/2010 064477 MARSHALL, GARY MARSHALL100310 WOTS PRESENTER
21Page:
Packet Page 45 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121525 9/30/2010 (Continued)064477 MARSHALL, GARY
PRESENTER: LEGAL SMORGASBORD FOR
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
121526 9/30/2010 066719 MCKENZIE & ADAMS INC 0074642 BOOTS, OVERALLS, JACKETS
BOOTS, JACKET & OVERALLS FOR CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 123.10
BOOTS, JACKETS & OVERALLS FOR PARK
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 207.20
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 11.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.69
Total :361.69
121527 9/30/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 64310306 123106800
ADHESIVE INSULATION
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 163.32
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.29
12310680064874843
FIRST-AID SUPPLIES/POSITIVE RAKE/SET
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 221.20
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.21
Total :400.02
121528 9/30/2010 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER0929 GYM MONITOR
GYM MONITOR FOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 60.00
Total :60.00
121529 9/30/2010 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 115057 131
PROPANE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 25.35
22Page:
Packet Page 46 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121529 9/30/2010 (Continued)020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.41
Total :27.76
121530 9/30/2010 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 115369 Street - Brush Hog Mower Rental
Street - Brush Hog Mower Rental
111.000.653.542.710.450.00 81.95
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.710.450.00 7.79
Total :89.74
121531 9/30/2010 071929 MORRELL, JESSICA MORRELL100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: PROPOSALS THAT SIZZLE
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
WOTS PRESENTERMORRELL100310
PRESENTER: ANATOMY OF A SCENE
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 256.00
JUDGE FOR FICTION ENTRIES
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 100.00
Total :486.00
121532 9/30/2010 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0436895-IN Fleet Filter Inventory
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 23.91
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 2.27
Fleet Filter Inventory0437187-IN
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 11.62
Lift St 7 - filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.17
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 1.11
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.19
23Page:
Packet Page 47 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121532 9/30/2010 (Continued)024302 NELSON PETROLEUM
Fleet Filter Inventory0437419-IN
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 39.40
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 3.74
Total :107.41
121533 9/30/2010 070788 NETRIVER INC 51463 WEBSITE HOSTING PS BIRD FEST QUARTERLY
Quarterly website hosting for Puget
120.000.310.575.420.410.00 29.85
Total :29.85
121534 9/30/2010 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 15026 260
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 933.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 88.71
Total :1,022.51
121535 9/30/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-187315 CREDIT FOR HONEY BUCKET
CREDIT FOR HONEYBUCKET @ HUMMINGBIRD
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 -42.68
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-189611
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: EDMONDS ELEMENTARY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-189987
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: MADRONA ELEMENTARY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 101.20
Total :248.39
121536 9/30/2010 073152 NORTHWEST GEOGRAPHICS INC 213 PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst
PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 952.00
City Wide GIS
001.000.310.518.880.110.00 119.00
24Page:
Packet Page 48 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121536 9/30/2010 (Continued)073152 NORTHWEST GEOGRAPHICS INC
Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,368.50
Water
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 714.00
PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst214
PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 654.50
Street
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 119.00
Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 952.00
Water
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 714.00
PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst215
PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 297.50
Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 297.50
Water
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 952.00
Total :7,140.00
121537 9/30/2010 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 162 ADB Minutetaker 9-15-10
ADB Minutetaker 9-15-10
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 256.00
Total :256.00
121538 9/30/2010 068570 O'CONNELL, NICK O'CONNELL100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: TRAVEL, FOOD & WINE WRITING
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
121539 9/30/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 047315 INV#047315 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
HIGHLIGHTERS-ASSORTED
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 10.72
25Page:
Packet Page 49 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121539 9/30/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
SHARPIE BLACK PENS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 17.06
ORBITZ GEL PENS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 10.73
SHARPIE GRIP PENS
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 6.21
HEAVY DUTY STAPLE REMOVERS
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 25.44
HEAVY DUTY STAPLE REMOVERS
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 38.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 4.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 2.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 3.61
Total :118.60
121540 9/30/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 050418 ASSORTED PAPER
ASSORTED COLORED COPY PAPER
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 40.01
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.80
Total :43.81
121541 9/30/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 031953 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 253.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 24.06
OFFICE SUPPLIES102884
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 14.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 1.41
26Page:
Packet Page 50 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :293.651215419/30/2010 063511 063511 OFFICE MAX INC
121542 9/30/2010 025889 OGDEN MURPHY AND WALLACE 686467 AUG-10 LEGAL FEES
Aug-10 Legal Fees - Litigation
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 16,141.27
AUG-10 RETAINER & LEGAL FEES686473
Aug-10 Legal Retainer Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 19,788.08
Aug-10 Legal Itemized Fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 4,088.40
Total :40,017.75
121543 9/30/2010 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS PACNWFLOAT13152 GOLD PANNING RAFT ADVENTURE
GOLD PANNING RAFT ADVENTUE #13152
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 210.42
Total :210.42
121544 9/30/2010 027148 PARAMOUNT SUPPLY CO 244344 Unit 31 - Disc & Disc Holders
Unit 31 - Disc & Disc Holders
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 312.50
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 30.88
Total :355.88
121545 9/30/2010 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 95149 INV#95149 - EDMONDS PD - #10-3501
TOWING 1994 HONDA #128YJR
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
INV#95255 - EDMONDS PD - #10-362195255
TOWING 1996 VW PASSAT 494UOR
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
27Page:
Packet Page 51 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :346.021215459/30/2010 070962 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC
121546 9/30/2010 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK12917 PILATES
PILATES ENERGY MAT #12917
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 96.60
PILATES RELAXED MAT #12921
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 255.50
Total :352.10
121547 9/30/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 186939 UPS/LABOR & INDUSTRIES
UPS/LABOR & INDUSTRIES
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 8.97
Total :8.97
121548 9/30/2010 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 04371 UNIT F1 B1 FUEL
Fire Boat - Fuel
511.000.657.548.680.320.00 45.57
Total :45.57
121549 9/30/2010 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ13077 FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP
FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP #13077
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 70.00
Total :70.00
121550 9/30/2010 068697 PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING INC PST0922 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 200.00
Total :200.00
121551 9/30/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 980.02
Total :980.02
121552 9/30/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 59.54
28Page:
Packet Page 52 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121552 9/30/2010 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP0230757007
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 67.32
LIFT STATION #71916766007
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.81
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL2753166004
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 282.23
Public Works2776365005
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 4.70
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 17.87
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 17.87
Public Works
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 17.87
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 17.87
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 17.89
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg3689976003
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 59.54
FLEET5903085008
Fleet 7110 210th St SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 77.39
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION6439566008
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 147.33
ANDERSON CENTER6490327001
ANDERSON CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 679.24
LIFT STATION #88851908007
29Page:
Packet Page 53 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121552 9/30/2010 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.94
FIRE STATION #209919661109
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 58.92
Total :1,614.33
121553 9/30/2010 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 111827 MARKER
MARKER: HOPKE
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 316.00
Total :316.00
121554 9/30/2010 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 64661 INV#64661 - EDMONDS PD - 10-3250
TOWING 1993 FORD #028-VZU
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
Total :173.01
121555 9/30/2010 073408 RAPSON, JAMES RAPSON100310 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: ASK THE THERAPIST
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00
Total :156.00
121556 9/30/2010 063257 RAY, ROBERT J RAY100110 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: ... KEYS TO REWRITING YOUR
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 468.00
Total :468.00
121557 9/30/2010 073421 RUGG, CARL Boots 2010 Fleet - 2010 Boot Allowance - Rugg
Fleet - 2010 Boot Allowance - Rugg
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 183.00
Total :183.00
121558 9/30/2010 073066 SAFARILAND LLC I10-073528 INV#I10-073528 - CUST#EDMOND-EDMONDS PD
LARGE RIFLE BOXES
30Page:
Packet Page 54 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121558 9/30/2010 (Continued)073066 SAFARILAND LLC
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 118.46
Freight
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 14.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 11.25
Total :144.70
121559 9/30/2010 073428 SCHNEBERG, WILLA SCHNEBERG100210 WOTS PRESENTER/JUDGE
PRESENTER: USING THE NEWS FOR POETRY
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 230.00
WOTS JUDGE - POETRY ENTRIES
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 100.00
Total :330.00
121560 9/30/2010 073426 SCHULTZ, RORI SCHULTZ0927 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT MINUS EXTRA
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 470.00
Total :470.00
121561 9/30/2010 073432 SCOTT, BRIAN 09202010 CONSLTNG FOR BUS IMP DISTRICT
Consultant for Business Improvement
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 225.00
Total :225.00
121562 9/30/2010 064473 SINOR, J PAUL SINOR100310 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: SCREENWRITING
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 156.00
PRESENTER: DIALOGUE
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 430.00
Total :586.00
121563 9/30/2010 073402 SJOHOLM, BARBARA SJOHOLM100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: WORKING WITH A FREELANCE
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 155.00
Total :155.00
31Page:
Packet Page 55 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121564 9/30/2010 036955 SKY NURSERY 287689 MARINA BEACH LANDSCAPING SUPPLIES
LANDSCAPING SUPPLIES FOR MARINA BEACH
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 84.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.03
Total :92.59
121565 9/30/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2007-1403-8 18500 82ND AVE W
18500 82ND AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 66.94
8030 185TH ST SW2011-9708-4
8030 185TH ST SW
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 120.65
100 DAYTON ST2012-3682-5
100 DAYTON ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 459.49
415 5TH AVE S2017-6210-1
415 5TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 102.42
Total :749.50
121566 9/30/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 150052821 2030-9778-7
SNO PUD
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 20,115.47
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 1,206.92
Total :21,322.39
121567 9/30/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200386456 MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 107.22
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD200468593
LIFT STATION #4
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 355.93
4 WAY LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S200592954
SIGNAL LIGHT
32Page:
Packet Page 56 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121567 9/30/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02
200 DAYTON ST-OLD PW BLDG200638609
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 338.04
SIGNAL LIGHT 200 3RD200678019
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 49.82
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W201265980
LIFT STATION #12
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 224.39
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W201374964
LIFT STATION #11
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 32.39
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S201572898
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 117.09
LS #15 7710 168TH PL SW201594488
LIFT STATION #15
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.04
4 WAY LIGHT 901 WALNUT201782646
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 53.29
LIGHT 120 5TH N202389375
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 15.64
Total :1,354.87
121568 9/30/2010 038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC 302 SEP-10 RECREATION SERVIES CONTRACT FEE
Sep-10 Recreation Servies Contract Fee
001.000.390.519.900.410.00 5,000.00
Total :5,000.00
121569 9/30/2010 073427 SOMOZA, MELISSA SOMOZA0923 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 96.00
33Page:
Packet Page 57 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :96.001215699/30/2010 073427 073427 SOMOZA, MELISSA
121570 9/30/2010 062280 SOUND SEAL & PACKING CO 15005 MECHANICAL SEALS/BEARINGS
MECHANICAL SEALS/BEARINGS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4,262.52
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 379.36
Total :4,641.88
121571 9/30/2010 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO 09/20/2010 Long Term Disability Premiums - 2nd
Long Term Disability Premiums - 2nd
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 121.50
Total :121.50
121572 9/30/2010 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3001087022 INV#3001087022 CUST#6076358 EDMONDS PD
DISPOSAL-MED BOX HAZ WASTE
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 51.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 1.85
Total :53.37
121573 9/30/2010 073403 STEVENSON, ROY STEVENSON100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: WRITING IRRESISTIBLE QUERY
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
121574 9/30/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2300768 MILLTOWN COURTYARD SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES FOR MILLTOWN COURTYARD
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 149.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.23
Total :163.98
121575 9/30/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2303414 Unit 53 - Elect Supplies
Unit 53 - Elect Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 36.05
9.5% Sales Tax
34Page:
Packet Page 58 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121575 9/30/2010 (Continued)040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.42
Total :39.47
121576 9/30/2010 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 430001405909 C/A 430001405909
Oct-10 P&R Directory Listing
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 130.25
Total :130.25
121577 9/30/2010 069051 SYNECO SYSTEMS INC 1940 MANHOLE INSERT
MANHOLE INSERT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 590.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 53.90
Total :643.90
121578 9/30/2010 068576 TAYLOR, BRUCE TAYLOR100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: WORLD BUILDING 101
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
121579 9/30/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1708102 Legal notice Interpretation 2010-2
Legal notice Interpretation 2010-2
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 38.92
Legal notice - CFP (AMD2010-20)1709900
Legal notice - CFP (AMD2010-20)
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 42.28
Legal notice Tent/homeless (AMD2010-3)1709902
Legal notice Tent/homeless (AMD2010-3)
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 47.32
Total :128.52
121580 9/30/2010 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 292610 FS 17 - Hydrant Repair Kit
FS 17 - Hydrant Repair Kit
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 104.51
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.93
35Page:
Packet Page 59 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :114.441215809/30/2010 027269 027269 THE PART WORKS INC
121581 9/30/2010 072469 THOMAS, KIM THOMAS100210 WOTS SIT OPERATIONS ASSISTANCE
PROVIDE ON SITE OPERATIONS ASSISTANCE
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 350.00
Total :350.00
121582 9/30/2010 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 17163 Unit 53 - Keys
Unit 53 - Keys
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.75
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.64
Unit 48 - Hide a key17177
Unit 48 - Hide a key
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.38
Unit 400 - Keys and Tags17182
Unit 400 - Keys and Tags
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.68
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.87
Total :33.27
121583 9/30/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8565026 Water - 14" Tiger Tooth All Pupose Blade
Water - 14" Tiger Tooth All Pupose Blade
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 251.99
8.6% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 21.67
Water - Replacement Blades8567104
Water - Replacement Blades
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 129.98
8.6% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 11.18
Total :414.82
121584 9/30/2010 062693 US BANK 3363 Airware Inc - Unit 130 - Supplies
36Page:
Packet Page 60 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121584 9/30/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK
Airware Inc - Unit 130 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.59
Svc Fees
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.00
Total :20.59
121585 9/30/2010 069592 USA MOBILITY WIRELESS T0298897I INV#T0298897I ACCT#0298897-0 EDMONDS PD
PAGERS 09/27-10/26/10
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 163.23
Total :163.23
121586 9/30/2010 045517 WACA SHOEMAKE-WACA CONF SHOEMAKE EDMONDS PD - WACA CONF
2010 WACA CONF REGISTRATION
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 100.00
Total :100.00
121587 9/30/2010 067917 WALLY'S TOWING INC 43970 INV#43970 - EDMONDS PD - #10-2714
TOWING 2004 FORD 196UPM
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
Total :173.01
121588 9/30/2010 047960 WEAN, GREG 74 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 320.49
Total :320.49
121589 9/30/2010 048100 WEINZ, JACK D 75 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 209.99
Total :209.99
121590 9/30/2010 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 7001 Unit 46 - Motorola Replacement Batteries
Unit 46 - Motorola Replacement Batteries
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 121.35
37Page:
Packet Page 61 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121590 9/30/2010 (Continued)068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.62
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.63
Total :143.60
121591 9/30/2010 069691 WESTERN SYSTEMS I0005020 Traffic Control - 3rd & Main (Ins
Traffic Control - 3rd & Main (Ins
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 655.01
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 75.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 69.36
Total :799.37
121592 9/30/2010 072924 WHITE, STEVE WHITE100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: WRITING GREAT CHARACTERS
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
121593 9/30/2010 065256 WHITESAVAGE & LYLE, INC.W&L092410 FABRICATION OF FLOWER POLE ARTWORK
FLOWER POLE ARTWORK FABRICATION
117.200.640.575.500.410.00 1,650.00
Total :1,650.00
121594 9/30/2010 064234 WILDWATER RIVER TOURS INC AMUNDSON12882 TIETON WHITEWATER RAFTING
TIETON WHITEWATER RAFTING #12882
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 219.16
Total :219.16
121595 9/30/2010 073404 WILLIAMS, DAVID WILLIAMS100310 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: LAUNCHING YOUR FREELANCE
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
121596 9/30/2010 071631 WILLIAMS, SUE WILLIAMS13204 KNITTING 101
38Page:
Packet Page 62 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121596 9/30/2010 (Continued)071631 WILLIAMS, SUE
KNITTING 101 #13204
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 113.75
Total :113.75
121597 9/30/2010 073405 WILLIAMS, SUZANNE WILLIAMS100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: WRITING SERIES FICTION FOR
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
121598 9/30/2010 070123 WOODARD, MARCIA WOODARD100110 WOTS PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOP
TEACHING WOTS PRE-CONFERENCE WORKSHOP
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 357.00
Total :357.00
121599 9/30/2010 067393 WWCCPPGROUP 10.20.10 2010 Cross Connection Control Annual
2010 Cross Connection Control Annual
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 270.00
Total :270.00
121600 9/30/2010 073406 YARROW, JOYCE YARROW100210 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: THE PLACE OF PLACE IN
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
121601 9/30/2010 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 921 SEP-10 RETAINER
Sep-10 Monthly Retainer
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 11,330.00
Total :11,330.00
121602 9/30/2010 071344 ZALE, SARAH ZALE1003 WOTS PRESENTER
PRESENTER: TURNING YOUR STORY INTO
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 155.00
Total :155.00
121603 9/30/2010 051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC 0143091 Traffic Control - Sign Blanks 30x6
Traffic Control - Sign Blanks 30x6
39Page:
Packet Page 63 of 384
09/30/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
9:31:00AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
121603 9/30/2010 (Continued)051282 ZUMAR INDUSTRIES INC
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 325.00
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 15.83
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 32.38
Total :373.21
Bank total :188,383.31171 Vouchers for bank code :front
188,383.31Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report171
40Page:
Packet Page 64 of 384
AM-3414 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Linda Hynd
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from Donna L. Breske ($9,563.76) and Eileen
Johnson Hauglie (amount undetermined).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Donna L. Breske
6621 Foster Slough Road
Snohomish, WA 98290
($9,563.76)
Eileen Johnson Hauglie
7215 213th Pl. S.W.
#101
Edmonds, WA 98026
(amount undetermined)
Attachments
Breske Claim for Damages
Hauglie Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/30/2010 01:35 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 01:44 PM
Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 09/29/2010 12:16 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/30/2010
Packet Page 65 of 384
Packet Page 66 of 384
Packet Page 67 of 384
Packet Page 68 of 384
Packet Page 69 of 384
AM-3418 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Pam Lemcke Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Report on final construction costs for Old Woodway Park Project and Council acceptance of project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council accept the Old Woodway Park Project.
Previous Council Action
On March 27, 2007 Council authorized the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with
MacLeod Reckord Landscape Architects for consulting services for the Old Woodway Elementary
School Park for master planning, design, and construction management services.
On May 6, 2008, Council authorized Staff to advertise for bids on construction of the Old Woodway Park
Project.
On July 22, 2008, Council awarded a contract to Premium Construction Group, Inc. for construction of a
regional infiltration system and neighborhood park at the Old Woodway Elementary School site.
Narrative
The Old Woodway Park project is complete. The project was designed by MacLeod Reckord Landscape
Architects, inspected and accepted by City staff.
Construction Cost
Contractor (Premium Construction Group)$1,782,938
Testing (HWA Geoscience) $25,731
Inspection (SRI) $42,629
Construction Support (MacLeod Reckord) $50,972
Staff Costs $38,829
Miscellaneous $9,620
Total Construction Cost $1,950,719
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/30/2010 04:13 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/30/2010 05:02 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 05:07 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/01/2010 08:00 AM
Packet Page 70 of 384
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2010 08:40 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 09/30/2010 09:41 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/01/2010
Packet Page 71 of 384
AM-3417 Item #: 2. F.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Councilwoman Diane Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance amending the provisions of ECC 10.75.010(B) in order to extend a sunset date for the
Economic Development Commission for an additional twelve (12) months .
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
During the 9/28/2010 City Council Meeting Councilwoman Buckshnis explained that as the City
Council Liaison with the Economic Development Commission (EDC) it had 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.
The Council voted to put the attached ordinance on the Consent Agenda for approval.
Attachment 3: Resolution 1224
Narrative
This ordinance has been placed on the Consent Agenda for approval.
Packet Page 72 of 384
This ordinance has been placed on the Consent Agenda for approval.
Attachment 4: Ordinance Extending Sunset Date of Citizens Economic Development Commission
Attachments
Attach 1 - Resolution CEDC 1198
Attach 2 - Ord 3735 Forming CEDC
Attach 3 - Reso 1224
Attach 4 - Ord extending sunset date of CEDC
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 10:41 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/30/2010 01:43 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 01:44 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/30/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/30/2010
Packet Page 73 of 384
Packet Page 74 of 384
Packet Page 75 of 384
Packet Page 76 of 384
Packet Page 77 of 384
Packet Page 78 of 384
Packet Page 79 of 384
Packet Page 80 of 384
Packet Page 81 of 384
{WSS817216.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
9/1/10
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC
10.75.010(B) IN ORDER TO EXTEND A SUNSET DATE FOR
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR ONE
ADDITIONAL TWELVE (12) MONTHS, AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the Citizens Economic Development Commission was established
by Ordinance No. 3735 in order to make recommendations to the City Council and the other
commissions of the City in order to develop new strategies for economic development within the
City and identify new sources of revenue for consideration, and
WHEREAS, the continuing economic crisis affecting both the Nation and the City
of Edmonds has created a continuing situation in which the City Council deems it appropriate to
extend the life of the Commission for an additional twelve (12) months, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds City Code, Section 10.75.010 Commission created -
membership., subsection B, relating to the Citizens Economic Development Commission is
hereby amended to read as follows:
10.75.010 Commission created - membership.
. . .
B. The term of appointments of Economic Development
Commission members is hereby extended for an additional twelve
(12) months. The Commission members shall serve until
Packet Page 82 of 384
{WSS817216.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
December 31, 2011, unless that date is extended by action of the
City Council. The authority for the Commission shall also
automatically sunset and expire on June 30, 2011.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 83 of 384
{WSS817216.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 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 THE
PROVISIONS OF ECC 10.75.010(B) IN ORDER TO EXTEND A SUNSET DATE FOR THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR ONE ADDITIONAL YEAR, 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 Page 84 of 384
AM-3411 Item #: 2. G.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Mike Cooper Submitted By:Kim Cole
Department:Mayor's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation declaring October Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Please refer to the attached proclamation.
Attachments
Proclamation - Domestic Violence Month
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2010 03:07 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/30/2010 01:35 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 01:44 PM
Form Started By: Kim Cole Started On: 09/28/2010 02:29 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/30/2010
Packet Page 85 of 384
Packet Page 86 of 384
AM-3424 Item #: 3.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:15 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 Page 87 of 384
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/01/2010 09:42 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/01/2010 09:44 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2010 09:53 AM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 10/01/2010
Final Approval Date: 10/01/2010
Packet Page 88 of 384
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 Page 89 of 384
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 Page 90 of 384
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 Page 91 of 384
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 Page 92 of 384
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 Page 93 of 384
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 Page 94 of 384
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 Page 95 of 384
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 Page 96 of 384
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 Page 97 of 384
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 Page 98 of 384
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 Page 99 of 384
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 Page 100 of 384
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 Page 101 of 384
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 Page 102 of 384
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 Page 103 of 384
AM-3391 Item #: 4.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilman Michael Plunkett Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Community Service Announcement: Adopt-a-Dog
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
A representative from Old Pet Haven will be presenting a dog that is up for adoption.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 01:53 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/30/2010 02:59 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 03:07 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/20/2010 10:41 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/30/2010
Packet Page 104 of 384
AM-3390 Item #: 5.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Community Service Announcement: Edmonds Chamber of Commerce - Halloween event.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
A representative from Edmonds Chamber of Commerce will make an announcement regarding
Halloween.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 10:40 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/30/2010 01:35 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 01:44 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/20/2010 10:40 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/30/2010
Packet Page 105 of 384
AM-3413 Item #: 6.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Brian McIntosh
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Sustainable Edmonds community solar power proposal.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Endorse the Edmonds Community Solar Power project and instruct the city attorney to develop a lease
agreement with Sustainable Edmonds to use a portion of the roof on the southwest wing of the Anderson
Center for a community solar project.
Previous Council Action
none
Narrative
City staff were approached in the summer by a group of interested citizens representing Sustainable
Edmonds regarding the possibility of locating an "Edmonds Community Solar Project" on a public
building or community space. Due to its good exposure and low elevation ( 12' - 16' sections) the roof of
the southwest wing of the Anderson Center appears to be an excellent location for such an installation.
At this time there are very good solar incentives in the form of grants and favorable rates for community
based projects. Mark Mays and Chris Herman from Sustainable Edmonds will explain and present the
proposal in terms of logistics, time frames/critical path and overall benefits to the City.
The City's interest derives from Council resolutions and adopted policies contained in the Community
Sustainability Element, including:
Community Health Goal Policy E.2 Reduce energy consumption and maximize energy efficiency by
promoting programs and educational initiatives aimed at a goal to “reduce, re-use, and recycle” at an
individual and community-wide level.
Sustainability Goal D. Develop utility policies, programs, and maintenance measures designed to support
and promote sustainability. Maintain existing utility systems while seeking to expand the use of
alternative energy and sustainable maintenance and building practices in city facilities.
Council Resolution 1170. The City of Edmonds commits to the following policy goals:
1) To become an environmental standard bearer for... reduction of green house gas emissions.
...
4) ...d. Encouraging both public and private demonstration projects that illustrate how sustainable and
"green" development can be accomplished in both retrofit and new development situations.
Packet Page 106 of 384
Attachments
Community Solar Project
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Planning Department Rob Chave 09/30/2010 10:51 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/30/2010 12:51 PM
Community Services/Economic Dev.Stephen Clifton 09/30/2010 02:36 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 03:07 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/30/2010 04:01 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 04:04 PM
Form Started By: Brian McIntosh Started On: 09/28/2010 04:10 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/30/2010
Packet Page 107 of 384
Community Solar with
Getting A Solar Project
Off The Ground
And Into The Sky
Packet Page 108 of 384
Community Solar with
•Project meets our mission of local actions for global
sustainability challenges
•Project Facilitator
•Feasibility Assistance
•Assistance finding local ownership
•Project handoff to owners and administrator
•Document project successes/issues as template for
the next solar project
What Is Sustainable Edmonds’ Role?
Packet Page 109 of 384
Community Solar with
•Located only on government and utility
owned property
•Ownership group must reside locally
•Details as defined by WA State Bill SB 6658
–75kW or less ( equiv. ≈ 5 residential homes)
–Production incentives up to $1.08 kWh thru 2020
–Paid through the local utility
What Is A Community Solar Project?
Packet Page 110 of 384
Community Solar with
Where Would It Go?
Preferred Site: Anderson Center
Packet Page 111 of 384
Community Solar with
•City agrees to lease roof space (Anderson Center)
•City receives net metering credit ≈ $6,000/yr
•Other city benefits
–Directly reducing carbon footprint
–Serves as demonstration model for more solar projects
–Local ownership that support the local economy
–Possible acquisition of system after 2020, or continue to
receive green power at reduced rates
–Site kiosk for educational purposes
How Would It Work?
Packet Page 112 of 384
Community Solar with
1)City gives their approval of the project
2)Locate project owner(s)
–Must be known to each other
–Local Company to initiate project?
3)Ownership group implements project
–Project engineering and equipment acquisition
–Installation and commission
–Project administration
What Are The Next Steps?
Packet Page 113 of 384
Community Solar with
•Is the city liable for the equipment? No, the owners
are, the city only leases the space.
•What if the equipment damages the building?
Insurance from the ownership group covers it.
•Will it cost the city money? No, the city will only
receive revenue from the net metering credit.
•Will the equipment block any views? No, and the blue
non-relective panels are more attractive than the
existing torch down roof.
Does The City Have Risks?
Packet Page 114 of 384
AM-3422 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Mayor Cooper Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Mayor's Budget Presentation
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Mayor Cooper will present the 2011 Preliminary Budget. Copies of the budget will be distributed to the
City Council at the meeting.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/30/2010 02:59 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 03:07 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/30/2010 01:26 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/30/2010
Packet Page 115 of 384
AM-3421 Item #: 8.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan Element update for 2011-2016 to City's
Comprehensive Plan. The proposal updates the City's Capital Facilities Plan to include
improvements, additions, upgrades or extensions of City infrastructure such as
transportation, parks and stormwater along with other public facilities necessary to
implement the City's Comprehensive Plan; incorporates projects from the recently updated
Storm and Surface Water Management Plan; and adds additional capital projects which
extend beyond 2016.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016) and Capital Improvement Program (2011-2016).
Previous Council Action
On September 14, 2010, the CS/DS Council Committee reviewed the draft Capital Facilities Plan
(2011-2016) and Capital Improvement Program (2011-2016).
On September 28, 2010, staff presented the Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016) and Capital Improvement
Program (2011-2016) to the full Council.
Narrative
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is 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 either
new projects or existing facilities that need to be expanded in order to accommodate the City's projected
population growth in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital projects that merely
preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified
within the six-year capital improvement program (CIP) and along with CFP projects 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/preservation
projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify
longer term capital needs (not maintenance) tied to the City's levels of service standards. The CFP is also
required to be consistent with all 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.
Packet Page 116 of 384
The 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 Storm and
Surface Water Management 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 proposed 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 are included as
Exhibits 3 and 4. The Planning Board recommended the CFP to the City Council with a request that the
Council discuss and thoroughly understand that the gap between identified needs and available funding
requires an increased focus on project prioritization.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - CFP (2011-2016)
Exhibit 2 - CIP (2011-2016)
Exhibit 3 - Draft Planning Board Minutes 9/22/10
Exhibit 4 - Planning Board Minutes 9/8/10
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/30/2010 01:46 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/30/2010 04:51 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 04:52 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 10/01/2010 08:00 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/01/2010 08:40 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 09/30/2010 10:38 AM
Final Approval Date: 10/01/2010
Packet Page 117 of 384
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT
2011 - 2016
1Packet Page 118 of 384
2Packet Page 119 of 384
CFP
GENERAL
3Packet Page 120 of 384
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 Page 121 of 384
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 Page 122 of 384
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 Page 123 of 384
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 Page 124 of 384
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 Page 125 of 384
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 Page 126 of 384
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 Page 127 of 384
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 Page 128 of 384
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 Page 129 of 384
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
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 Page 130 of 384
14Packet Page 131 of 384
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
15Packet Page 132 of 384
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 Page 133 of 384
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 Page 134 of 384
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 Page 135 of 384
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 Page 136 of 384
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 Page 137 of 384
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 Page 138 of 384
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 Page 139 of 384
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 Page 140 of 384
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 Page 141 of 384
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 Page 142 of 384
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 Page 143 of 384
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 Page 144 of 384
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 Page 145 of 384
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 Page 146 of 384
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 Page 147 of 384
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 Page 148 of 384
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 Page 149 of 384
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 Page 150 of 384
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 Page 151 of 384
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 Page 152 of 384
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 Page 153 of 384
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 Page 154 of 384
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 Page 155 of 384
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 Page 156 of 384
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 Page 157 of 384
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 Page 158 of 384
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 Page 159 of 384
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 Page 160 of 384
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 Page 161 of 384
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 Page 162 of 384
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 Page 163 of 384
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 Page 164 of 384
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 Page 165 of 384
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 Page 166 of 384
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 Page 167 of 384
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 Page 168 of 384
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 Page 169 of 384
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 Page 170 of 384
54Packet Page 171 of 384
CFP
STORMWATER
55Packet Page 172 of 384
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 Page 173 of 384
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 Page 174 of 384
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 Page 175 of 384
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 Page 176 of 384
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 Page 177 of 384
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 Page 178 of 384
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 Page 179 of 384
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 Page 180 of 384
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 Page 181 of 384
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 Page 182 of 384
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2011 - 2016
1Packet Page 183 of 384
2Packet Page 184 of 384
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 Page 185 of 384
4Packet Page 186 of 384
CIP
GENERAL
5Packet Page 187 of 384
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
8
o
f
3
8
4
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
8
9
o
f
3
8
4
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
0
o
f
3
8
4
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
1
o
f
3
8
4
1
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
2
o
f
3
8
4
1
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
3
o
f
3
8
4
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
4
o
f
3
8
4
1
3
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
5
o
f
3
8
4
1
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
6
o
f
3
8
4
1
5
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
7
o
f
3
8
4
1
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
8
o
f
3
8
4
1
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
9
9
o
f
3
8
4
1
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
0
o
f
3
8
4
CIP
PARKS
19Packet Page 201 of 384
2
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
2
o
f
3
8
4
2
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
0
3
o
f
3
8
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 Page 204 of 384
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 Page 205 of 384
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 Page 206 of 384
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 Page 207 of 384
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 Page 208 of 384
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 Page 209 of 384
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 Page 210 of 384
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 Page 211 of 384
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 Page 212 of 384
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 Page 213 of 384
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 Page 214 of 384
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 Page 215 of 384
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 Page 216 of 384
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 Page 217 of 384
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 Page 218 of 384
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 Page 219 of 384
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 Page 220 of 384
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 Page 221 of 384
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 Page 222 of 384
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 Page 223 of 384
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 Page 224 of 384
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 Page 225 of 384
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 Page 226 of 384
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 Page 227 of 384
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 Page 228 of 384
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 Page 229 of 384
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 Page 230 of 384
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 Page 231 of 384
5
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
3
2
o
f
3
8
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 Page 233 of 384
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 Page 234 of 384
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 Page 235 of 384
5
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
3
6
o
f
3
8
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 Page 237 of 384
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 Page 238 of 384
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 Page 239 of 384
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 Page 240 of 384
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 Page 241 of 384
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 Page 242 of 384
DRAFT
Subject to October 13th Approval
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 22, 2010
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
John Reed, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Kevin Clarke
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineer Program Manager
Bertrand Hauss, Traffic Engineer
Gina Coccia, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board Member Johnson noted that the term “TBD Tax” was used throughout the September 8th minutes, yet the correct term
is “TBD fee.” She explained that there is a significant difference between a tax and a fee. For example, the City’ receives
gasoline excise tax, but they also have certain fees such as utility fees and a fee to use Yost Pool. It is in that regard that the
Transportation Benefit District (TBD) charge is a fee and not a tax. It is not a requirement, but is based on the number of
vehicles a person owns. She asked that the minutes be changed accordingly.
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
REPORT ON ADULT ENTERTAINMENT SITES
Ms. Coccia explained that in 1995 the City adopted ECDC 16.60.015, which regulates the location of sexually-oriented
businesses (Adult Entertainment) in the City. As per code, the businesses are only permitted to locate within the General
Commercial (CG) and General Commercial 2 (CG2) zones, which are primarily located along Highway 99. The main
determinate of where these businesses can locate is based on their proximity to specific protected uses. As written, there must
be a 300-foot separation from any residential or public use zone, as well as from parks, libraries, churches, community
Packet Page 243 of 384
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 2
centers, museums or hospitals. In addition, a 500-foot separation is required from bars and taverns. She referred to the
following maps provided in the Staff Report:
• An updated map of buffers and potential sites for adult entertainment dated September 2010
• A map of buffers and potential sites for adult entertainment dated April 2006
• An original map of buffers and potential sites for adult entertainment dated October 1996
Ms. Coccia reported that after reviewing recent licenses issued by the Washington State Liquor Control Board for properties
along Highway 99, staff found that no new ones have been issued since 2006, which means there has been no decrease in the
area available for adult entertainment uses. She summarized that based on the criteria in ECDC 16.60.015, there were
approximately 20 potential locations for adult entertainment businesses when the ordinance was adopted in 1996. In 2006 it
was estimated there were approximately 19 to 20 potential locations. Since that time, the only change noted was that the
Scott’s Bar and Grill site was incorrectly placed because the address provided by the Washington State Liquor Control Board
was incorrect. When this site is moved to its actual location, the buffer would move approximately 230 feet west. This would
eliminate some of the potential area on the site that currently contains the Campbell Nelson car dealership. Other than that,
there have been no new protected classes from which to buffer so the amount of potential business locations remains the same.
She concluded that staff is not recommending any changes in the zoning regulations at this time. However, the number of
available locations will need to be continually monitored during the coming years.
Vice Chair Reed asked if the commercial zones at Firdale Village and/or Harbor Square would be impacted by ECDC
16.60.015. Ms. Coccia answered that the commercial zones at Firdale Village are actually Mixed-Use (MU). Adult
entertainment uses are only permitted in CG and CG2 zones. Harbor Square is under a contract rezone at this time. However,
if future changes are proposed for Harbor Square zoning, ECDC 16.60.015 should be part of the consideration.
Mr. Chave clarified that the Board is not being asked to take action on this item. The purpose of the discussion is for staff to
report on the status of the ordinance. Periodic checks are done to make sure there are still adequate sites available for this use
to ensure the City is in compliance with State Law.
Chair Lovell pointed out that some of the orange areas, which identify where adult entertainment uses could potentially locate,
are close to the high school. Mr. Chave replied that the orange areas indicate properties where the use would be allowed
based on current code requirements for buffers.
PUBLIC HEARING ON EMERGENCY TEMPORARY INDOOR SHELTERS ORDINANCE
Chair Lovell reviewed the rules and procedures for legislative public hearings.
Ms. Coccia reviewed that the City Council first discussed the concept of temporary indoor shelters in 2009 and adopted an
interim ordinance; the Board started working on a permanent ordinance in February of 2010. She explained that the City
Attorney drafted the ordinance based on the new Housing Bill 19.56 and ECDC 19.00.040, incorporating specific language as
required by the State. The only change the City Attorney made since the last time the Board reviewed the draft language was
inserting the interim ordinance numbers that were previously left blank. She referred to the draft ordinance (Attachment 12),
which would adopt a new Chapter ECDC 17.105 to define emergency temporary homeless shelters and identify zoning
districts where they are permitted. It would repeal Ordinance Numbers 3730, 3769 and 3794, and would potentially allow
organizations such as churches to open their doors to homeless people when the temperature drops below 32 degrees.
Ms. Coccia advised that staff used previous City Council and Planning Board meeting minutes to identify individuals who
have participated in previous discussions about temporary indoor shelters, and notices were sent inviting them to attend the
public hearing. In addition, notices were posted in the normal locations, and in the local newspaper. Staff recommends the
Board forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council.
Vice Chair Reed referred to Ordinance 3778 (Attachment 3), which added a new Section ECDC 19.00.040 to exclude
churches providing emergency housing for the indigent from certain code requirements. He asked if this ordinance has been
permanently adopted into the ECDC. Ms. Coccia answered affirmatively.
Packet Page 244 of 384
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 3
Board Member Johnson asked if the recommended changes based on the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) were
reflected in the draft ordinance. Ms. Coccia answered that these changes had been incorporated into the language prior to the
Board’s last discussion (See Items 1, 2 and 3 in ECDC 17.105.020.B).
John Rutter, Edmonds, said he is present as a member of a local church group that has been unable to help people who were
in desperate need because their building does not meet certain code requirements. He expressed appreciation to the staff and
Planning Board for considering their need and desire to get people off the streets when it is really cold. He encouraged the
Board to approve the ordinance. He concluded by stating that he is a member of the Social Action/Social Concern Committee
of the Edmonds Unitarian Universal Church.
Merrie Emmons, Edmonds, expressed appreciation to the Board for considering the proposed ordinance and encouraged
them to move it forward for approval. She referenced ECDC 19.00.040, which would require a church to maintain a fire
watch. She asked if this means someone from the church must be awake all night. She noted that this is a difficult
requirement since most church volunteers have to work the next day. Mr. Chave emphasized that the draft ordinance does not
specifically require a fire watch. This must be worked out with the Fire Marshall on a case-by-case basis during the permit
process. Ms. Emmons said it is very important that emergency temporary indoor shelters be allowed in Edmonds.
Board Member Johnson asked how many beds Ms. Emmons’ church provided during the past winter. Ms. Emmons answered
that they have the ability to provide 12 beds, but they were not able to do so last year because their building did not meet the
fire code requirements.
Ms. Coccia referred to ECDC 19.00.040.2.b, which defines the term “fire watch” to mean “the maintenance during all times
when indigent housing services are provided of a watch by paid staff or volunteers who shall, on premises, monitor for fires or
violations of no smoking provisions. At least one fire monitor shall be provided for each eight persons housed.”
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE
ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 17.105 TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
REGARDING EMERGENCY TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTERS TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A
RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE
MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Chave explained that the draft ordinance would be moved forward to the City Council for a public hearing and final
approval. Those who received notice of the Planning Board hearing would also receive notice of the City Council hearing.
Others who want to receive notification can add their name to the mailing list by signing up at the back of the room.
PUBLIC HEARING ON TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT ORDINANCE
Ms. Coccia advised that the proposed ordinance would adopt a new chapter 17.20 to the Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) related to temporary homeless encampment permits. She noted that, at this time, the City has no regulations
related to temporary homeless encampments. The proposed ordinance would create a permanent process, and control the
frequency, duration and conditions. She advised that, as written, a public hearing would be required, as would buffers from
residential neighborhoods. She explained that the initial draft ordinance was crafted by the City Attorney based on ordinances
adopted by other jurisdictions in the area. The Planning Board held discussions on February 24th and August 25th and
recommended changes, which are reflected in the draft ordinance (Attachment 1) currently before the Board for consideration.
It specifically addresses the following questions that were raised on August 25th:
• Does the City have the ability to prohibit weapons in temporary homeless encampments?
• What is the appropriate buffer from residential neighborhoods?
• Should minors under the age of 18 be allowed if accompanied by a parent or guardian?
Packet Page 245 of 384
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 4
Ms. Coccia explained that once the Board has formulated their recommendation, the ordinance would be forwarded to the
City Council for a public hearing and final approval. She advised that there is a sign-up sheet available for those interested in
receiving notification of the City Council hearing.
Chair Lovell summarized that it appears all of the Board’s questions and comments have been addressed in the ordinance. He
specifically noted the change in ECDC 17.20.050.A, which alters the permit period from 30 to 45 days. He recalled the
Board felt this was a more reasonable amount of time to allow the public an opportunity to provide comments.
NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE INDICATED A DESIRE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THEREFORE,
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW
CHAPTER 17.20 TO THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) RELATING TO
TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT PERMITS AND FREQUENCY, DURATION AND CONDITIONS
TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. BOARD
MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (2011 – 2016)
Mr. English noted that no one was present in the audience to participate in the public hearing, and staff provided a lengthy
presentation on the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) to the Board on September 8th. He suggested, and the Board agreed, that
staff should dispense with another lengthy presentation and focus on the following questions and issues that were raised
previously by the Board:
• As requested by the Board, a PowerPoint presentation was electronically forwarded to each Board Member. The Board
Members indicated they all received the document.
• The 100-Year Flood Plain Study of the Edmonds Marsh was incorrectly labeled. Mr. English advised that this has been
corrected in the latest version of the CFP.
• Rather than indicating that facilities are reaching the end of their useful life and need to be replaced,” the Board
suggested it would be more appropriate to use the term “are in need of major renovation and replacement.” This would
allow the City to consider all options. Mr. English reported that the change was made for every project, with the
exception of the Senior Center. Staff believes the existing structure is in such poor condition that renovation costs would
far outweigh replacement costs.
• Why was funding identified for the Edmonds Crossing Project? Mr. English noted that Mr. Clifton responded via email
to the Board Members, and he did not receive any additional questions as a result of his email.
• Is it possible to identify incremental improvements to existing structures (i.e. ADA improvements at the Boys and Girls
Club)? Mr. English explained that the City currently leases the Boys and Girls Club Building from the Edmonds School
District for $1 per year, and the current lease does not expire until 2021. He said the Building Maintenance Supervisor
has observed that, in light of the City’s limited capital improvement funding, it would not be prudent to spend a
significant amount to improve a building that is now owned by the City. Mr. McIntosh added that when the Boys and
Girls Club is replaced or relocated in the future, the fundraising campaign would be under the direction of the Boys and
Girls Club of Snohomish County. The siting of the new facility will fall under their jurisdictions, as well.
• Can the arts center be located in a leased building rather than waiting for funding to construct a new building? Mr.
English advised that Ms. Chapin indicated that the City and potential partners have discussed this opportunity and they
believe it is a viable option. However, no decisions would be made until there is funding to move the project forward.
Mr. English referred the Board to the pie charts provided by staff to summarize information contained in the 2009
Transportation Comprehensive Plan regarding project costs and revenue sources. He reviewed each of the anticipated project
category expenditures, which result in a total cost of $105,500,000 through 2025. He also reviewed the anticipated revenue
sources through 2025 as follows:
• Unsecured grants ($12 million) – This number was based on the City’s previous track record of securing grant funding.
Packet Page 246 of 384
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 5
• Secured grants ($1 million) – This number represents grant funding the City currently has in hand.
• Traffic Impact Fees ($6.5 million) – This number was projected by the Transportation Comprehensive Plan consultant.
• Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) ($4 million) – The City’s current policy is that all REET Funds in excess of $750,000 per
year are transferred to transportation projects. However, with the down economy, this threshold has not been met for the
last three years.
• Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax ($2 million) – This is the most consistent and reliable source of funding for transportation
projects. However, the largest portion of fuel tax collected is placed in the transportation maintenance fund. Only
$125,000 per year is placed in the transportation capital fund each year.
• Other local funds ($6 million) – This number includes potential funding when walkway and utility projects overlap with
transportation projects.
• Snohomish County for 84th Avenue West ($8 million) – This project should move forward sometime within the 20-year
planning period, and the City anticipates they would be able to collect money from Snohomish County to help pay for the
project.
Mr. English summarized that anticipated revenue sources equal $60,500.000, which leaves a shortfall of $66,000,000 or about
62%. He emphasized that the revenue source numbers do not include any Transportation Benefit District (TBD) revenue
associated with the proposal to increase the fee by $40. Staff discussed the option of including graphics in the Capital
Facilities Plan to clearly illustrate the anticipated shortfall. However, they chose not to make this change because the TBD
Board has not decided how to disperse the additional money collected. They can decide to either bond for projects up front
or disperse the money based on annual revenue. The proposed increase of $40 would result in approximately $1 million of
additional revenue per year. By 2025, the City would have an additional $15 million for transportation projects. The amount
of revenue through 2025 would increase significantly if the TBD Board decided to bond for a large portion of the revenue and
have debt service that extends beyond 2025.
Vice Chair Reed asked where the numbers on the pie charts could be found in the proposed CFP. Mr. English answered that
the numbers came from the 2009 Transportation Comprehensive Plan. A large number of projects incorporated in the
numbers are identified in the CFP, as well. However, overlay projects ($27,200,000) are not identified in the CFP because
they are considered maintenance projects. The overlay project costs assume an annual expenditure of $1.7 million, which
represents a 20-year cycle for arterials and a 30-year cycle for collector and residential streets. As per Proposition 1, half of
the additional $40 fee (about $500,000 per year) would be used to fund overlay projects, but the Transportation
Comprehensive Plan identifies $1.7 million as the amount needed to adequately fund the overlay program. He summarized
that while the $500,000 obtained from the additional TBD fee would be much welcomed, it would not provide enough
funding for the City to properly maintain their streets on a 20-year overlay cycle.
In response to Vice Chair Reed’s question about grant funding, Mr. English announced that the City was recently notified that
they would receive two additional transportation grants to design the 228th Street/Highway 99 corridor improvements and to
install new pedestrian lighting on both sides of Main Street between 5th and 6th Avenues. Mr. Hauss clarified that the $1
million identified in the pie chart for secured grant funding includes the 228th Street project grant, but not the Main Street
project grant. He explained that the $12 million identified in the pie chart as unsecured grant funding was based on the City’s
five-year history for securing transportation grants and matches what was identified in the Transportation Comprehensive
Plan. Mr. English reminded the Board that when the consultant presented the Transportation Comprehensive Plan in 2009,
she explained that obtaining grants typically requires the City to have matching funds. If the City does not have local money
to service the match, their opportunities are more limited. The more local match the City can offer, the higher their score
when competing with other cities in the region. Board Member Johnson asked if the City has lost grant opportunities because
they did not have matching funds. Mr. English said he cannot say they have lost grant funding for this reason, but staff has
decided not to pursue grant opportunities because no local match was available.
Chair Lovell said the proposed CFP appears to be well organized, but there is no money to fund its implementation. He
questioned how they can call it a plan if there is no funding. It should be called “a dream.” He particularly expressed concern
that there is insufficient funding for overlay projects. He asked staff to share their insight about how much more it would cost
the City to entirely replace a street in 10 years if necessary because the appropriate maintenance was not done. Mr. English
noted that not only do the streets deteriorate if they are not maintained properly, they eventually reach a point where they can
Packet Page 247 of 384
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 6
no longer be preserved. It is important to keep in mind that the cost difference between preservation and total rehabilitation is
significant. If nothing is done in 10 years, the City will start seeing more and more streets fall into the category of needing
total rehabilitation and the costs will continue to escalate. Board Member Johnson recalled that Mr. Hauss previously
provided illustrations showing how much the cost of fixing roads goes up as their condition worsens. She suggested this
information should be attached to the CFP when it is presented to the City Council. Mr. Hauss reminded the Board that it
costs approximately four times more to replace a road as it does to maintain it.
Board Member Johnson asked staff to explain the life expectancy of a road compared to the City’s current overlay cycle. Mr.
Hauss answered that the City is currently funding an 80 to 100-year overlay cycle. Mr. English added that, typically, cities try
to maintain a 20-year overlay cycle.
Board Member Stewart asked if there is new technology that results in longer-lasting overlays. Mr. English said he does not
know of a material or application that extends the life of an overlay beyond 20 years. However, new technology is emerging
that makes the overlay process more sustainable. For example, the top two inches of existing pavement can be ground up and
new oil added the mixture so it can then be reused. However, this process has somewhat limited application in the State of
Washington. In addition, the City of Seattle currently uses a low-temperature mix that requires less energy and effort to
apply.
Board Member Stewart commended staff for preparing the draft document and incorporating their previous suggestions
wherever possible. She asked who is responsible for renegotiating the lease for the Boys and Girls Club building. She also
asked if the building is identified on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, which may improve the chances of obtaining
grant funding for rehabilitation. Mr. English clarified that the CFP does not indicate the building would be demolished. The
Boys and Girls Club of Snohomish County would initiate the process for determining whether it is appropriate to relocate
their program or replace and/or renovate their existing location. This decision has not yet been made. Board Member
Stewart expressed her hope that the citizens would be invited to participate in this decision. Mr. McIntosh said the building
was constructed in the 1930’s, but it has not been placed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. He reminded the Board
that the City does not have a lot of control over this building because it is owned by the Edmonds School District. There have
been discussions with the school district to make sure the property stays in public hands but they are not interested in
negotiating at this time. If and when the land and building eventually become part of City property, the City would have more
influence on what happens to the property.
Board Member Cloutier observed that even if the additional TBD fee is approved by voters, there would still be a massive
shortfall in the transportation budget. He questioned how the Board could support a transportation plan that has more projects
than can be funded. He suggested they reduce the list of projects to only those that can be funded with projected revenues.
He pointed out that, as currently drafted, the City’s wants and needs are all “stirred into one pot.” For example, the overlay
program is a need; and if it is not done, the costs will continue to go up. It does not seem right to place this program into the
same pot as sidewalk projects, which will not result in additional costs if they are not done in the immediate future. Mr.
English advised that the list of 37 projects to be funded by the additional $40 TBD fee was developed by the TBD Board
(City Council).
Chair Lovell recalled that when the Board discussed the concept of raising the TBD fee, they were presented with information
showing how the overlay program would be impacted based on various TBD fee levels. Mr. English said the matrix provided
by staff outlined what the City would get from the incremental increases in the TBD fee. Chair Lovell felt this information
was very helpful in helping the Board understand how the overlay cycle would be impacted. It is important for the public to
understand that if they do not do something to get closer to a 20-year overlay cycle, major reconstruction will be required to
bring the roads up to an acceptable standard in the future.
Board Member Cloutier noted that the proposed CFP does not identify the cost increases that would occur if the City does not
adequately fund their overlay program. These costs will not go away, and in fact, will get even higher. He said he cannot
support moving the CFP forward without adequate funding for the overlay program.
Board Member Johnson said she participated on the Transportation Committee that helped develop the Transportation
Comprehensive Plan. She explained that the City is required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) to forecast their
Packet Page 248 of 384
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 7
transportation needs for the next 20 years. Through this exercise, they identified all of transportation needs through 2025.
She noted that some projects were for safety and others were related to sidewalks and bikeways. A volunteer committee
surveyed all of the streets in Edmonds and evaluated the need for sidewalks based on a formula. The Transportation
Comprehensive Plan also addresses the issue of capacity and concurrency. In order to plan for future growth, the City had to
establish a level of service standard, project future population and employment growth, and determine where the growth
would occur. Growth was measured against the level of service standard to identify future problems. She emphasized that if
a level of service problem cannot be addressed within the next six years, no new development projects can be approved for
that area. She said the level of service standard also helped the City establish a traffic impact fee program.
Board Member Stewart expressed concern that the concurrency standard approach assumes that the residents of the City will
remain car dependent in the future. If they work to improve pedestrian and bicycle access and transit service, the concurrency
standards will need to be adjusted in the future to reflect this more sustainable approach. She said she is disappointed that, at
this time, it appears that most of the funding will go to roadway improvements. She suggested that roadways would last
longer as people start to use other modes of transportation. The City must take the appropriate steps to create these options.
Board Member Johnson agreed but said that until the situation changes, the plan must be based on the current level of service
standard.
Vice Chair Reed clarified that the CFP, which is currently before the Board for consideration, does not include the overlay
program. The overlay program is identified in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which is not a subject of the current
public hearing. He said he assumes that every project on the list needs to be done. He asked who would be responsible for
finding the necessary funding to implement the plan. Mr. English answered that staff would pursue grant funding and other
revenue sources would be the City Council’s responsibility. Staff would pursue projects as funding becomes available.
Vice Chair Reed asked if the Transportation Committee talked about the funding shortfall as part of their discussions related
to the Transportation Comprehensive Plan. Mr. English answered that they provided recommendations to the TBD Board
regarding the proposal to increase the TBD fee by $40. The chair of the committee also spoke before the Planning Board
several times to outline the project needs. In addition, they were involved in discussions related to potential funding sources.
THERE WAS NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING SO THE PUBLIC
PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Chair Lovell commented that staff has done a fabulous job providing a lot of detail in the plan. However, it is difficult for the
Board to forward the document to the City Council for adoption when there is insufficient funding to implement the identified
projects. Board Member Cloutier said he would not be in favor of forwarding the draft CFP to the City Council with such a
significant funding shortfall. He suggested they prioritize the projects in the plan and only include those that can be funded
with anticipated revenue. The plan should include a balanced budget.
Mr. English explained that the $105,500,000 total cost projection include both capital projects and maintenance. He
emphasized that the CFP only deals with capital facilities projects such as sidewalks, bikeways and concurrency projects.
While the additional TBD fee proposed in Proposition 1 would not make up the entire shortfall through 2025, it would
provide a revenue stream for them to accomplish at least some of the projects on the list. The overlay program is identified in
the CIP not the CFP, and the Board that they are not being asked to take action on the CIP at this time. Board Member
Cloutier said he understands the difference between the CFP and the CIP, but the TBD fee is only one revenue source among
many. The TBD fee will not provide sufficient funding for all the projects identified in the CIP and the CFP. Moving
forward with projects identified in the CFP will prevent the City from accomplishing all of the maintenance identified in the
CIP.
Mr. Chave reminded the Board that the CFP has specific legal requirements attached to it and the CIP is more driven by
priorities and government funding. The City is required to have an adopted CFP that has certain funding requirements. If
they do not have a CFP that supports their planning policies and standards, they must reevaluate their policies. This would be
a time-consuming and costly process. He recommended the Board forward the CFP to the City Council with a
recommendation of approval as an interim solution. They could revisit the CIP and its relationship to the CFP at a later date.
However, there would be serious repercussions associated with holding up approval of the CFP.
Packet Page 249 of 384
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 8
Mr. English explained that the projects identified in the Transportation Comprehensive Plan were prioritized based on criteria
in the plan. The TBD Board also used the criteria to further refine the list. The list of 37 projects on the ballot initiative
identify what the TBD Board prefers to see as priorities.
Mr. Chave recalled that when the Transportation Comprehensive Plan was last updated in 2009, the Board had some
discussion about taking a more multi-modal approach the next time the plan is updated. He felt this would be a worthwhile
effort given the City’s efforts to become more sustainable. He noted that this concept is also addressed in the Community
Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Board Member Cloutier said he understands the Board cannot modify the CFP to make it fit the budget. He also understands
that they must have an approved CFP. However, he suggested that as they move the document forward to the City Council,
they should include a clear statement that there is no expectation that all the projects identified in the plan can be
implemented. Vice Chair Reed agreed that the Board should send a clear message to the City Council that the plan is
minimally funded the way it is currently structured.
Vice Chair Reed said it was reported on myedmondsnews.com that the City Council approved two transportation projects to
move forward. Mr. English reported that the City Council approved the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) as proposed
by staff, but they added $50,000 for traffic calming projects in 2011. However, they did not approve any specific
transportation projects to move forward at this time. Vice Chair Reed asked if the TIP approved by the City Council
identified the two recent grants. Mr. English answered that grant funding for the 228th/Highway 99 Intersection
Improvements was identified in the TIP, but not the grant funding for the Main Street lighting program. He explained that
once the City receives an official letter from PSRC stating that the grant has been approved, the TIP would be adjusted
accordingly.
Chair Lovell recommended the Board forward the CFP to the City Council with the advisory that they discuss and thoroughly
understand and assimilate that the gap between needs and funding is highly dependent on increased focus on prioritization.
At some point the City Council will have to find a large source of funding in order to catch reality up with the plan.
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON MOVED TO FORWARD THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN TO THE CITY
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS WRITTEN. VICE CHAIR REED SECONDED
THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL OF HAVING A STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE
Board Member Johnson reported that the Spring 2010 edition of THE COMMISSIONER, published by the American Planning
Association, contained a good article about establishing a student representative on the Planning Board. She provided a
handout outlining the reasons for involving youth and things the Board should consider as they develop a program. She
invited the Board Members to share their comments and ideas. If they are in favor of pursuing the program, she offered to
spend more time developing the details.
Chair Lovell pointed out that the ordinance establishing the Planning Board identifies seven members and one alternate.
Therefore, it may be necessary to change the ordinance to add a student representative. Mr. Chave said he has requested
feedback from the City Attorney about whether or not this change would require a code amendment. If the Board decides to
add a student representative, he strongly urged them not to make the student a voting member. In addition, the student may
have different roles in quasi-judicial versus legislative issues. He noted that the City Council appoints student representatives
on a short-term basis since it is not feasible to expect a student to commit to the position long term. This creates an
interesting situation because many of the issues that come before the Board are long-term projects, and the student
representatives may not sit on the Board long enough to see them completed. He agreed that encouraging student
participation in local government is a laudable goal.
Board Member Johnson said she supports the idea of getting students involved in local government, but she questioned how
interested high school students would be in the Board’s activities. She suggested that perhaps the University of Washington
Packet Page 250 of 384
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
September 22, 2010 Page 9
and Edmonds Community College should be approached about the idea of offering college credit for students who participate
on the Board. Board Member Stewart said she likes the idea of expanding the program to include college students, but she
did not want to exclude high school students. Board Member Johnson asked if there should be a residency requirement.
Board Member Lovell noted that the University of Washington’s College of Urban Planning requires their students to have
internships, and this program could be a potential resource for student representatives. He agreed with Board Member
Johnson that a high school student might find it difficult to assimilate the issues that come before the Board. Board Member
Stewart pointed out that this issue could be addressed by formulating clear requirements for the position.
Board Member Stewart agreed to research the City Council’s process for appointing student representatives. She would also
seek additional information from the American Planning Association. Chair Lovell offered his assistance. The Board agreed
to continue their discussion when more information is available.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Board Member Reed observed that the extended agenda indicates a public hearing on wireless telecommunication facilities is
scheduled for October 13th. However, the Board previously agreed to continue their discussion on October 13th, with a public
hearing tentatively scheduled for November 10th. He also noted that the October 13th agenda should include a discussion
regarding interior lot lines overlapping PRD perimeter buffers in preparation for the public hearing that is scheduled for
October 27th.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Stewart announced that the Northwest Eco Building Guild is sponsoring an event at the Seattle Public Library
on Friday, September 24th at 6:30 p.m. titled “10 Projects x 10 Slides x 10 Minutes. It is intended to be a high-energy
presentation of the 10 most exciting sustainable building projects in and around Seattle.
Board Member Cloutier announced that the Sustainable Energy Retrofit Program will have its kick off event on Wednesday,
September 29th at 7:00 p.m. at the Edmonds Community College Woodway Building Room 202. The event is open to any
home owner or home occupier in Edmonds and Lynnwood. People will be able to sign up to participate in the program. Mr.
Chave noted that staff worked with Sustainable Edmonds to send out 2,000 postcards advertising the event. Board Member
Cloutier added that volunteers from Sustainable Edmonds also distributed 2,000 door hangers last Saturday, and they plan to
do the same this Saturday.
Board Member Johnson thanked Mr. Clugston for putting together the map and list of all the wireless facilities in Edmonds.
She reported that she and Board Member Stewart visited nearly all of the sites. However, one of the addresses seemed to be
incorrect and another was incorrectly labeled. They were unable to locate the Seaview pole. Ms. Coccia said she noticed this
mistake, as well. She explained that the pole is located within the right-of-way. Because there are no addresses for right-of-
way locations, the closest address to the facility was used
Board Member Johnson cautioned that because the Board is short a few members at this time, it is important to ensure there is
a quorum present at each of their meetings. Vice Chair Reed pointed out that four Board Members are needed to constitute a
quorum.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m.
Packet Page 251 of 384
APPROVED SEPTEMBER 22ND
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 8, 2010
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
John Reed, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
Valerie Stewart
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Mike Clugston, Planner
Karin Noyes, Recorder
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
VICE CHAIR REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience expressed a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
PRESENTATION ON DRAFT CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (2011-2016)
Mr. English explained that tonight’s presentation is on the draft Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and the draft Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP), which are two separate but related documents. He explained that the CFP dates back to the City’s
first Comprehensive Plan in 1995 and identifies improvements over a 6-year period and the funding sources needed to build
the projects. It is mandated by the Growth Management Act, and its projections are intended to accommodate the City’s
projected population growth. The CIP is a budget planning tool that covers the same 6-year period. It is comprised of two
sets of projects: preservation and maintenance projects and capital facilities projects. The CIP includes estimated
expenditures and funding sources. Mr. English provided a graphic that Mr. Chave prepared to illustrate how the two
documents are related. He also referenced a matrix that was prepared to compare the two documents. He explained both
documents have a 6-year planning projection, but the CFP includes a 20-year list, as well. They both include capital
improvements, but preservation and maintenance improvements are not included in the CFP.
Mr. English reviewed that the draft CFP has three project sections: A general section that covers parks, buildings, and
regional projects; a transportation section that covers safety, capacity, pedestrian, and bicycle projects; and a stormwater
section. The purpose and potential funding sources for each project are also identified in the plan. In addition, individual
project sheets have been prepared for each CFP project, providing a schedule and explanation for each one. He noted that the
CFP incorporates projects from other plans the Board has already reviewed: 2008 Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Packet Page 252 of 384
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2010 Page 2
Plan, 2009 Transportation Plan, and 2010 Storm and Surface Water Plan. The CIP is intended to be a supporting document
for the CFP, and the Board is not required to take action. The projects in the CIP are divided into the following funds:
• Fund 112 – Transportation related projects that are managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 113 – Edmonds Crossing Project that is managed by the Community Services Department.
• Fund 116 – Building maintenance that is managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 125 – REET-2 Funds for transportation that are managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 125 – REED 2 Funds for park improvements that are managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Department.
• Fund 126 – Park acquisition projects that are managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department.
• Fund 129 – Special projects.
• Fund 132 – Park construction projects that are managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department.
• Funds 412 through 414 – Public utility projects that are managed by the Public Works Department.
Mr. English noted that information related to the Fund 129 projects was not included in the draft plan. Staff had a technical
problem on Friday and was unable to incorporate this section. However, the information would be included in the draft that is
posted on the City’s website before the public hearing, which is scheduled for September 22nd. The documents would be
presented to the City Council’s Development Services/Community Services Committee on September 14 and to the City
Council on September 21st. A public hearing before the City Council has tentatively been scheduled for October 5th, and staff
anticipates the CFP would be adopted as part of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan amendments before the end of the year.
Chair Lovell asked staff to provide each Board Member with a copy of staff’s PowerPoint presentation, and Mr. English
agreed. Chair Lovell said he understands the basic differences between the CIP and CFP. However, he was confused because
the CFP appears to identify project costs and anticipated revenues to implement some of the projects. Mr. English clarified
that the CFP is supposed to identify potential funding sources for the projects identified in the CFP. However, that does not
mean that funding has been budgeted for the projects. Staff is applying for grant funding, and the numbers are staff’s best
estimate of when that funding would be secured.
Chair Lovell inquired if the transportation and stormwater projects are listed by priority. Mr. English answered that projects
listed in the plan are prioritized in the 2008 Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Plan, 2009 Transportation Plan, and 2010
Storm and Surface Water Plan, as well as specific input from the City Council and staff and available funding.
Chair Lovell reminded the Board that the City Council is in the process of discussing the Board’s recommendation to increase
the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) funding to by $40 per vehicle, which requires voter approval. If the proposal is
approved, he asked if the projects that would be funded with this additional tax are identified in the proposed CFP. Mr.
English noted that the “funding source” column on the transportation project spreadsheet identifies those items that would be
funded with TBD monies. However, because this funding is not secure, it is difficult to identify which projects would move
forward in 2011, 2012 and 2013 if the voters approve the additional tax.
Board Member Cloutier recalled that when the Board reviewed the Storm and Surface Water Plan, they agreed that the 100-
year flood plain study should be moved up on the list of priorities, ahead of the Edmonds Marsh Restoration Project. Mr.
English agreed that the project was mislabeled and would be corrected before the document is posted on the City’s website.
Vice Chair Reed noted that none of the projects identified in the CIP would be funded by the existing $20 TBD fee. Mr.
English answered that the $20 TBD fee was implemented in 2009 for street maintenance and operations, but the funds cannot
be used for capital projects. If the additional TBD fee is approved by voters in November, Vice Chair Reed noted that
funding would be available in 2011. Mr. English agreed but said the City is required to adopt a CIP that contains a financially
constrained project list for the first three years. Right now, the City cannot confirm the additional TBD funding as a revenue
source. If the TBD funding initiative passes, the CIP and Transportation Improvement Plan would be updated to identify the
projects that would be funded.
Packet Page 253 of 384
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2010 Page 3
Board Member Stewart referred to statements in the draft document that some existing structures are “reaching the end of
their useful life and need to be replaced.” She explained that in light of the City’s current economic situation, perhaps there
are some creative ways to retrofit or renovate an existing structure rather than tearing it down and replacing it with a new
structure. She suggested a better term would be “are in need of major renovation or replacement,” since this would allow the
City to consider all options. The Board directed staff to word search the document and replace all of the phrases as
recommended by Board Member Stewart.
Board Member Stewart noted that the CFP identifies $20,000 to restripe and remove the parking areas at Main and 9th Avenue
and Walnut Street and 9th Avenue. She questioned why restriping a street would cost so much. Mr. English reminded the
Board that the numbers are estimates at this time, but grinding off the existing striping is a significant cost. In addition, staff
estimates it would cost between $3,000 and $4,000 to bring in the equipment and crew to do the restriping work. He
explained that these two projects are intended to address concurrency issues. The level of service on these two streets is such
that additional capacity is needed. Rather than building a costly traffic signal or acquiring additional right-of-way at the
intersection, the streets would be restriped to provide a turn lane or a combination turn/through lane.
Board Member Stewart noted some fairly large cost estimates for sidewalk improvements. She asked if the City seeks out
contractors that are moving towards sustainable practices when they solicit bids. Mr. English answered that if the additional
TBD fee is approved and the sidewalk projects are moved forward, there will be a big push from the Public Works
Department to construct Low-Impact Development (LID) infrastructure whenever possible. For projects that are estimated to
cost less than $200,000, staff can request bids from at least five contractors from the small works roster. Projects that cost
more than $200,000 require a more formal process. In these cases, the City would issue a Request for Proposals, and any
contractor would be able to bid on the project. The contract would be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder. He
emphasized that the City does not have the ability to pick individual contractors without going through a bid process. When
reviewing bids, Board Member Stewart recommended staff consider the high costs associated with maintaining projects once
they are built rather than just the lowest bid. She noted that LID projects are often less costly to maintain. Mr. English
clarified that all contractors would be bidding on the same project. If sustainable practices were identified in the bid
documents, that is what all contractors would bid on. They would not be asked to bid on maintenance of the projects once
they have been completed. Maintenance requirements are determined by a project’s design.
Board Member Stewart asked if it is possible to designate one project as a pilot for pervious concrete or pavement. She noted
that other jurisdictions in the region have done this, and it is time for the City of Edmonds to take action on its statement of
being a green and sustainable city. Mr. English agreed this would be appropriate. He announced that the City recently
received grant funding for the Shell Valley Emergency Access Road Project, and pervious pavement would be used. The
proposed walkway project on 226th Street would also use pervious pavement. Both of these projects are scheduled for
construction in 2011. Board Member Stewart observed that when well-designed pervious pavement projects are done, more
water can filtrate into the ground, and this results in cost savings down the road. Mr. English said the new Public Works
Director participated in several projects in Bremerton where pervious pavement was used, and he anticipates that the City will
use this concept more.
Board Member Clarke noted that a public hearing on the draft CIP has been scheduled on the Board’s September 22nd agenda.
He questioned how the Board and staff could help the public become more knowledgeable about the proposed plan so they
can provide meaningful input at the public hearing. Mr. English replied that the plan would be posted on the City’s website
for the public to view, and notices would be published in the local newspapers and on Channel 21. A sign up sheet was
placed on the table near the entrance to the Board’s meeting room for people to sign up to receive notification of upcoming
hearings regarding the plan. The City’s website also encourages citizens to contact staff for more information. Board
Member Clarke asked how often the Board holds hearings regarding the CFP. Mr. English answered that the CFP is updated
every year, and the Board holds a public hearing each time before forwarding their recommendation to the City Council.
Board Member Clarke asked how much public participation generally occurs during this process. Mr. McIntosh answered
that there are typically about six people in attendance at the public hearings.
Board Member Clarke asked if staff would provide information at the September 22nd meeting to help the public understand
how the projects identified in the proposed CFP would be impacted if the new TBD fee is not approved by voters. Mr.
English answered that the City’s website would include information, independent of the CFP, that lays out the projects that
Packet Page 254 of 384
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2010 Page 4
would be funded by the proposed TBD fee. Maps would also be provided to identify the location of each of the proposed
projects. Board Member Clarke said it is important to clearly communicate to the public the impacts of rejecting or
approving the new TBD fee. Mr. Williams pointed out that Board Member Johnson is a member of the committee that was
formed to prepare a Pro statement about Proposition 1 (TBD fee) for the November voter’s pamphlet. A committee was also
formed prepare a statement for the voter’s pamphlet opposed to Proposition 1. The City cannot get involved in campaign
efforts either way. However, staff can provide effective factual information upon request. They can also attend meetings
when invited to deliver factual information about proposals on the ballot or about transportation in general, but they cannot
recommend that voters should accept or reject a proposal. The public has the ability to do whatever they want to convince
voters to take a certain action.
Board Member Clarke suggested that rather than campaigning for or against the proposal, it is important to help the public
understand how critical the issue is. They must have a clear understanding of the consequences of their vote. He suggested
that the public be invited to provide comments at the public hearing regarding Proposition 1, since it is major part of the CIP
and CFP funding proposal. Mr. Williams agreed it would be appropriate for staff to present factual information regarding the
proposed TBD fee prior to the public hearing, and this would set the stage for the Board to discuss the issue in more detail.
However, he emphasized that staff and elected officials are limited to just providing factual information related to ballot
issues. He said he held a transportation forum in the City of Bremerton, inviting people to comment on transportation issues,
but only 14 people attended the meeting.
Board Member Clarke suggested the City invite THE BEACON to write an article to help the public understand the issues.
Rather than merely going through the required public hearing process, the Board should look for opportunities to make their
public hearings more effective. Mr. Williams commented that the future looks rather bleak based on existing transportation
funding sources. He pointed out that, other than one stimulus project last year, the City has not done a single paving project
since 2006. It doesn’t take a lot to figure out that the street system will only get worse, but it is difficult to get this message to
the people who need to hear it.
Chair Lovell reminded the Board that when they reviewed the Transportation Improvement Plan earlier in the year, staff
provided quite a bit of information about what projects could be funded if the TBD fee were raised to a certain level. He
noted that the voters pamphlet that is published for the November election would include a brief statement about Proposition
1. Board Member Johnson also pointed out that a table was provided on Page 3 of the draft CIP showing what projects would
be done if the new TBD fee is approved. She suggested it would be appropriate for the Board to highlight this information at
the public hearing. She said that while they may not get a lot of citizens to attend their hearing, the same presentation would
be made before the City Council, and the Board has an opportunity to highlight and explain certain things. She observed that
City Council hearings typically draw more people and they are also broadcast on Channel 21. Board Member Cloutier
suggested that when staff presents the CFP to the City Council on September 21st, they could invite the public to attend the
Board’s public hearing on September 22nd.
Chair Lovell noted that the CIP identifies $11 million over the next six years for the Edmonds Cross Project. However, there
is speculation that this project may never happen. Mr. English said he would invite Mr. Clifton, Community Services
Director, to the public hearing to provide more information about the Edmonds Crossing Project. Vice Chair Reed asked if
Mr. McIntosh would be present at the September 22nd public hearing, and Mr. McIntosh answered affirmatively.
Board Member Johnson noted that some of the projects in the CFP are beyond the 6-year period of time but could be done
earlier if funding becomes available. For example, the Boys and Girls Club Project is budgeted for $5 million in 2017 and
beyond. She questioned what it would take to complete the ADA improvements prior to 2017. She also noted that $1
million is budgeted in 2017 and beyond for creating an arts center. She questioned if there are opportunities to pursue this
project prior to the scheduled date using leased space in a vacant building rather than building a separate new arts center. Mr.
English agreed to forward Board Member Johnson’s questions to Jim Stevens, Facilities Manager, and Francis Chapin,
Cultural Services Manager.
FURTHER DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 18.05 AND 20.50 CLARIFYING
DEFINITIONS AND PROCESSES FOR REGULATION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES
Packet Page 255 of 384
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2010 Page 5
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Board received a lot of information at the July 28th public hearing, and they agreed to continue
their discussion on September 8th. At the hearing, Richard Busch, the attorney representing AT&T Wireless and president of
the Northwest Wireless Association, provided a general presentation regarding how cell sites are selected. He also suggested
possible changes. He announced that Mr. Busch was present to provide additional information as requested by the Board.
Chair Lovell cautioned that, although the Board heard from citizens regarding a Clearwire installation on 96th Avenue, they
should keep in mind that the proposed amendments would not be applicable to current projects. The Board should also keep
in mind that the City cannot regulate wireless facilities on the basis of public health and safety. They must also adhere to the
Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) regulations, which require the City to allow wireless companies to provide
adequate coverage to their customers.
Richard Busch, Attorney and President of the Northwest Wireless Association, Issaquah, said he represents AT&T on a
proposed wireless project in Edmonds. He expressed his belief that wireless technology will continue to become more
popular, and people will desire to have quality wireless service. The City must balance this need with the need to protect
residential communities. He recalled that he provided photographs at the July 28th hearing of well-integrated wireless
facilities that most people would not be concerned about. When determining what types of facilities should be allowed in the
City and where, he suggested the Board start by identifying those types that would be appropriate in all locations, those that
may be okay but with additional scrutiny, and those that should only be allowed as a last resort. They should discuss the
various types of technology and identify the impacts each type would have on the community. This information will allow the
Board to develop a hierarchy approach for locating wireless facilities in the future. He suggested they divide the technology
into the following three categories:
• Technologies appropriate for all locations. These types should be allowed as permitted uses with design review. The
industry should be encouraged to install these types of facilities so a lengthy review process should not be required. This
category could include co-locating on an existing monopole and rooftop installation in multi-family and commercial
zones. Rather than requiring a provider to go down a priority list, outright permitting certain types of facilities would
encourage carriers to design facilities that are consistent. This reduces carrier costs and makes it easier for staff to
implement the code.
• Technologies that are acceptable but require closer scrutiny. These types are more likely to be located in or near
residential zones and could be permitted with an administrative conditional use permit and design review. People are
demanding more and more data in the residential areas, and over time, carriers will likely need to put more capacity into
neighborhoods. It will be critical to come up with a process that balances the carriers’ needs with what the community is
willing to accept. Carriers should be encouraged to look at existing infrastructure first.
• Technologies that should only be allowed as a last resort. While the Telecommunication Act may require the City to
allow monopoles in residential zones, the City could restrict this type unless there are no other options. These types
could require a formal public hearing and City Council approval.
Mr. Busch recommended that, regardless of the City’s approach for regulating the location of wireless facilities, they should
incorporate an administrative waiver provision that allows staff to make decisions that make sense. He shared a recent
situation in which a hearing examiner had no option but to require a carrier to put landscaping around a communication site
that was located in the middle of a forested area because it was a code requirement. Staff should have the ability to waive a
requirement when it makes common sense to do so and all of the community goals would be protected.
Mr. Busch summarized that he was not present to tell the Board what the code requirements should be, but to help them
discuss what is important to their community. He advised that he could provide a copy of the Personal Communication
Industry Association’s (PCIA) draft code, which the Board could use as a model. However, changes would be needed to
address the specific needs of the City.
Board Member Johnson observed that communication devices are getting smaller and better. She asked if the wireless
facilities are also getting smaller in design. Mr. Busch agreed that newer technology is getting smaller, but carriers must
continue to provide service for the older technology. In order to serve all customers, multiple transmitters are often required.
Packet Page 256 of 384
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2010 Page 6
These can be placed all inside of one large shroud, which means the facilities would not be smaller, or more small antennas
could be used.
Board Member Johnson noted that some antennas are visible from the street and cannot be equated with attractiveness. She
asked if there is scientific information to support why an antenna has to be located in a particular place on a roof. Mr. Busch
answered that there is science behind antenna location, but some judgment is also involved. Radio frequency engineers look
at where additional capacity is needed and the existing topography. Other factors (i.e. willing landlords, visual impact, and
code requirements) are also considered. Board Member Johnson asked if the City’s current code requires that rooftop
mounted wireless facilities be screened so they are not visible from the street. Mr. Busch answered that the industry prefers to
place antennas on flat roofs rather than pitched roofs, and they are typically painted to match the roof. While they are usually
still visible from the street, they are not obvious. He added that rooftop antennas can be screened with materials that are radio
frequency transparent, but screening panels are often more visible than the antennas themselves.
Board Member Johnson recalled that at the last meeting a number of citizens from the community called attention to the
Clearwire installation that is taking place on 96th Avenue. She asked why the technology could not have been located on the
taller Public Utility District (PUD) poles that already exist in the neighborhood. Mr. Busch answered that the taller PUD
poles are likely high-voltage transmission lines that are taller and have conductors installed near the top. Because of
separation requirements, carriers must co-locate at 10 to 15 feet either above or below the conductors. While the industry
does not prohibit wireless facilities above the conductors, the technology can only be installed when the power is off.
Therefore, it is not likely that carriers will propose equipment above the conductors, and the area below the conductors may
not be high enough to provide the desired coverage.
Board Member Clarke asked Mr. Busch how communities in Europe have regulated wireless equipment so it blends in with
the historic areas. Mr. Busch said he recently viewed a video that shows the facilities being located on the top or side of
multi-family and commercial structures, but he doubts they would allow the facilities to be placed on historic churches, etc.
Board Member Clarke asked how wireless facilities are regulated amongst the historic buildings in downtown Boston. Mr.
Busch said it is common to have rooftop installations that are painted to match the buildings. It is not likely that a monopole
would be located in downtown Boston, but they can be found along the freeways. Even in downtown Seattle, there are
numerous antennas located on rooftops. He cautioned that it would be a mistake for Edmonds to mimic either Seattle or
Portland because their existing development is very different. They do not have tall buildings.
Board Member Clarke expressed concern about how the rooftop antennas would be viewed from properties located uphill.
Mr. Busch agreed that the antennas would be visible, and that is why it is important to work with the industry to make sure
they are integrated as much as possible. Antennas cannot be totally hidden from view, but they can be made less obvious.
The reality is that transmission and distribution poles tend to blend in over time.
Board Member Johnson suggested it would be appropriate for the Board to participate in an educational tour of the various
wireless facilities that exist in Edmonds. Mr. Busch agreed that would be appropriate, and he suggested the Board focus on
rooftop and wall-mounted installations given the City’s topography.
Board Member Clarke said his office is located at the corner of Third Avenue and Main Street, and he has noticed there are
multiple rooftop antennas located on his building. He questioned how these installations could be done so they are less
visually intrusive. Mr. Busch said there are ways to screen the equipment using materials that are radio frequency transparent,
but the Board needs to ask which is less intrusive; the antennas or the screening. He commented that once a provider finds a
willing landlord and the City has approved the site, other providers will likely want to co-locate on the same structure. He
expressed his belief that it is better to have multiple antennas on one building than antennas on every building in the
downtown.
Board Member Cloutier said he supports a hierarchy approach similar to the one described by Mr. Busch. He expressed his
belief that if the City identifies the types of facilities that have the least impact and allows them outright, the industry would
fall in line because it would be less costly and time consuming for them to obtain the necessary permits. This approach would
also meet the City’s desire to encourage co-location and reduce the staff time required to review applications. Mr. Chave
pointed out that this has largely been the City’s approach for some time. Board Member Cloutier agreed with Board Member
Packet Page 257 of 384
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2010 Page 7
Johnson that a tour of existing facilities would be helpful. However, the Board does not have the expertise to divide the
various types of facilities into categories. This work must be done by staff.
Board Member Clarke said he supports the hierarchy approach, and he also agreed with Mr. Busch that the code should
include a provision that allows the staff to make decisions based on common sense.
Board Member Johnson referred to her recent visit to the neighborhood on 96th Avenue West where the Clearwire facility is
being installed and said she can understand why the neighbors are concerned. They already have more overhead wires than
most neighborhoods, and there are two facilities (school and church) nearby that could have been considered had the
applicant been required to use a hierarchy approach. She suggested this is a perfect case study. Board Member Cloutier said
that while the City cannot regulate wireless facilities based on health and safety issues, the neighbors’ concerns were related
to the scale of the project.
As requested by the Board, Mr. Clugston provided a map of the existing wireless facilities in the City, which total 20 (4 utility
poles, 7 monopoles and 10 building mounted). He also referred to the updated language for ECDC 20.50 and noted that a
number of changes (see Staff Report) have been made since the last time the Board reviewed the document. He observed that
what was originally anticipated to be a few minor tweaks to enhance 18.05 has evolved to include a broader review of 20.50.
However, staff believes this review is appropriate given the changes that have taken place with technology and the City’s
understanding of wireless siting needs.
After further discussion, the Board requested that staff provide them with a list and map of the existing wireless facilities.
Each of the facilities should be clearly labeled with their correct technical names, and a brief description should be provided,
as well. The Board Members would conduct self-guided tours prior to the next meeting. As they tour the sites, the Board
Members could make a rough list of which category each would fall under. It was also suggested that staff provide the Board
with pictures to illustrate the various types of equipment that should be encouraged and discouraged in the City. Board
Member Stewart suggested that the list of existing facilities should also be published on the City’s website for the public’s
information. Staff would provide additional notification to the individuals who signed up during the July 28th public hearing.
Board Member Clarke observed that there is only one wireless facility in his area, which explains why he cannot get cell
phone service inside his home. He asked if the providers have decided not to add additional facilities in this location because
there is not enough population density or if the City’s code prevents additional facilities. Mr. Chave answered that the
existing wireless communication regulations have been in place since 1996, so there is nothing to prevent a provider from
placing additional facilities in Mr. Clarke’s neighborhood.
Board Member Clarke asked staff to provide the Board with information about how many wireless facilities are located in the
Town of Woodway. Board Member Stewart said it would also be helpful to know how many companies are represented in
the various wireless facilities that currently exist in Edmonds. This information may be helpful to encourage co-location.
Board Member Johnson advised that the FCC licenses for each of the existing facilities is available on line, and there is also
information available about the permits, themselves.
Board Member Clarke observed that quick-serve restaurants like to locate within close proximity to each other. He asked if
the same would be true for the wireless industry, or do they try to block each other out once a location has been established.
Mr. Busch said the two concepts are unrelated. The FCC quickly realized that communities would not tolerate numerous
carriers with their own structures, so they began encouraging co-location. All providers now have co-location staff to
facilitate this process. While it is helpful to see where the facilities are located on the map prepared by Mr. Clugston, the
carriers already know this information.
Board Member Clarke asked if the City could require a provider to co-locate on an existing facility rather than create a new
one. Mr. Busch answered that the City cannot prohibit a new facility as long as the provider can show there are no other
alternatives. He expressed his belief that encouraging co-location is appropriate, but it may not work in all situations. Board
Member Clarke asked if the code could give a carrier the right to expand an existing facility to accommodate a new carrier.
Mr. Busch suggested that rather than creating new language to address this issue, the City could reference the FCC’s
programmatic agreement, which allows a carrier to extend the height of a tower by 20% or up to 20 feet, but only once.
Packet Page 258 of 384
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2010 Page 8
Chair Lovell noted that a public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for October 13th, which would not allow enough time
for the Board to complete their self-guided tour and for staff to prepare draft language to incorporate Mr. Busch’s
recommendation. He expressed his belief that the changes made by staff are appropriate and address the Board’s desire to
place more emphasis on the need to prioritize location options. The current draft language makes it clear that the City does
not encourage large facilities in residential neighborhoods. Beyond that, he suggested it is not reasonable to expect the Board
and/or City Council to come up with specific technical guidelines for each type of wireless facility that might be proposed in
Edmonds. He recommended the Board provide their final comments to staff so that the draft language can be updated and
presented for public hearing on October 13th.
Board Member Johnson agreed that the latest draft document reflects the Board’s thinking as of July 28th. However, it is
intended to be a working document, and it may be appropriate to invite staff to fold Mr. Busch’s recommendation into the
draft language before it is presented for public hearing. She invited Mr. Clugston to share his thoughts on how the Board
should move forward. Mr. Clugston answered that perhaps the current draft language in ECDC 20.50.002 addresses the site
selection criteria satisfactorily, but he would like to review it one more time to make sure. He suggested that he may be able
to make the site selection criteria clearer using the template provided by Mr. Busch. He reminded the Board that the intent of
the proposed amendments is to make the regulations as clear and useful as possible. He suggested the Board continue their
discussion to the next meeting.
Board Member Cloutier agreed with Chair Lovell that the existing proposed language works, but they should take every
opportunity to make it even better. He noted that the proposed language does not address the idea of offering incentives to
providers to encourage certain types of installations.
Vice Chair Reed noted that one of staff’s recommended changes is to remove the illustrations. He said he likes illustrations
because they help the public understand the various types of facilities. However, he agreed that they should be updated to
ensure they are consistent with current technology. Mr. Chave explained that if illustrations are included in the code, then
they must be updated whenever technology changes, which is frequently.
Vice Chair Reed asked what the review process would be for large facilities. Mr. Clugston said that, as proposed, design
review would be required for any type of installation, but monopoles and lattice towers would require a conditional use permit
and a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner (See ECDC 20.50.040).
Board Member Clarke pointed out that ECDC 20.50.040.B references Woodway High School and Edmonds High School.
These references should be changed to Old Woodway High School and Edmonds/Woodway High School since that is what
they are called today.
Board Member Clarke observed that there is no time constraint regarding this issue. Mr. Clugston agreed and said the City
Council asked the Board to review the existing regulations to make sure they adequately protect the community. Board
Member Clarke suggested it would be appropriate to postpone the public hearing so the Board has ample time to accomplish
their goals. The more the Board can understand the issues, the better they can represent the proposed amendments to the
citizens. He said he would like the City to publish a notice in THE EDMONDS BEACON inviting citizens to provide input.
The notice should describe the Board’s process and indicate how the public can obtain more information. Mr. Clugston
agreed that the Board could direct staff to go beyond the City’s traditional methods for notifying the public, but he did not
anticipate this would result in significantly more public participation. It is difficult to get citizens to participate in the public
process until a proposal directly impacts them.
Vice Chair Reed said that most people do not even see the Planning Board meeting notices that are published in THE
EDMONDS BEACON. He suggested it may be appropriate to have a regular Planning Board section that identifies issues that
are coming before the Board. In addition, notice of Planning Board hearings could also be published on
MyEdmondsNews.com. Board Member Cloutier added that the editor of MyEdmondsNews.com would be likely willing to
publish an article that is written by a Planning Board member.
Packet Page 259 of 384
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2010 Page 9
The Board agreed to continue their discussion to the October 13th meeting, at which time staff would provide updated draft
language related to site selection criteria, etc. They agreed to tentatively schedule a public hearing for November 10th. Mr.
Clugston agreed to provide information related to the self-guided tour on September 22nd.
Board Member Clarke inquired if the existing draft language addresses the concept of allowing staff the ability to make
common sense decisions. Mr. Clugston answered that, at this time, the draft language is fairly prescriptive and does not allow
a lot of flexibility. There is some question as to how much flexibility the City Council would be willing to give staff. He
expressed his belief that an administrative waiver would not necessarily solve issues related to changing technology that does
not meet code requirements. Mr. Busch pointed out that the terms “mini,” and “macro” are no longer applicable because
technology has changed. In addition, the code references an aggregate antenna size of 584 inches, but he is unclear about
what that means. He summarized that the language should be tweaked to reflect current technology and staff should be
allowed some flexibility when they are talking about something that is just a small degree over what the code allows. Mr.
Clugston agreed to review the definition section and make the appropriate adjustments.
DISCUSSION ON INTERIOR LOT LINES OVERLAPPING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD)
PERIMETER BUFFERS
Vice Chair Reed announced that the City Council adopted an interim ordinance in April of 2010 that included a provision
related to interior lot lines in PRD’s. The interim ordinance was due to expire in October. At the last City Council Meeting,
Mr. Chave recommended the City Council extend the interim ordinance. He explained that the Board was in the process of
reviewing the subdivision regulations and would take PRD’s into account as part of that process. The City Council voted to
extend the interim ordinance, but they decided that the Board should consider the PRD issue as a separate item. He referred
to the interim ordinance, which provides new language for ECDC 20.35.050.C.2. He explained that the Board’s
responsibility is to review the language found in the interim ordinance and make a recommendation about whether or not it
should be made permanent.
Mr. Chave advised that staff would bring this item before the Board for additional discussion prior to the public hearing that
is tentatively scheduled for October 27th. Staff would also provide a sketch to describe the language better. Mr. Clugston
reported that staff would present the first draft of the subdivision regulations to the Board on October 13th, and a discussion
regarding the PRD issue could be added to the agenda as a separate agenda item.
UPDATE ON SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS
Board Member Cloutier reported that the Board’s work on sustainability indicators is moving forward parallel to the efforts of
the Mayors Climate Protection Committee, starting with building energy and focusing on natural gas because the Snohomish
County Public Utility District is unable to provide accurate consumption data at this time. The Climate Protection Committee
has developed a sample webpage, and they are hoping to have it completed by October 10th. He was tasked with providing
data, and he created a spreadsheet that enables staff to type in the numbers and everything else would be automated. He
agreed to forward a copy of the graphs and tables to each of the Board Members.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
No comments were made regarding the revised Extended Agenda.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not provide comments during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Johnson announced that the Cascade Land Conservancy would meet on September 9th at 7:00 p.m. at the Point
Edwards Club House. There will be featured speakers on the subject of “Complete Streets,” which is a new nationwide
Packet Page 260 of 384
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
September 8, 2010 Page 10
concept that has gained momentum. The basic concept is that streets are for everyone, not just for cars and delivery trucks.
In addition, different transportation groups would be talking about various elements of transportation.
Board Member Johnson announced that the Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) was supposed to sunset
after 18 months, which is the end of this year. However, they will ask the City Council to extend the CEDC for another 18
months to complete some of their large planning tasks such as neighborhood plans for Five Corners and Westgate and putting
together a strategic plan. They believe they have the momentum to pursue these projects.
Vice Chair Reed reported that at their last meeting, the City Council adopted the SEPA changes that were recommended by
the Planning Board, with the exception of the new thresholds. The vote was unanimous. He said he was bothered by the
comments of a few City Council members, which inferred that “the Planning Board really missed it on this one.” These types
of comments show that they really didn’t read through the Planning Board minutes to learn more about what the Board
discussed. He commented that there will be many instances where what the Board comes up with as a group will be different
than what the City Council wants.
Vice Chair Reed reported that at their last meeting, the City Council reviewed maps of the Highway 99/Medical Activity
Center and the Highway 99 Corridor. They discussed that perhaps the lines need to be redrawn, and they agreed to docket the
issue for consideration as part of the 2011 Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Vice Chair Reed said Mayor Cooper indicated that he received six applications for the vacant Planning Board positions. He
plans to interview at least three of the candidates. The Mayor also indicated that he would continue to accept applications for
the two vacant positions.
Board Member Stewart reported on her attendance at a “Green Building” event in Bellingham last week. She learned that the
City of Bellingham has a green building incentive program that was developed in conjunction with a non-profit group called
Sustainable Connections. The program includes a list of incentives for green building projects such as expediting permits. In
addition, they have a “green team” to help with green building programs and certification. Applicants need to seek at least
four or Five Star Built Green, LEED Gold or equivalent. She provided handouts to each of the Board Members and
encouraged them to review the information. It is a great program that she would like the City to consider, and she offered her
services to get the process started.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m.
Packet Page 261 of 384
AM-3387 Item #: 9.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Kernen Lien
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on a proposed ordinance designating the Edmonds Elementary School
(Frances Anderson Cultural Center) located at 700 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington for
inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and directing the Community
Services Director or his designee to designate the site on the official zoning map with an
“HR” designation.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the ordinance (Exhibit 1) as recommended by the Edmonds Historic Preservation
Commission.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The Edmonds Elementary School (Frances Anderson Cultural Center), located at 700 Main
Street, was nominated for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places in 2010 (Exhibit 2)
and the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission subsequently received the property owners'
written consent (Exhibit 6) for listing the property. The Edmonds Historic Preservation
Commission reviewed the nomination to place the Foreman's House on the Edmonds Register at
a public hearing on August 12, 2010 and concluded that the site is eligible for listing pursuant to
the designation criteria in ECDC 20.45.010 (Exhibit 5).
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Ordinance designating the Edmonds Elementary School (Frances Anderson Cultural Center) for
listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
Exhibit 2 - Nomination Form
Exhibit 3 - BOLA report on Edmonds Elementary School
Exhibit 4 - DAHP Historic Property Report on Edmonds Elementary School
Exhibit 5 - August 12, 2010 HPC Minutes
Exhibit 6 - Property owner authorization
Exhibit 7 - Edmonds Elementary School (Frances Anderson Center) HPC Staff Report
Exhibit 8 - Edmonds Elementary PowerPoint Presentation
Form Review
Packet Page 262 of 384
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 10:40 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/30/2010 01:35 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 01:44 PM
Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 09/20/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/30/2010
Packet Page 263 of 384
- 1 -
0006.90000
kpl
09/20/2010
ORDINANCE NO. ___
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE
EDMONDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (FRANCES
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER) LOCATED AT 700 MAIN
STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON
THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND
DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR
HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION.,
AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Elementary School (Frances Anderson Cultural
Center) located at 700 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington, is included on the Historic Survey of
Downtown Edmonds prepared by BOLA Architecture in conjunction with the Washington State
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in October, 2004, as a property that is
potentially eligible for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission held a public
hearing on August 12, 2010, to consider the eligibility of the structure for listing on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the staff recommendation the Commission
unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council that the Edmonds Elementary School
(Frances Anderson Cultural Center) be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, the owner(s) have given their written consent for such designation;
and
Packet Page 264 of 384
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Historic
Preservation Commission regarding the features of the site which contribute to its designation
and finds that the application meets the criteria of the ordinance as contained in Chapter 20.45 of
the ECDC, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds Elementary School (Frances Anderson Cultural Center)
located at 700 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington 98020, is hereby approved for designation to
the Edmonds Historic Register. The exterior of the building is hereby designated as significant.
Section 2. The Community Services Director, or his designee, is hereby
authorized to designate the listed site on the Edmonds zoning map with an “HR” designation.
This designation does not change or modify the underlying zone classification.
Section 3. Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
Packet Page 265 of 384
- 3 -
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: ________
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ________
PUBLISHED: ________
EFFECTIVE DATE: ________
ORDINANCE NO. _____
Packet Page 266 of 384
{rwc/00006.900000/} - 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 5th
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DESIGNATING THE
EXTERIOR OF THE EDMONDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (FRANCES ANDERSON
CULTURAL CENTER) LOCATED AT 700 MAIN STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, DIRECTING
THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE
SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH AN “HR” DESIGNATION, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
day of October, 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:
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this ___ day of October, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 267 of 384
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
8
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
9
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
0
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
1
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
2
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
3
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
4
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
5
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
6
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
7
o
f
3
8
4
Historic Property Inventory Report
Monday, June 28, 2010 Page 1 of 11
Edmonds Elementary School Building
700 Main St, Edmonds, WA 98020
Location
Field Site No.DAHP No.
Historic Name:
Common Name:Frances Anderson Cultural Center
Property Address:
Comments:
Snohomish
County
T27R03E 24
Township/Range/EW Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec
EDMONDS EAST
Quadrangle
Tax No./Parcel No.00434208800000
Plat/Block/Lot Block 88, Plat of Edmonds
Acreage
Supplemental Map(s)
Coordinate Reference
Zone:
Spatial Type:Point
Acquisition Code:Geocoded
Sequence:0
Easting:
Northing:
Packet Page 278 of 384
Historic Property Inventory Report
Monday, June 28, 2010 Page 2 of 11
Identification
Brian Rich/URS
700 Main St.
Survey Name:Date Recorded:
Field Recorder:
Owner's Name:City of Edmonds
08/20/2005Frances Anderson Cultural
Center/Seismic Upgrade, FEMA
City:
Classification:Building
Edmonds
Resource Status:
Comments:
State:Washington Zip:98020
Within a District?No
Contributing?
National Register Nomination:
Local District:
National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name:
Owner Address:
Description
Narrative
Historic Use:Education - School Current Use:Recreation and Culture - Auditorium
Plan:Irregular Stories:3.0 Structural System:Concrete - Poured
Changes to Plan:Moderate Changes to Interior:Slight
Changes to Original Cladding:Slight Changes to Windows:Moderate
Changes to Other:
Other (specify):
Style:Spanish - Spanish Colonial Revival Form/Type:Other
Cladding:Concrete - Poured Foundation:
Roof Type:Flat with Parapet Roof Material:Asphalt / Composition - Built
Up
Education
Entertainment/Recreation
Study Unit Other
Date of Construction:1928, 1947, 1952
Architect:Engineer:
Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:Yes
Builder:Wright & Sons
Survey/Inventory
Packet Page 279 of 384
Historic Property Inventory Report
Monday, June 28, 2010 Page 3 of 11
Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local):
Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local):
Statement of
Significance:
History of the City of Edmonds
The Snohomish Indian tribe fished and gathered clams and native oysters along the shores of the present-
day City of Edmonds. The natives used the huge western red cedar trees in making dugout canoes and
dwellings as the wood was soft and easy to work and shape. Recollections of long-time Edmonds resident
Frances Anderson make it clear that, while the European settlers ran the mills on 1st and 2nd streets
along the waterfront, there were also many native families camped there as well.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
The Edmonds Elementary School, renamed the Frances E. Anderson Cultural Center, meets National
Register Criterion A for its association with the City of Edmonds' expansion of the early public school
system. Intended to serve the community of Edmonds early elementary education needs, the school
served as an important educational facility in the community over 50 years. Constructed between the
world wars after the public library and Edmonds High School were constructed, the building represents
the community's commitment to early education. The Edmonds Elementary School also represents the
growth in the City and rapid facility expansion in the post war boom of the 1940s and 1950. The building
tripled in size after the construction of the 1947 to 1952 additions.
The school is also significant under Criterion B for it's association with long time principal, teacher and
civic volunteer, Frances Anderson. Frances Anderson was a central figure in the development of the
youth and education system in Edmonds. After the building was closed due the lack of attendance, the
school building was rehabilitated into a community center and named after long-time educator Frances
Anderson.
The Edmonds Elementary School also meets National Register Criterion C as an example of the California
Spanish Colonial revival and the Streamlined Moderne styles. The 1928 building is an excellent example
of the Spanish Colonial Revival style, exhibiting the typical light colored stucco walls, tile roofs, arched
window openings, and Spanish style parapets. The 1947 and 1952 additions are good examples of
Streamlined Moderne style with overtones of the International Style, exhibiting the characteristic banding
and simple detailing characteristic of these styles. While the Multi-Purpose room does not exemplify the
Streamlined Moderne design style as well as other parts of the building, it shows influences of World War
II Airplane hangar designs with the bowstring truss roof.
Father George Brackett who grew up working in the woods of Maine and New Brunswick, Canada
founded the town. Brackett moved to the Puget Sound region circa 1869. Seeing opportunity in the
heavily-wooded area around Edmonds, he purchased 147 acres of waterfront timber in 1872 for $650. By
1876, he had built a home for his family near the waterfront and starting to build the town, beginning
with his own sawmill. Other settlers trickled into the area - loggers, shingle sawyers and weavers,
farmers, and small business owners. In 1884, Edmonds opened the first post office, and in 1890, the City
was incorporated. George Brackett became its first mayor and he built a wharf, which he called Brackett's
Landing.
During the early 1900s, shingle mills stretched all along the Edmonds waterfront. The number of mills
grew rapidly thanks to the availability of quality red cedar nearby. Making shakes was a slow and
laborious process, although the demand in those early days was great enough to employ many in that
trade. With the invention of the shingle machine, the splitting of shakes became almost a memory. In its
heyday around 1910, there were ten mills along the waterfront, some riving almost 20,000 shingles per
year. The manufacture of western red cedar shingles made by the shingle machine became one of the
leading industries in the Edmonds area.
Packet Page 280 of 384
Historic Property Inventory Report
Monday, June 28, 2010 Page 4 of 11
The Edmonds Elementary School was renamed Frances Anderson Cultural Center after France E. Anderson
- a long time principal and teacher at the school. Anderson was a well-known figure in the history of the
City of Edmonds. Anderson was born in Drummond, Montana on November 16, 1890 to Mr. and Mrs. C.J.
Anderson. Shortly after her birth, in January 1891, the family moved to Fidalgo Island, continuing C.J.
Anderson's work with the Great Northern Railway. Later the family moved to Snohomish where C.J. work
with railway continued.
The Edmonds Grade School
In 1891, the Edmonds first grade school on this site was built. This building was a three-story Victorian
frame schoolhouse, and served school children until it was replaced by the current concrete structure in
1928. The funding for the construction of the school got off to a rocky start when the two bond measures
did not pass. The $50,000 bond issue was finally passed in 1927 and the design process began
immediately.
Although water transport had been the principal means of transportation between Edmonds and other
Puget Sound cities since Edmonds' founding, it was not until 1923, that a regular ferry service was
established between Edmonds and Kingston. Edmonds eventually became the ferry terminal for several
other routes; all that survives today is the Edmonds-Kingston route. By this time, Edmonds had several
churches, newspapers, a modern high school, Carnegie Library, and electric lights.
Over time, as the old growth trees were harvested, mills closed and Edmonds' early character as a mill
town faded. Today, a yacht marina, office buildings, retail stores, restaurants and the ferry terminal
dominate Edmonds' waterfront.
Built by contractors Wright & Sons for $41,000, the new elementary school was a 10-room fireproof
building. Contractor A. B. Bentley installed the plumbing for an additional $7,900. The Spanish Colonial
Revival style school opened on 15 October 1928. The Spanish Colonial style design, popular in the 1920's
particularly in California, focused on abstraction of design elements, yet still evoked specific traditional
styles. The original 1928 school structure had many design characteristics of the style in its exterior light
stucco finishes, pent tile roof, multi-pane windows, symmetrical layout, inset panels, broad round arches,
and curvilinear parapets.
Declining enrollment in the elementary school system forced the closure of the school in 1972. The
structure was vacant for several years while plans were developed for an alternative use for the building.
After the Bailey-Behm Architects Study was completed around 1977, the school was re-dedicated in 1979
as the Frances Anderson Cultural Center, a public facility for arts and cultural activities operated by the
City of Edmonds Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department. The former school now houses
several tenant with various activities such as tae-kwon-do, clay sculpture, and ballet. It also houses the
offices of the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Department as well as serves a venue for many of
their activities.
Frances E. Anderson
The school served the needs of the community for almost 20 years before the post-World War II baby
boom created a need for an expanded facility. This era was a time of rapid growth as well as a change in
architectural design. The new style hearkened back to the Art Moderne style and the design of airplane
hangars and other military structures were prominent in the minds of many architects. At the same time,
the International Style of simplified, efficient design was beginning to be apparent in architectural design
in a style called Streamlined Moderne. This style features smooth light tinted stucco forms with emphasis
on horizontal or vertical bands and windows. Frequently, glass brick was used as were metallic and glassy
surfaces. Design styles of the 1947 and 1952 additions are clear examples of the Streamlined Moderne
style, with layered horizontal and vertical bands, glass block windows, and light colored stucco finishes.
The Decline
Packet Page 281 of 384
Historic Property Inventory Report
Monday, June 28, 2010 Page 5 of 11
Description of
Physical
Appearance:
Frances Anderson taught second grade until 1924 when she was asked to take the position as principal to
replace the retiring principal. She held this position for 25 years before returning to teaching in 1949, and
retired from teaching altogether in 1959. After her retirement, it appears she may have opened a
business called Tidemark Arts in Edmonds while her husband, Gerry, maintained an office as an architect
at the same location.
Frances returned to Edmonds and became a second grade teacher at the Edmonds Elementary School to
be near her mother while her brother was stationed in France during World War I. Her mother died in
1936 and her brother, Otto died in 1961. In 1921, Frances Anderson became treasurer of the Edmonds
High School Alumni Association, and in 1937, she won the third place award in the Edmonds Chamber of
Commerce Garden Beautiful Contest.
Frances Anderson was given several awards in the course of her lifetime. The 1945 American National
Red Cross gave Frances an award for her meritorious service for her efforts in the Price Control Program
in the Edmonds community, and later Frances was given a citation for meritorious service from the
American Legion (1966). Frances Anderson's service to the Edmonds community earned her the honor of
being the Pioneer Queen of Edmonds' Diamond Jubilee in 1965. She was an honored guest at the
Edmonds High School Diamond Jubilee in 1984 and was one of the first people inducted into the Edmonds
School District Living Legend Hall of Fame. It is frequently said that Frances' ghost still resides on the 3rd
floor of the 1928 building, where she taught and was principal.
Frances died in 1990 at nearly 100 years old; the same year the City of Edmonds celebrated their
centennial. During her long life, Frances Anderson was deeply involved in the community. She earned a
50-year pin from the Eastern Star and the Crystal Rebekah Lodge #65. She was also inducted into the Lota
Chapter of the Delta Kappa Gamma, educational honorary, in 1914 and belonged to the Delta Gamma
Sorority. She was on the Edmonds Public Library Board for 25 years, involved with the Edmonds Historical
Society, a charter member of the American Legion, and active in the YMCA and Methodist Church as well.
She served for 26 years as the chairman of the South Snohomish County Christmas Seal drive. She was
recognized as a member of the Whitewater Half Century Club in 1967.
The Andersons moved to Richmond Beach and lived on 80-acres owned by Frances Anderson's uncle.
Frances and her brother, Otto, walked four miles along the railroad tracks to get to school each day at the
Edmonds Elementary School. Later, both children attended school in Richmond Beach before her family
finally moved to Edmonds when Frances was in the 8th grade. In 1907, her father was killed in a railroad
accident and was unable to see Frances graduate (1911) from the Edmonds High school, where she was in
the first class to hold school in the new High School.
After three years at the University of Washington, she followed the head of the PE department, Ethel
Johnson, to the Whitewater State Normal School (later known as the University of Wisconsin). She
graduated from the University of Wisconsin in 1917 with a major in Physical education.
Francis Anderson began her work in the community in 1909, when she became the secretary for the local
lodge of the Independent Order of Good Templars (1909), elected the first president of the Edmonds
Improvement Club (1910) and became the leader of a group of Junior Camp Fire Girls (1918). In 1913, she
attended the University of Washington, taking courses in physical education and earning W letters in
baseball, track, and basketball. She also participated in the Shot-put event for the Field and Track team.
She was only the third woman student to win two W sweaters in athletics in 1916. Not only was Frances
active in sports, she traveled throughout the 50 states, Mexico and Europe.
SETTING
Packet Page 282 of 384
Historic Property Inventory Report
Monday, June 28, 2010 Page 6 of 11
Historic Additions
Additions were made to the original 1928 building in 1947 and 1952. According to the Seismic Screening
Key Map drawn by City of Edmonds Public Works Department, the 1947 additions included the addition
of the multi-purpose room on the east side of the 1928 building and three additions on the south and
west. A classroom wing and administration addition were built on the north side of the building in 1952.
These flat roof concrete additions vary somewhat in their structure, but all appear fairly similar
aesthetically. Many of the windows feature glass block bands above the horizontal bands of vision
windows to allow daylight to penetrate into the classrooms. These windows are recessed between
narrow columns that extend the varying height of the facades. The clear vertical bands of the structural
columns, the horizontal bands of the roof edge and the clerestory windows are all characteristic of the
Streamlined Moderne design style.
Original Building-Exterior
The Frances Anderson Cultural Center, originally the Edmonds Elementary School, is a comprised of
several different parts on 4.8 acres in the center of the City of Edmonds. The centerpiece is the original
architectural 1928 Spanish Colonial Revival style building that rises above the 1947 and 1952 additions.
Currently irregular in plan, the school was originally a rectangular volume; the later additions extended
west from the original building creating a U-shape and the gym addition pushed the building to the east.
The City of Edmonds, known as the Gem of Puget Sound is situated on the shores of Puget Sound just
north of Seattle. Facing westward, the hills of the city afford commanding views of the Olympic
Mountains and the Puget Sound area. The Frances Anderson Cultural Center is set at the brow of a hill
above the center of Edmonds, a prominent location within the city. The center spans the area between
Main Street and Dayton Street with playgrounds and the outdoor amphitheatre to the east. To the west
of the school were originally tennis courts and other playground areas. In the 1980's, after the school had
been closed due to low attendance, the west portion of the school site was selected for the new Edmonds
Public Library. The center is in a residential neighborhood east of downtown. The Civic Center Playfield
is northwest of the former school building.
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Original Building-Interior
The interior hallways on each floor have central corridors that extend north-south. The interior corridor
walls on the first and main floor levels are concrete with stucco finishes; some retain the original wood
chair rails. Other interior walls are wood framed with plaster finishes. Wood framing is typical at the
floor and roof levels, though some hallways have concrete floors. Some of the doors retain the original
transoms, and are designed with a recessed lower panel and glass upper panels. Rooms of various sizes
are on both sides of the hallways. The stairways are on the west sides near the ends of the hall and the
elevators are on the north side of the hall on each floor. The original arched entrance door frame with
multi-light transom windows are intact.
Oriented north to south, the 1928 structure is a three-story concrete structure with pent roofs covered
with tile between the curvilinear and rectangular parapets of the end bays and pilasters. The main
portion of the roof is a flat. A double-row of brick soldier course extends around the top of the building
under the pent roof. Decorative elements include diamond-shaped or brick rectangular inlays at the top
of the raised pilasters and bay on all facades.
The north and south elevations are divided into two recessed bays with a wider projecting bay in the
center. The center bays are capped with curvilinear parapets. Bands of closely spaced windows are
between the bays on the east and west facades. The original windows were replaced with newer metal
windows that simulate the original window pattern; the size of the openings have been preserved. Some
of the facades have large recessed panels that are void of windows reflecting the interior use. The
original arched doorways are lined with brick trim and have recessed multi-pane transom windows.
Packet Page 283 of 384
Historic Property Inventory Report
Monday, June 28, 2010 Page 7 of 11
Major
Bibliographic
References:
Recent alterations to the building include the replacement of the exterior windows and sashes with
insulated glass units with aluminum sashes which are nearly indistinguishable from the original windows.
The entire electrical system from the service to electrical outlets and switches has been removed and
replaced with electrical systems meeting current codes throughout the entire building. Similarly, the
entire galvanized steel plumbing system through the building was removed and replaced with copper.
Ongoing alterations not funded by FEMA Grants include individual renovations of rooms such as replacing
flooring or customizing it for ballet or pottery requirements. Planned alterations for the near future
include a complete exterior painting. These modifications do not affect the overall exterior appearance of
the structure, nor do they affect major interior spaces.
Amphitheatre
In addition to these school buildings, an outdoor amphitheatre was added on the east side of the 1928
structure in the 1980's, and playground equipment was added in the late 1990's and/or 2000's. The
building has also been updated for handicap accessibility.
The interior of the classroom additions have double loaded corridor arrangements built with steel
structure with heavy timber or concrete beams and tongue and groove roof decking. The exterior and
some interior walls are un-reinforced concrete masonry units with CMU piers at both wings flanking the
1928 building, resulting in a U-shaped structure. Most of the remaining interior walls are wood stud
framed with stucco finishes. In addition, many of the interior spaces have clerestory windows, which
provide daylight.
The 1947 addition of the Multi-Purpose Room is un-reinforced concrete masonry walls and wood timber
bowstring roof trusses with car decking on the roof. There is also a stage area within the Multi-Purpose
room which has been converted into an exercise room. While this is clearly related to the other additions,
the Streamlined Moderne design style is less apparent, and the Aircraft Hangar influences are more
prominent. The gym is attached to the original building by a corridor.
Recent Alterations
Edmonds South Snohomish County Historical Society website, Edmonds Historic Walk (online tour,
http://www.historicedmonds.org/historic/historicwalk/walk.html)
Cloud, Ray V. Edmonds: "The Gem of Puget Sound, A History of the City of Edmonds". Edmonds:
Edmonds South Snohomish County Historical Society, 1953 and 1983.
Frances Anderson Biography, author unknown. Information provided by the Edmonds Historical Museum.
Egan, Douglas. Historian and Maritime Curator, February, 1987. “A Brief History of Edmonds: It’s
Historical Society and Museum.” http://www.edmondsevents.com/Events/edmonds-history.htm.
Bailey-Behm Architects. Circa 1977. “Edmonds Elementary School Study.”
Aerial maps and USGS 7.5 Series Maps from www.topozone.com
City of Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission website (http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/hpc/)
Center for Puget Sound History and Archaeology website (http://www.bcc.ctc.edu/cpsha/)
Seattle Post Intelligencer, April 29, 1979, Page B8. “It’s Anderson Center for Edmonds.”
Satterfield, Archie. Edmonds, the First Century. City of Edmonds, Wash., c1990.
The Edmonds Beacon, Volume XVII, Number 15, June 12, 2003, pages 1 and 20. “Anderson Center Part of
Vibrant Local History.”
Historylink.org. Peoples History Library.
Frances Anderson Biography, author unknown. Information provided by Brian McIntosh, Director, Parks,
Recreation, and Cultural Services Department.
Reinert, Harry ed. Edmonds: "100 Years for the Gem of Puget Sound". Edmonds: The Edmonds Paper &
The Edmonds/Snohomish County Historical Society, December 1990.
KPLU Radio Station. “Northwest Neighborhoods: Celebrating Edmonds.”
http://www.kplu.org/featured_neighborhood.html.
Packet Page 284 of 384
Historic Property Inventory Report
Monday, June 28, 2010 Page 8 of 11
Edmonds. Index to Edmonds, the Gem of Puget Sound by Ray V. Cloud, 1953, [1979].
Edmonds Snohomish County Historical Society and Museum has a wealth of information on Frances
Anderson.
Cloud, Ray Verner, 1893. Edmonds, the Gem of Puget Sound; a History of the City of Edmonds, [1953]
Daughters of the American Revolution. Washington State Society. Peter Puget Chapter, Edmonds. Index to
Edmonds, the Gem of Puget Sound by Ray V. Cloud, 1953, [1979].
Swift, Joan. 1926. Brackett's Landing: A History of Early Edmonds. J. Swift, c1975.
Snohomish County Tax Assessor’s Office – Tax records and early photographs.
Edmonds United Methodist Women. Favorite Recipes of Edmonds. Ballard Printing and Publishing, 1975.
R.L. Polk & Co. Edmonds (Snohomish County, Washington) City Directory.
For Further Research
The Enterprise Newspapers, Number 27, Volume 19, January 19, 1977.
The Seattle Times, December 5, 1979, Page H4. “Life has not been Leisure at New Cultural Center.”
The Edmonds Paper, September 13 - 26, 1989, Page 16 & 21. “School Building has Undergone Much
Change in 98 years.”
The Enterprise Newspaper, June 30, 1976, Page 17. “The Old School Days.”
Washington State Historical Society website (http://www.wshs.org/index.htm)
Woodbridge, Sally B. and Montgomery, Roger. A Guide to Architecture in Washington State – An
Environmental Perspective. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1980.
“Visitor’s Guide: Edmond’s Past, Character for the Future.” August 7, 2005.
http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/vg_past.stm.
Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. USGS Quadrant Maps, Historic
Inventory files and DAHP Wissard research website.
Packet Page 285 of 384
Historic Property Inventory Report
Monday, June 28, 2010 Page 9 of 11
Photos
MM/dd/yyyy
South and east façade of Frances Anderson Cultural Center
MM/dd/yyyy
South façade of the Frances Anderson Cultural Center
MM/dd/yyyy
Contextual view of building, looking northeast
MM/dd/yyyy
East façade of the Frances Anderson Cultural Center
Packet Page 286 of 384
Historic Property Inventory Report
Monday, June 28, 2010 Page 10 of 11
MM/dd/yyyy
Amphitheater courtyard at the Frances Anderson Cultural
Center
North façade of the Frances Anderson Cultural Center
MM/dd/yyyy
MM/dd/yyyy
Interior of 1947 gym of the Frances Anderson Cultural Center
Detail of interior door of the original 1928 building
West façade of the Frances Anderson Cultural Center
MM/dd/yyyy
Packet Page 287 of 384
Historic Property Inventory Report
Monday, June 28, 2010 Page 11 of 11
Historic view 1928 Edmonds Elementary School Building
MM/dd/yyyy
MM/dd/yyyy
Detail interior arch of the original 1928 building
Topo Map of the Frances Anderson Cultural Center
MM/dd/yyyy
MM/dd/yyyy
Packet Page 288 of 384
APPROVED September 9th
CITY OF EDMONDS
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
SUMMARY MINUTES
August 12, 2010
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Vogel called the meeting of the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission to order at 4:30 p.m. in the 3rd Floor
Conference Room of City Hall, 121 – 5th Avenue North. He acknowledged the presence of Mayor Cooper.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Larry Vogel, Chair
Jennifer Anttila
Christine Deiner-Karr (arrived late)
John Dewhirst
Andy Eccleshall
Alan Macfarlane
Steve Waite
Michael Plunkett
STAFF PRESENT
Kernen Lien, Planner
Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Manager
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT
Sue Bauer, Vice Chair (excused)
Eric Norenberg (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
COMMISSIONER DEWHIRST MOVED THE COMMISSION APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 8, 2010 AS
PRESENTED. COMMISSIONER ANTTILA SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The public hearings were placed before the committee reports. The remainder of the agenda was accepted as presented.
REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE
There was no one in the audience who expressed a desire to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE FRANCES
ANDERSON CULTURE CENTER FOR PLACEMENT ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Mr. Lien advised that the Frances E. Anderson Cultural Center, formerly the Edmonds Elementary School, was constructed
in 1927 and 1928, with additions in 1947 and 1952. He noted that the City currently owns the property, which is located at
700 Main Street. Prior to his leaving, Former Mayor Haakenson gave his approval for the building to be listed on the
Register. He briefly reviewed the benefits and requirements of listing a property on the Register. Then he presented the
Staff Report and reviewed how the application meets the Designation Criteria. He also reviewed the significant features of
the site. (See Staff Report for details). He pointed out that the property is associated with the City of Edmond’s expansion
of the early public school system.
Packet Page 289 of 384
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 12, 2010 Page 2
Mr. Lien said staff recommends the Commission find the Frances Anderson Cultural Center meets the criteria for designation
on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Staff believes that both the original 1928 structure and the 1947 and 1952
additions meet the designation criteria as a whole. The exterior of the structure contains the significant architectural features.
He provided photographs of the original Edmonds Elementary School.
Marilyn Jenkins Johnston, Edmonds, commented that she attended the Edmonds Elementary School, and Frances
Anderson was one of her teachers just two years before she retired.
Commissioner Waite discussed that sites are typically given their original name when listed on the Register. In this case, the
name of the site would be the Edmonds Elementary. They agreed the property should be listed as “The Edmonds Elementary
(Frances Anderson Cultural Center).”
BOARD MEMBER DEWHIRST MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE NOMINATION OF THE EDMONDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (FRANCES ANDERSON
CULTURAL CENTER) FOR PLACEMENT ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. BOARD
MEMBER ECCLESHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Commissioner Waite suggested the site could be divided into three units (the original that was built in 1927/1928, the first
addition that was done in 1947, and the last addition that was done in 1952). Mr. Lien noted that all three parts of the
building were used as the Edmonds Elementary. He expressed concern that because of modifications, the original structure
would not likely meet the criteria related to integrity standing on its own. However, the school, as a whole, would meet the
criteria.
Council Member Plunkett suggested the Commission consider a friendly amendment to the motion to request that the
Council President schedule the nomination as a full-council agenda item rather than a consent agenda item. That means the
full presentation would be available on the public television channel to highlight the work and talent of the Commission. Mr.
Lien noted that although the code does not require it, historically, properties not already on the National and/or State Register
have been presented to the City Council for public hearings. It was noted that the nomination is scheduled on the City
Council’s extended agenda as a public hearing.
THE MOTION WAS AMENDED TO INCLUDE A REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SCHEDULE THE
NOMINATION FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL.
Mr. Lien reminded the Commission that, as proposed, only the exterior features of the structure would be listed on the
Register. The interior has been updated significantly over the years and would not meet the criteria related to integrity.
Commissioner Waite suggested that if the entire structure were designated on the Register, a Certificate of Appropriateness
would be required whenever significant changes are made. Mr. McIntosh cautioned against restricting the use of the inside
of the building because the functions could be changed over time. Again, Mr. Lien expressed his belief that the interior
would not meet the criteria related to integrity.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Council Member Plunkett is not a voting member of the
Commission.)
PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE DR. PALMER
HOUSE FOR PLACEMENT ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Mr. Lien advised that the Dr. Palmer House is located at 820 Maple Street. The property owner has given his authorization
for the property to be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. He briefly reviewed the benefits and requirements
of listing a property on the Register. Then he presented the Staff Report and reviewed how the application meets the
Designation Criteria. He also reviewed the significant features of the site. (See Staff Report for details). He pointed out that
the house is associated with its original owner, Dr. Palmer, an Edmonds dentist, who built it in 1895 and resided in it until
1922. It is a well-known historic house, in part because of its visibility and prominent location on a steeply-sloping street
overlooking the downtown. He noted there has been some confusion about when the house was built, but a woman who was
Packet Page 290 of 384
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
9
1
o
f
3
8
4
Frances Anderson Center HistPres designation staff report.doc Page 1
Meeting Date: August 14, 2010
Agenda Subject: Application for designation of the Frances E. Anderson Cultural Center as
eligible for inclusion in the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner
Property Information
Site Name/Location: 700 Main Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Tax Account #: 00434208800000
Township 27 Range 03E Section 24 ¼ Sec SW ¼-¼ Sec
Construction date: 1927 - 1928 (Additions in 1947 and 1952)
Owner/Applicant Information
Person(s) Nominating Site: Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission
Property Owner: City of Edmonds
Report Summary
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission finds that Frances
Anderson Cultural Center meets the criteria for designation on
the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Staff feels that both
the original 1928 structure and the 1947and 1952 additions
meet the criteria for designation. The exterior of the structure
contains the significant architectural features.
Designation
Criteria
Meets
Criteria
Staff
Comments
1. Significantly associated with the
history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering or cultural heritage of
Edmonds…
The Frances E. Anderson Cultural Center,
formerly the Edmonds Elementary
School, is associated with the City of
Edmonds’ expansion of the early public
school system.
City of Edmonds
Historic Preservation Commission
Designation Staff Report
Packet Page 292 of 384
Designation
Criteria
Meets
Criteria
Staff
Comments
2. Has integrity… The original Edmonds Elementary School
building and site has changed in
appearance and layout considerably since
1928, particularly with the 1947 and 1952
additions (See Attachment 1). The
original 1928 structure is largely hidden
from street view by the newer additions.
The arched entrances on the north, south
and west facades have also been covered
up by the additions, with only the top of
the arches visible from aerial view.
However, that portion of the Frances
Anderson Center still visible above the
1947 and 1952 additions remains intact.
The original windows were replaced with
newer metal windows that simulate the
original window patter and the size of the
openings have been preserved.
The 1947 and 1952 additions retain their
original appearance.
Taken as a whole, the site has integrity.
3. Age at least 50 years old, or has
exceptional importance if less than 50
years old…
The Frances Anderson Center is
comprised of several parts. The core of
the Frances Anderson Center is the
Edmonds Elementary School that was
constructed in 1927 – 1928. There were
additions that were constructed in 1947
and 1952.
4. Falls into at least one of the following
designation categories:
Designation Category
a. Associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of national, state or
local history.
The Frances Anderson Cultural Center,
formerly the Edmonds Elementary
School, is associated with the City of
Edmonds’ expansion of the early public
school system. Intended to serve the
community of Edmonds early elementary
education needs, the school served as an
important educational facility in the
community for more than 50 years.
Constructed between the world wars after
the public library and the Edmonds High
School were constructed, the building
represents the community’s commitment
Packet Page 293 of 384
Designation
Criteria
Meets
Criteria
Staff
Comments
to early education. The Frances Anderson
Center also represents the growth in the
City and rapid facility expansion in the
post war boom of the 1940’s and 1950’s.
The building tripled in size after the
construction of the 1947 and 1952
additions.
b. Embodies the distinctive architectural
characteristics of a type, period, style
or method of design or construction,
or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual
distinction.
The Frances Anderson Center is
comprised of structures from two very
distinct styles.
The original 1928 school structure is an
example of the Spanish Mission (or
Colonial) Revival style. The Spanish
Mission Revival style was popular in the
1920’s focused on abstraction of design
elements, yet still evoked specific
traditional styles. The original 1928
school structure had many design
characteristics of the style in its exterior
light stucco finishes, pent tile roof, multi-
pane windows, symmetrical layout, inset
panels, broad round arches, and
curvilinear parapets.
The 1947 and 1952 additions are
examples of the Streamlined Modern
style. This style hearkened back to the
Art Modern style and the design of
airplane hangars and other military
structures that were prominent in the
minds of many architects. At the same
time, the International Style of simplified,
efficient design was beginning to be
apparent in architectural design of the
Streamlined Modern style. The style
features smooth light tinted stucco forms
with emphasis on horizontal or vertical
bands and windows. Frequently, glass
brick was used, as were metallic and
glassy surfaces. The 1947 and 1952
additions are clear examples of the
Streamlined Modern style, with layered
horizontal and vertical bands, glass block
windows, and light colored stucco
finishes.
Packet Page 294 of 384
Designation
Criteria
Meets
Criteria
Staff
Comments
c. Is an outstanding work of a designer,
builder or architect who has made a
substantial contribution to the art.
d. Exemplifies or reflects special
elements of the City’s cultural, social,
economic, political, aesthetic,
engineering or architectural history.
Intended to serve the community of
Edmonds early elementary education
needs, the school served as an important
educational facility in the community for
more than 50 years. Following the
closure of the school in 1972 due to
declining enrollment, the school was
re-dedicated in 1979 as the Frances
Anderson Cultural Center, a public
facility for arts and cultural activities
operated by the City of Edmonds Parks,
Recreation, and Cultural Services
Department. The Frances Anderson
Center still plays an important role in the
community and the former school now
houses several tenants with various
activities such as tae-kwon-do, clay
sculpture, and ballet.
e. Is associated with the lives of persons
significant in national, state or local
history.
The building is significant for its
association with long time principal,
teacher, and civic volunteer Frances
Anderson. Frances Anderson was a
central figure in the development of the
youth and education system in Edmonds.
Frances Anderson began her work in the
community in 1909 when she became
secretary for the local lodge of the
Independent Order of Good Templars,
was elected the first president of the
Edmonds Improvement Club in 1910 and
became leader of a group of Junior Camp
Fire Girls in 1918. She attended
University of Washington before
transferring to the University of
Wisconsin and graduating in 1917.
Frances returned to Edmonds and taught
second grade until 1924 when she was
asked to take the position as principal to
replace the retiring principal. She held
this position for 25 years before returning
to teaching in 1949, and retired from
teaching altogether in 1959.
Packet Page 295 of 384
Designation
Criteria
Meets
Criteria
Staff
Comments
After the school was closed due to lack of
attendance, the building was rehabilitated
into a community center and named after
Frances Anderson.
f. Has yielded or may be likely to yield
important archaeological information
related to history or prehistory.
g. Is a building or structure removed
from its original location but which is
significant primarily for architectural
value, or which is the only surviving
structure significantly associated with
a historic person or event.
h. Is a birthplace or grave of a historical
figure of outstanding importance and
is the only surviving structure or site
associated with that person.
i. Is a cemetery which derives its
primary significance from age, from
distinctive design features, or from
association with historic events or
cultural patterns.
j. Is a reconstructed building that has
been executed in a historically
accurate manner on the original site.
k. Is a creative and unique example of
folk architecture and design created
by persons not formally trained in the
architectural or design professions,
and which does not fit into formal
architectural or historical, the
designation shall include description
of the boundaries of categories.
Significant Features
1. Shape: Currently irregular in plan, the original 1928 school was originally a
rectangular volume; the 1947 and 1952 additions extended west from the
original building creating a U-shape and the gym addition pushed the
building to the east (See Attachment 1).
2. Roof and Roof
Features:
The 1928 structure has pent roofs covered with tile between the curvilinear
and rectangular parapets of the end bays and pilasters. The main portion of
the roof is flat.
Packet Page 296 of 384
3. Openings
(entries, etc.):
Bands of closely spaced windows are between the bays on the east and west
elevations. The original arched doorways are lined with brick trim and have
recessed multi-pane transom windows.
On the 1947 additions, many of the windows feature glass block bands
above the horizontal bands of vision windows to allow daylight to penetrate
into the classrooms.
4. Projections: The north and south elevations of the original structure are divided into two
recessed bays with a wider projecting bay in the center. The center bays are
capped with curvilinear parapets.
5. Trim & secondary
features
A double-row of brick soldier course extends around the top of the building
under the pent roof.
6. Materials: The exterior of the original structure and the 1947 and 1952 additions are
light colored stucco walls.
7. Setting: The Frances Anderson Center is located between the eastern edge of the City
of Edmonds downtown business zoning district and surrounding single-
family residential neighborhoods on one of the primary entrances into
downtown Edmonds.
8. Materials at close
range
N/A
9. Craft details: Decorative elements include diamond-shaped or brick rectangular inlays at
the top of the raised pilasters and bay on all facades.
10. Individual
rooms/spaces:
N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination.
11. Related spaces or
sequences:
N/A
12. Interior features: N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination
13. Surface finishes &
materials:
N/A
14. Exposed structure: N/A
Packet Page 297 of 384
Under Construction in 1927 (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
Edmonds Grade School 1930 (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
Packet Page 298 of 384
Edmonds Grade School before the 1947 and 1952 Additions (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical
Museum)
Packet Page 299 of 384
View of south façade. Notice the glass block windows and vertical bands on the addition which is typical
of the Streamlined Modern style. (Photo from BOLA report)
Frances Anderson Center Birds-eye View (Photo from Bing.com)
Packet Page 300 of 384
Frances Anderson (Photos courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
Notes on historic register nominations:
Chapter 20.45.020 ECDC* states that if the Commission finds that the nominated property is eligible
for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, the Commission shall make a
recommendation to the City Council that the property be listed on the register with owner’s consent.
According to Chapter 20.45.040 ECDC, listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places is an
honorary designation denoting significant association with the historic, archaeological, engineering or
cultural heritage of the community. Properties are listed individually or as contributing properties to a
historic district. No property may be listed without the owner’s permission.
Prior to the commencement of any work on a register property, excluding ordinary repair and
maintenance and emergency measures defined in Section 20.45.000(H), the owner must request and
receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission for the proposed work. Violation of this
rule shall be grounds for the Commission to review the property for removal from the register.
Prior to whole or partial demolition of a register property, the owner must request and receive a waiver
of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Packet Page 301 of 384
Because Edmonds is a Certified Local Government (CLG), all properties listed on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places may be eligible for a special tax valuation on their rehabilitation.
* Edmonds Community Development Code
Packet Page 302 of 384
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
3
of
38
4
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
(F
r
a
n
c
e
s
E
.
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
No
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
5
,
2
0
1
0
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
B
i
n
g
.
c
o
m
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
4
of
38
4
Fr
a
n
c
e
s
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
70
0
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
•
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
pl
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
•
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
s
i
g
n
e
d
Au
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
m
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
5
of
38
4
Ef
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
•
H
o
n
o
r
a
r
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
n
o
t
i
n
g
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
•
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
n
c
i
n
g
a
n
y
w
o
r
k
o
n
a
re
g
i
s
t
e
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
(
e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
r
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
)
,
o
w
n
e
r
m
u
s
t
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
a
n
d
re
c
e
i
v
e
a
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
n
e
s
s
fr
o
m
t
h
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
•
M
a
y
b
e
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
t
a
x
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
th
e
i
r
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
6
of
38
4
Se
t
t
i
n
g
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
7
of
38
4
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
•
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
,
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
,
a
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
y
,
en
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
o
r
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
he
r
i
t
a
g
e
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
•
H
a
s
i
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
•
A
t
l
e
a
s
t
5
0
y
e
a
r
s
o
l
d
,
o
r
ha
s
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
i
f
l
e
s
s
t
h
e
5
0
ye
a
r
s
o
l
d
•
F
a
l
l
s
i
n
t
o
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
e
o
f
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
,
EC
D
C
2
0
.
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
A
-
K
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
4
B
O
L
A
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
W
e
b
s
i
t
e
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
B
i
n
g
.
c
o
m
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
8
of
38
4
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
30
9
of
38
4
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
•
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
en
v
e
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
h
a
v
e
ma
d
e
a
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
…
•
E
m
b
o
d
i
e
s
t
h
e
di
s
t
i
n
c
t
i
v
e
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
o
f
a
ty
p
e
,
p
e
r
i
o
d
,
s
t
y
l
e
o
r
me
t
h
o
d
o
f
d
e
s
i
g
n
…
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
4
B
O
L
A
R
e
p
o
r
t
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
0
of
38
4
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
•
E
x
e
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
s
o
r
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
s
sp
e
c
i
a
l
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
th
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
.
•
I
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
li
v
e
s
o
f
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
n
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
st
a
t
e
,
o
r
l
o
c
a
l
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
.
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
Mu
s
e
u
m
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
1
of
38
4
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
4
B
O
L
A
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
4
B
O
L
A
R
e
p
o
r
t
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
2
of
38
4
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
•
F
i
n
d
t
h
e
n
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
me
e
t
s
t
h
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
a
n
d
is
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
.
•
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
a
s
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
4
B
O
L
A
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
B
i
n
g
.
c
o
m
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
3
of
38
4
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
4
of
38
4
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
C
a
r
o
l
L
o
w
e
l
l
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
C
a
r
o
l
L
o
w
e
l
l
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
31
5
of
38
4
AM-3386 Item #: 10.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Kernen Lien
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on an ordinance designating the Dr. Palmer House located at 820 Maple
Street, Edmonds, Washington for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, and
directing the Community Services Director or his designee to designate the site on the
official zoning map with an “HR” designation.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the ordinance (Exhibit 1) as recommended by the Edmonds Historic Preservation
Commission.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The Dr. Palmer House, located at 820 Maple Street, was nominated for listing on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places in 2010 (Exhibit 2) and the Edmonds Historic Preservation
Commission subsequently received the property owners' written consent (Exhibit 5) for listing the
property. The Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the nomination to place
the Dr. Palmer House on the Edmonds Register at a public hearing on August 12, 2010 and
concluded that the site is eligible for listing pursuant to the designation criteria in ECDC
20.45.010 (Exhibit 4).
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Ordinance designating the Dr. Palmer for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
Exhibit 2 - Nomination Form
Exhibit 3 - BOLA Report on Dr. Palmer House
Exhibit 4 - August 12, 2010 HPC Minutes
Exhibit 5 - Property owners authorization
Exhibit 6 - Dr. Palmer House Historic Preservation Staff Report
Exhibit 7 - Dr. Palmer House PowerPoint Presentation
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2010 03:49 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/30/2010 01:35 PM
Packet Page 316 of 384
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 01:44 PM
Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 09/20/2010
Final Approval Date: 09/30/2010
Packet Page 317 of 384
- 1 -
0006.90000
kpl
09/20/2010
ORDINANCE NO. ___
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING THE EXTERIOR OF THE
RESIDENCE KNOWN AS THE DR. PALMER HOUSE
LOCATED AT 820 MAPLE STREET, EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, AND DIRECTING THE
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO
DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
WITH AN "HR" DESIGNATION., AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the residence known as the Dr. Palmer House located at 820 Maple
Street, Edmonds, Washington, is included on the Historic Survey of Downtown Edmonds
prepared by BOLA Architecture in conjunction with the Washington State Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation in October, 2004, as a property that is potentially eligible
for listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission held a public
hearing on August 12, 2010, to consider the eligibility of the residence for listing on the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the staff recommendation the Commission
unanimously voted to recommend to the City Council that the residence be listed on the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, the owner(s) have given their written consent for such designation;
and
Packet Page 318 of 384
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Historic
Preservation Commission regarding the features of the site which contribute to its designation
and finds that the application meets the criteria of the ordinance as contained in Chapter 20.45 of
the ECDC, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The residence known as the Dr. Palmer House located at 820 Maple
Street, Edmonds, Washington 98020, is hereby approved for designation to the Edmonds
Historic Register. The exterior of the building is hereby designated as significant.
Section 2. The Community Services Director, or his designee, is hereby
authorized to designate the listed site on the Edmonds zoning map with an “HR” designation.
This designation does not change or modify the underlying zone classification.
Section 3. Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
Packet Page 319 of 384
- 3 -
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: ________
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: ________
PUBLISHED: ________
EFFECTIVE DATE: ________
ORDINANCE NO. _____
Packet Page 320 of 384
{rwc/00006.900000/} - 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ____
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 5th
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DESIGNATING THE
EXTERIOR OF THE RESIDENCE KNOWN AS THE DR. PALMER HOUSE LOCATED AT
820 MAPLE STREET, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, DIRECTING THE COMMUNITY SERVICES
DIRECTOR OR HIS DESIGNEE TO DESIGNATE THE SITE ON THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAP WITH AN “HR” DESIGNATION, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
day of October, 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:
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this ___ day of October, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 321 of 384
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
2
2
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
2
3
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
2
4
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
2
5
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
2
6
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
2
7
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
2
8
o
f
3
8
4
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 12, 2010 Page 2
Mr. Lien said staff recommends the Commission find the Frances Anderson Cultural Center meets the criteria for designation
on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. Staff believes that both the original 1928 structure and the 1947 and 1952
additions meet the designation criteria as a whole. The exterior of the structure contains the significant architectural features.
He provided photographs of the original Edmonds Elementary School.
Marilyn Jenkins Johnston, Edmonds, commented that she attended the Edmonds Elementary School, and Frances
Anderson was one of her teachers just two years before she retired.
Commissioner Waite discussed that sites are typically given their original name when listed on the Register. In this case, the
name of the site would be the Edmonds Elementary. They agreed the property should be listed as “The Edmonds Elementary
(Frances Anderson Cultural Center).”
BOARD MEMBER DEWHIRST MOVED THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE NOMINATION OF THE EDMONDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (FRANCES ANDERSON
CULTURAL CENTER) FOR PLACEMENT ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. BOARD
MEMBER ECCLESHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Commissioner Waite suggested the site could be divided into three units (the original that was built in 1927/1928, the first
addition that was done in 1947, and the last addition that was done in 1952). Mr. Lien noted that all three parts of the
building were used as the Edmonds Elementary. He expressed concern that because of modifications, the original structure
would not likely meet the criteria related to integrity standing on its own. However, the school, as a whole, would meet the
criteria.
Council Member Plunkett suggested the Commission consider a friendly amendment to the motion to request that the
Council President schedule the nomination as a full-council agenda item rather than a consent agenda item. That means the
full presentation would be available on the public television channel to highlight the work and talent of the Commission. Mr.
Lien noted that although the code does not require it, historically, properties not already on the National and/or State Register
have been presented to the City Council for public hearings. It was noted that the nomination is scheduled on the City
Council’s extended agenda as a public hearing.
THE MOTION WAS AMENDED TO INCLUDE A REQUEST THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SCHEDULE THE
NOMINATION FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL.
Mr. Lien reminded the Commission that, as proposed, only the exterior features of the structure would be listed on the
Register. The interior has been updated significantly over the years and would not meet the criteria related to integrity.
Commissioner Waite suggested that if the entire structure were designated on the Register, a Certificate of Appropriateness
would be required whenever significant changes are made. Mr. McIntosh cautioned against restricting the use of the inside
of the building because the functions could be changed over time. Again, Mr. Lien expressed his belief that the interior
would not meet the criteria related to integrity.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Council Member Plunkett is not a voting member of the
Commission.)
PUBLIC HEARING ON AN APPLICATION TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE DR. PALMER
HOUSE FOR PLACEMENT ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Mr. Lien advised that the Dr. Palmer House is located at 820 Maple Street. The property owner has given his authorization
for the property to be listed on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places. He briefly reviewed the benefits and requirements
of listing a property on the Register. Then he presented the Staff Report and reviewed how the application meets the
Designation Criteria. He also reviewed the significant features of the site. (See Staff Report for details). He pointed out that
the house is associated with its original owner, Dr. Palmer, an Edmonds dentist, who built it in 1895 and resided in it until
1922. It is a well-known historic house, in part because of its visibility and prominent location on a steeply-sloping street
overlooking the downtown. He noted there has been some confusion about when the house was built, but a woman who was
Packet Page 329 of 384
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
August 12, 2010 Page 3
raised in the house, Carol Lowell, indicated there was some scribbling on a beam in the attic of the house that has an 1890
date.
Marilyn Jenkins Johnston said she lived in the house from 1950 to 1965, and the attic had open beams. At the end of one
of the beams in chalk was written, “The old man digging the ditch, WMW.” with an 1894 or 1895 date. They were not
allowed to touch the writing. Her family sold the house to Mayor Cooper’s father.
Mr. Lien said staff believes the nomination meets the criteria and is eligible for designation on the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places. The exterior of the structure contains the significant features. Staff recommends the Commission make a
recommendation to the City Council that the property be listed on the Register, with consent of the owners. He provided
some pictures, one showing the house during construction. He noted that in the picture, Maple Street is a dirt road, and a
boardwalk comes out in front of the house. He observed there was not a lot of surrounding development during the early
days of the property. Most of the other houses in the area were built in the 1960’s and 1990’s.
Commissioner Eccleshall agreed to research the correct date of construction, but he didn’t want to hold the nomination up
until his research is completed. Mr. Lien observed that regardless of the exact date, the structure is older than 50-years old,
so it meets the designation criteria.
Commissioner Waite asked if there is any evidence to indicate the date when the siding was changed. Mr. Lien answered
that there are no building permits on record for this change. Ms. Johnston said it had not changed when her family lived in
the home until 1965. Mayor Cooper said that, based on the materials, the siding was probably replaced sometime after 1950.
Mayor Cooper shared pictures of the structure that were given to his family by Dr. Palmer’s granddaughter, one of which
was a portrait of the Palmer family. He said that according to his information, in the early years the nearest street to the
Palmer House was actually on Dayton Street. And the boardwalk went from Dayton Street to the house. It was the only
house on the hill when it was built. Dr. Palmer actually developed a lot of the surrounding properties. He also provided an
early picture of the interior of the house and a copy of an article from the Edmonds Snohomish County Historical Society’s
newsletter that was published after 1984 and talks about the history of the house. He noted that the article identifies 1895 as
the date of construction and the scribbling is still present in the attic of the home. Mayor Cooper observed that he is now the
second Mayor of Edmonds who has lived in the home. The Ingles family rented the home for a short period of time, and
Matt Ingles was both Mayor and the Fire Chief at one time. He stated that in 1999, they remodeled the ground floor in an
attempt to restore it to its original design.
Board Member Anttila asked if Dr. Palmer actually had his dental practice in the basement of the structure. Mayor Cooper
noted that the basement area has a very low ceiling and is really a cellar for the furnace. His understanding is that Dr.
Palmer’s practice was located elsewhere in Edmonds. He relocated to Seattle because there were two dentists in Edmonds.
Marilyn Jenkins Johnston said she has a lot of happy memories in the house with her family. When she lived in the home,
they had chickens, geese, and ducks. The Post Office told her mother she had to restrain the geese because they kept chasing
after the postmen. There was a pond between the Telford House and the Palmer House, and her mother would use an
aluminum pipe to fill the pond so they could swim.
The Commission agreed that the Dr. Palmer House should be featured in the next edition of THE PRESERVATIONIST.
Commissioner Anttila asked if Mayor Cooper has a good place to post the plaque so it is highly visible. Mayor Cooper noted
there are planters down both sides of the steps, and the front of the planters would be at the top of the cement steps, and this
would be a good place for a plaque. However, the junipers on both sides of the cement steps may partially block it.
COMMISSIONER WAITE MOVED THE COMMISSION FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE DR. PALMER HOUSE FOR INCLUSION ON THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF
HISTORIC PLACES. COMMISSIONER ECCLESHALL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Note: Council Member Plunkett is not a voting member of the Commission.)
Packet Page 330 of 384
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
3
1
o
f
3
8
4
Dr. Palmer's House HistPres designation staff report.doc Page 1
Meeting Date: August 14, 2010
Agenda Subject: Application for designation of Dr. Palmer’s House located at 820 Maple
Street as eligible for inclusion on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien, Associate Planner
Property Information
Site Name/Location: 820 Maple Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
Tax Account #: 00434207500500
Township 27 Range 03E Section 24 ¼ Sec SW ¼-¼ Sec
Construction date: 1915 (1895?)
Owner/Applicant Information
Person(s) Nominating Site: Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission
Property Owner: James M. Cooper
Report Summary
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission finds that the Dr.
Palmer House meets the criteria for designation on the
Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The exterior of the
structure contains the significant architectural features.
Designation
Criteria
Meets
Criteria
Staff
Comments
1. Significantly associated with the
history, architecture, archaeology,
engineering or cultural heritage of
Edmonds…
This house is associated with its original
owner, Dr. Palmer an Edmonds dentist,
who built it in 1895 and resided in it until
1922. It is a well-known historic house,
in part because of its visibility and
prominent location on a steeply sloping
street overlooking the downtown.
City of Edmonds
Historic Preservation Commission
Designation Staff Report
Packet Page 332 of 384
Designation
Criteria
Meets
Criteria
Staff
Comments
2. Has integrity… The house is a largely intact example of
the Queen Anne style.
3. Age at least 50 years old, or has
exceptional importance if less than 50
years old…
The BOLA report and the Snohomish
County website indicate the house was
constructed in 1915. However, in its
description of the house, the BOLA report
states that Dr. Palmer constructed the
house in 1895. In either instance, the
structure is more than 50 years old and
meets this designation criteria.
4. Falls into at least one of the following
designation categories:
Designation Category
a. Associated with events that have
made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of national, state or
local history.
b. Embodies the distinctive architectural
characteristics of a type, period, style
or method of design or construction,
or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual
distinction.
The house is an example of the Queen
Anne style.
c. Is an outstanding work of a designer,
builder or architect who has made a
substantial contribution to the art.
d. Exemplifies or reflects special
elements of the City’s cultural, social,
economic, political, aesthetic,
engineering or architectural history.
Because its early date of construction, it is
generally associated with the City’s late
nineteenth-century development.
e. Is associated with the lives of persons
significant in national, state or local
history.
f. Has yielded or may be likely to yield
important archaeological information
related to history or prehistory.
Packet Page 333 of 384
Designation
Criteria
Meets
Criteria
Staff
Comments
g. Is a building or structure removed
from its original location but which is
significant primarily for architectural
value, or which is the only surviving
structure significantly associated with
a historic person or event.
h. Is a birthplace or grave of a historical
figure of outstanding importance and
is the only surviving structure or site
associated with that person.
i. Is a cemetery which derives its
primary significance from age, from
distinctive design features, or from
association with historic events or
cultural patterns.
j. Is a reconstructed building that has
been executed in a historically
accurate manner on the original site.
k. Is a creative and unique example of
folk architecture and design created
by persons not formally trained in the
architectural or design professions,
and which does not fit into formal
architectural or historical, the
designation shall include description
of the boundaries of categories.
Significant Features
1. Shape: The house is 2½ stories in a rectangular form, with a steeply pitched roof
with broadly flared eaves.
2. Roof and Roof
Features:
The roof is steeply pitched side gable style with asphalt/composition
shingles. At the second story, a large pedimented, gabled dormer contains a
bay window.
3. Openings
(entries, etc.):
The front door is located at the east end of the north facade, while a three-
sided bay window projects at the west end of the north facade. A bay
window is in the dormer on the north side of the roof, and 24-light fixed
windows are placed in each gable end.
4. Projections: From the sidewalk, nine concrete steps lead up to a wide set of wood stairs
that climb to the full-width front porch on the primary north facade. The
porch is sheltered by the wide bell on the main side-gabled roof, which is
supported by three classical columns.
Packet Page 334 of 384
5. Trim & secondary
features
All gable ends of the house are wood-shingled and decorated with exposed,
shaped rafter tails.
6. Materials: Sheathing on the walls of the house appears to be non-original.
7. Setting: The house is situated in a residential neighborhood with the bowl area of
Edmonds.
8. Materials at close
range
N/A
9. Craft details: N/A
10. Individual
rooms/spaces:
N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination.
11. Related spaces or
sequences:
N/A
12. Interior features: N/A. Interior features are not considered for nomination
13. Surface finishes &
materials:
N/A
14. Exposed structure: N/A
Dr. Palmers House (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
Dr. Palmers House (Photo courtesy Edmonds Historical Museum)
Packet Page 335 of 384
View of north façade from Maple Street (Photo courtesy of Edmonds Historical Museum)
Packet Page 336 of 384
View of north façade. (Photo from Snohomish County website)
Notes on historic register nominations:
Chapter 20.45.020 ECDC* states that if the Commission finds that the nominated property is eligible
for placement on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, the Commission shall make a
recommendation to the City Council that the property be listed on the register with owner’s consent.
According to Chapter 20.45.040 ECDC, listing on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places is an
honorary designation denoting significant association with the historic, archaeological, engineering or
cultural heritage of the community. Properties are listed individually or as contributing properties to a
historic district. No property may be listed without the owner’s permission.
Prior to the commencement of any work on a register property, excluding ordinary repair and
maintenance and emergency measures defined in Section 20.45.000(H), the owner must request and
receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission for the proposed work. Violation of this
rule shall be grounds for the Commission to review the property for removal from the register.
Prior to whole or partial demolition of a register property, the owner must request and receive a waiver
of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Because Edmonds is a Certified Local Government (CLG), all properties listed on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places may be eligible for a special tax valuation on their rehabilitation.
* Edmonds Community Development Code
Packet Page 337 of 384
Dr
.
P
a
l
m
e
r
s
H
o
u
s
e
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
Oc
t
o
b
e
r
5
,
2
0
1
0
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
33
8
of
38
4
Dr
.
P
a
l
m
e
r
s
H
o
u
s
e
82
0
M
a
p
l
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
•
N
o
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
pl
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
•
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
s
i
g
n
e
d
Au
t
h
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
m
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
4
B
O
L
A
S
u
r
v
e
y
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
33
9
of
38
4
Ef
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
l
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
•
H
o
n
o
r
a
r
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
n
o
t
i
n
g
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
•
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
n
c
i
n
g
a
n
y
w
o
r
k
o
n
a
re
g
i
s
t
e
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
(
e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
r
e
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
)
,
o
w
n
e
r
m
u
s
t
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
a
n
d
re
c
e
i
v
e
a
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
n
e
s
s
fr
o
m
t
h
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
•
M
a
y
b
e
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
t
a
x
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
th
e
i
r
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
34
0
of
38
4
Se
t
t
i
n
g
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
34
1
of
38
4
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
•
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
wi
t
h
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
,
ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
,
a
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
y
,
en
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
o
r
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
he
r
i
t
a
g
e
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
•
H
a
s
i
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
•
A
t
l
e
a
s
t
5
0
y
e
a
r
s
o
l
d
,
o
r
ha
s
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
im
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
i
f
l
e
s
s
t
h
e
5
0
ye
a
r
s
o
l
d
•
F
a
l
l
s
i
n
t
o
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
e
o
f
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
,
EC
D
C
2
0
.
4
5
.
0
1
0
.
A
-
K
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
4
B
O
L
A
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
W
e
b
s
i
t
e
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
34
2
of
38
4
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
•
E
m
b
o
d
i
e
s
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
i
n
c
t
i
v
e
a
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
o
f
a
t
y
p
e
,
p
e
r
i
o
d
,
s
t
y
l
e
o
r
me
t
h
o
d
o
f
d
e
s
i
g
n
…
•
E
x
e
m
p
l
i
f
i
e
s
o
r
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
s
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
th
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
34
3
of
38
4
Si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
4
B
O
L
A
R
e
p
o
r
t
P
h
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
4
B
O
L
A
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
4
B
O
L
A
R
e
p
o
r
t
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
S
n
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
W
e
b
s
i
t
e
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
4
B
O
L
A
R
e
p
o
r
t
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
34
4
of
38
4
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
•
F
i
n
d
t
h
e
n
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
me
e
t
s
t
h
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
a
n
d
is
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
o
f
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
P
l
a
c
e
s
.
•
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
a
s
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
H
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Ph
o
t
o
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
4
B
O
L
A
R
e
p
o
r
t
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
34
5
of
38
4
Ph
o
t
o
c
o
u
r
t
e
s
y
o
f
C
a
r
o
l
L
o
w
e
l
l
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
34
6
of
38
4
AM-3407 Item #: 12.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Hist. Preserv. Comm. by
Councilman Plunkett
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed amendment to Edmonds City Code 10.90, Composition of the Historic
Preservation Commission.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
The Edmonds City Council established a Historic Preservation Commission by Ordinance 3392
(Attachment 1).
Narrative
The Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission has requested that the Council amend the City Code so
that up to two Councilmembers may serve on the Historic Preservation Commission. In the past, and
most recently more than one member has expressed an interest in serving on the Commission. This
change would allow up to two Councilmembers to serve on that Commission.
Attachment 2: Memo from Councilman Michael Plunkett
Attachment 3: Edmonds City Code 10.90
Attachments
Attach 1 - Ord 3392 HPC
Attach 2 Memo from Councilman Plunkett
Attach 3 - ECC Chapt. 10.90 EHPC
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 10:40 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/30/2010 01:35 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 01:44 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/24/2010 09:53 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/30/2010
Packet Page 347 of 384
Packet Page 348 of 384
Packet Page 349 of 384
Packet Page 350 of 384
Packet Page 351 of 384
Packet Page 352 of 384
Packet Page 353 of 384
Packet Page 354 of 384
Packet Page 355 of 384
Packet Page 356 of 384
Packet Page 357 of 384
Packet Page 358 of 384
Packet Page 359 of 384
Packet Page 360 of 384
AM-3415 Item #: 13.
City Council Meeting
Date: 10/05/2010
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted For:City Attorney Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Review of the Planning Board’s recommendations on civil enforcement procedures.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Set a public hearing date for this item.
Previous Council Action
City Council approved ordinances #3779 and #3795 earlier in 2010 amending the provisions of
ECDC 20.110.040 to be consistent with the Washington State Supreme Court decision in Post v.
Tacoma (see Exhibits 4 and 5).
Narrative
Civil enforcement provisions are common throughout the State. As per the City’s current code,
when someone violates a code requirement, the typical route of enforcement is for the City to
notify the individual of the issue and then give an opportunity for the person to correct the
problem. If the problem is not corrected, the City sends out a notice of violation, which includes
fines, and a hearing is scheduled before the Hearing Examiner if the notice is appealed. At the
hearing, the Hearing Examiner can issue a continuing violation, which requires that the person
either correct the violation or continue to be fined each day the violation is not abated. The
current provisions were adopted in the 1990s because they saved the City time and money as
opposed to prosecuting the violation in municipal court.
However, in a November 2009 decision, Post v. Tacoma , the State Supreme Court determined
that in order to impose ongoing fines, a local jurisdiction must provide an individual notice and
opportunity for hearing as the fines are levied. Fines cannot be imposed based on the original
notice and hearing. The proposed amendments would update the City’s civil enforcement
procedures to be consistent with the State Supreme Court decision.
A memo from the City Attorney explaining the issues is contained in Exhibit 2. Exhibit 1
contains the text constituting the permanent code amendment, which is the same as adopted by
the Council in its interim zoning ordinances. After Council holds a public hearing on the issue, a
final ordinance will be prepared for Council adoption.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Ordinance Draft
Packet Page 361 of 384
Exhibit 2: Memo to Planning Board
Exhibit 3: Planning Board Minutes
Exhibit 4: Interim Ord. #3779
Exhibit 5: Interim Ord. #3795
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 10:40 AM
Mayor Mike Cooper 09/30/2010 01:42 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 09/30/2010 01:44 PM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 09/29/2010 04:30 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/30/2010
Packet Page 362 of 384
{WSS790105.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
12/30/09
R:5/21/10gjz
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECDC
20.110.040(F) MONETARY PENALTIES IN ORDER TO
CLARIFY THE IMPACT OF THE AMENDMENT ON
EXISTING CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, AMENDING
ECDC 20.110.040(D) TO CLARIFY APPEAL PROCEDURES
TO SUPERIOR COURT, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the Washington State Supreme Court in its decision in Post v.
Tacoma, 217 P.3d 1179 (2009) has determined that code enforcement procedures which provide
for continuing penalties without the opportunity for appeal is a violation of due process; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 20.110 ECDC provides for specific notice of violation
[ECDC 20.110.040(A)(2)] and of repeat violations [ECDC 20.110.040(B)(2)]; and
WHEREAS, the code enforcement procedures also provide for notice of violation
and appeal [ECDC 20.110.040(B) and (C)]; and
WHEREAS, however, ECDC 20.110.040(F) provides for continuing violations
with the imposition of a fine without the specific provision for additional notice of hearing; and
WHEREAS, ECDC 20.110.040(D) should be clarified to specify appeal by
Chapter 35.70C RCW to provide explicit appeal information; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the public interest to clarify that
continuing violations shall be accompanied by additional notice of violation and opportunity for
hearing; and
Packet Page 363 of 384
{WSS790105.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
WHEREAS, RCW 36.70A.390 provides for the imposition of interim zoning
controls without a public hearing, subject to a public hearing within sixty (60) days; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance has been referred to the Planning Board for review
and recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board due to a heavy work load, has begun review but
has been unable to make a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board estimates that an additional 60-90 days may be
required for it to hold a public hearing and to make a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on ____________, 2010 pursuant to RCW
36.70A.390; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. There is hereby adopted as an interim zoning control, the following
revision of ECDC 20.110.040 Enforcement Procedures, (F) Monetary Penalties, to read as
follows:
20.110.040 Enforcement procedures.
. . .
F. Monetary Penalties. Except where a different penalty is
specifically established by this code, violations shall be assessed at
the rate of $100 per day or a portion of day thereof, for each and
every day after the service of the notice of civil violation. The
violations Hearing Examiner may also grant an extension of the
date upon which fines begin in order to allow for a reasonable
period of abatement. Such extension shall not exceed ten (10)
calendar days. Following a finding of the Hearing Examiner of the
existence of a violation at the appeal hearing on the expiration of
the appeal period, continuing fines may be assessed by the
provision of additional notice of civil violation pursuant to
20.110.040(B)(2) and an opportunity for hearing. No additional
Packet Page 364 of 384
{WSS790105.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 -
fine for a continuing violation may be assessed without the
provision of notice and the opportunity for a hearing.
. . .
Section 2. Section ECDC 20.110.030 Enforcement procedures , Section D
Appeal to Superior Court is amended to read as follows:
20.110.040 Enforcement procedures
. . .
D. Appeal to Superior Court. The determination of the
Hearing Examiner is final and shall be appealable to Superior
Court in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 365 of 384
{WSS790105.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 4 -
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 THE
PROVISIONS OF ECDC 20.110.040(F) MONETARY PENALTIES IN ORDER TO CLARIFY
THE IMPACT OF THE AMENDMENT ON EXISTING CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS,
AMENDING ECDC 20.110.040(D) TO CLARIFY APPEAL PROCEDURES TO SUPERIOR
COURT, 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 Page 366 of 384
{WSS790101.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101-1686 206.447.7000 Fax: 206.447.0215
Web: www.omwlaw.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 3, 2010
TO: Edmonds Planning Board
City of Edmonds
FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney
RE: Code Enforcement Procedures
Late last year, the Washington Supreme Court in Post v. Tacoma, 217 P.3d 1179 (2009)
determined that code enforcement procedures that apply continuing penalties must afford an
opportunity for appeal before continuing penalties are levied. To do otherwise is a violation of
constitutional due process rights.
The City’s existing ordinances, like those in effect in virtually every city prior to Post, provides
for continuing violations. After an individual has been notified and either has failed to appeal or
been determined to be in violation, fines accrue daily. Current Code Section1 states in Section F
Monetary Penalties:
… Violations shall be assessed at the rate of $100 per day, or
portion of day thereof, for each and every day after the service of
the notice of civil violation… or a portion of the day thereof, for
each and every day after the violation hearings examiner finds that
a violation exists and a hearing order has been served.
This provision of four continuing fines is similar to that in place in Tacoma and reviewed by the
State Supreme Court in Post.
This process, while convenient for the City, does not currently afford for additional notice to the
violator and an opportunity to appeal. As the state Supreme Court noted in its decision, a code
violator may have corrected the situation and levying fines without giving them an opportunity to
provide that information is a violation of their due process rights.
1 That is, the ordinance prior to amendment by interim zoning ordinance.
Packet Page 367 of 384
Edmonds Planning Board
June 3, 2010
Page 2
{WSS790101.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }
[t]he fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to
be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.
Post at 1185-1186.
Section 1 of the ordinance is intended to correct that problem by providing for notice and an
opportunity to appeal each and every penalty assessment. .
Section 2 of the proposed ordinance addresses a different issue. Currently, code enforcement
procedures reference a 10-day appeal to superior court. This requirement has been in place since
1990 and was enacted at a time when the City could adopt its own appeal procedures. Following
the adoption of the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), Chapter 36.70C RCW, this chapter is the
exclusive means of appeal for land use decisions. RCW 36.70C.030. A “land use decision”
includes “[t]he enforcement by a local jurisdiction of ordinances regulating the improvement,
development, modification, maintenance or use of real property.” RCW 36.70C.020(1)(c). I
recommend that the existing code provision be amended to acknowledge the longer appeal
period of 21 days and provide direction to appellant to the appropriate statutory procedure.
WSS/gjz
Packet Page 368 of 384
APPROVED JULY 28th
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 14, 2010
Vice Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 – 5th Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Vice Chair
Kevin Clarke
Todd Cloutier
Kristiana Johnson
John Reed
Valerie Stewart
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Gina Coccia, Planner
Brian McIntosh, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director
Rich Lindsay, Parks Maintenance Manager
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Michael Bowman, Chair
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2010 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED.
BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
No changes were made to the agenda.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There was no one in the audience to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 20.110.040(f) RELATING TO MONETARY
PENALTIES TO COMPLY WITH CHANGES IN WASHINGTON LAW BY PROVIDING NOTICE TO ALL
PENALTY ASSESSMENTS AND ECDC 20.110.040(D) TO CLARIFY APPEAL PROCEDURES TO SUPERIOR
COURT (FILE NUMBER AMD20100005)
Mr. Chave pointed out that City Attorney Snyder discussed the proposed amendments previously with the Board, and the
outline of the intent of the amendments was provided in his memorandum. The intent is to bring the code language up to
date with current Washington State law and Superior Court procedures.
Board Member Reed questioned if the 3rd and 4th “whereas” statements on the second page of the draft ordinance
(Attachment 2) are really necessary. He suggested that these may no longer be accurate statements. Mr. Chave said the
language was contained in the original interim ordinance that was adopted by the City Council. If the Board recommends
that the content of the proposed amendment is appropriate, the City Attorney would update the ordinance before it is
forwarded to the City Council.
Packet Page 369 of 384
Vice Chair Lovell said he read through Mr. Reedy’s history on line and found that it did not have much bearing on the
proposed amendment. Mr. Chave agreed that Mr. Reedy raised a number of issues that are not directly related to the
proposed amendment.
Board Member Stewart asked if the first step in the process is a notice of violation. She pointed out that, as currently
proposed, a penalty would be imposed immediately without an administrative hearing and the fine would accrue for each day
the violation continues. She asked if the City would return the money retroactively if person was found to be in compliance.
Mr. Chave said there are a number of steps that allow a person to challenge a dispute before a notice of violation is issued. A
notice of violation would only be issued if a person has not taken any action and there is a clear indication that a violation
has occurred. Most all violations are resolved before a situation reaches the point of a notice, and it is extremely rare for a
situation to reach the stage where penalties are assessed. Board Member Stewart said she assumes the proposed amendments
would make it practically impossible for a situation similar to Mr. Reedy’s to occur again.
Board Member Reed requested feedback from the City Attorney to indicate he is comfortable that the existing code and the
proposed amendments would adequately address the issues raised by Mr. Reedy. Mr. Chave said that if the Board feels the
provisions in the ordinance make sense, they could forward them to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. In
addition, they could request a short response from the City Attorney to determine if other amendments may be necessary
based on Mr. Reedy’s memorandum.
Board Member Johnson asked if Mr. Reedy’s 30-page memorandum would be considered part of the public record. Mr.
Chave said his memorandum would be forwarded to the City Council as part of the record that is attached to the Board’s
recommendation. Vice Chair Lovell summarized that the key point of Mr. Reedy’s memorandum is that the procedures set
forth in the development code need to be followed more closely. If that had been done, the situation could have been
avoided.
Board Member Clarke observed that the public hearing is the opportunity for citizens to put their opinions relative to a matter
on the record. He suggested the Board consider the written memorandum as well as the public testimony provided during the
hearing and move forward with a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Reed recalled that Mr. Reedy’s email
indicated that he was submitting the memorandum because he was unable to attend the public hearing. Mr. Chave pointed
out that none of Mr. Reedy’s written comments argue against the proposed amendments. He may have some additional
issues that Mr. Snyder can respond to at a later date.
No members of the public expressed a desire to participate in the hearing. Therefore, the public hearing portion was closed.
Board Member Johnson stated that she just received Mr. Reedy’s 30-page memorandum tonight and has not read his
testimony. She suggested the Board continue the discussion at their next meeting to allow the Board to thoroughly read Mr.
Reedy’s written testimony and solicit additional feedback from the City Attorney. Based on the information provided by the
City Attorney at the last meeting, as well as the comments provided by Mr. Chave relative to Mr. Reedy’s memorandum,
Vice Chair Lovell suggested the Board moved forward with a recommendation that the City Council adopt the ordinance.
Accompanying the recommendation could be a request that the City Attorney review Mr. Reedy’s memorandum to ensure
there are not other issues that need to be addressed by additional amendments. Board Member Reed clarified that Mr. Reedy
was not questioning the proposed amendments. His comments were more related to how the procedures were handled in his
case. If additional amendments are necessary, the Board could deal with them as a separate action.
BOARD MEMBER REED MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
ECDC 20.110.040(f) AND ECDC 20.110.040(D) TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF
APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED, WITH ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR REVISING THE ORDINANCE
BASED ON THE COMMENTS MADE DURING THE DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER
SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
DISCUSSION OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES TO THE STREET TREE PLAN
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
July 14, 2010 Page 2
Packet Page 370 of 384
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2010 Page 17
the City Council’s interim ordinance. He emphasized, however, that even when the City Council hears an appeal, the issue
could still end up in Superior Court. Either route, the main record is established by the Hearing Examiner.
Board Member Johnson said that if the Board is going to revisit the issue of whether or not the City Council should be part of
quasi-judicial decisions, she would like to research the previous discussions that have taken place at the Planning Board and
City Council levels. Mr. Chave said this information could be obtained by searching minutes starting in October of 2008.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE
NEXT MEETING TO CONSIDER REVISED LANGUAGE RELATED TO QUASI-JUDICIAL APPEALS. THE
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
City Attorney Snyder reminded the Board that they closed the public hearing and members of the audience have left the
meeting. Therefore, it would be necessary to re-advertise if the Board desires to allow additional public comment. He
suggested the Board advertise and conduct an additional hearing, which does not require a formal action. The Board
concurred.
REVIEW OF CIVIL ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS
City Attorney Snyder advised that late last year, the Washington Supreme Court in Post v. Tacoma determined that code
enforcement procedures that apply continuing penalties must afford an opportunity for appeal before continuing penalties are
levied. Section 1 of the ordinance is intended to correct the problem by providing for notice and an opportunity to appeal
each and every penalty assessment. Section 2 of the ordinance specifically addresses the code enforcement procedures. The
current code references a 10-day appeal to Superior Court. However, the subsequently adopted Land Use Petition Act,
which outlines the appeal procedure process, identifies a longer appeal period of 21 days. He recommended the language be
amended to acknowledge the longer appeal period and to provide direction to appellants as to the appropriate statutory
procedure.
Mr. Snyder explained that, as currently proposed, staff would be required to provide additional notice every time a penalty is
assessed. In most cases, the Hearing Examiner will render a decision that covers a certain number of days. If the individual
for which the enforcement action is aimed at does not comply with the Hearing Examiner’s decision, they will receive
another notice and have another opportunity for a hearing. The Supreme Court noted in its decision that code violators may
have corrected the situations and levying fines without given them an opportunity to provide that information is a violation
of their due process rights. Individuals should be afforded an opportunity to come forward with information that they have
fixed the violation.
Board Member Reed asked if the $100 fee would apply regardless of the type of violation. Mr. Snyder answered that
Chapter 18 lists a number of violations that carry a higher per day fine, such as critical areas violations, tree cutting, etc., but
$100 is the default fine if there is no other reference in the code.
Vice Chair Lovell summarized that, as proposed, when a person is cited for a specific violation and a $100 fine is instituted,
it takes two weeks for the process to get to the Hearing Examiner where a decision is made that the action must be corrected
or the penalty would stand. At that point, the person would owe the City $1,400. If the Hearing Examiner finds that the
person has still not corrected the violation, the City must send out a new notice and the process starts again. City Attorney
Snyder noted that at the hearing, the person would have an opportunity to appeal to the Hearing Examiner and another
inspection would be conducted. If it is found that the violation has not been corrected, another notice would be sent out and
the process would start again.
Vice Chair Lovell asked if there are consequences for people who do not pay their assessed fines. City Attorney Snyder
answered that the City has injunctive relief for certain violations such as those related to critical areas. They can also turn the
situation over to collections, but unfortunately, this is not typically very successful. Another option is to take the person to
court.
Packet Page 371 of 384
APPROVED
Planning Board Minutes
June 9, 2010 Page 18
Board Member Guenther asked when the proposed changes would become permanent. City Attorney Snyder answered that
the City Council would take action on the proposed changes once they receive the Board’s recommendation. Mr. Chave said
the next step in the process is to conduct a public hearing on the proposed permanent ordinance and forward a
recommendation to the City Council.
Board Member Johnson referred to ECDC Section 18, which identifies various fees that can be assessed based on the type of
violation. She noted that some of the fines are as much as $200 per day. She asked if the proposed ordinance would be
applicable to these other fines, as well. City Attorney Snyder answered that the proposed ordinance would be applicable to
dozens of infractions and fine assessments. The default fine is $100 if there is not a higher fine noted elsewhere in the code.
Board Member Johnson pointed out that ECDC 18 does not contain any language that makes it clear that the City must
provide a notice each time a fine is assessed. City Attorney Snyder agreed and said that is why they are proposing a change
to the process, itself. The rules related to enforcement are found in Chapter 20 and do not have to be repeated in Chapter 18.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON WIRELESS FACILITIES REGULATIONS
Mr. Clugston reminded the Board that they discussed possible updates to the wireless facilities regulations (ECDC 18.05 and
20.50) on April 28th. At that time, they directed staff to do additional work in the following areas:
Reword ECDC 20.50 to include specific reference to co-location, prioritization of sites, and the like. The Board asked
that these changes be made using the University Place regulations (Attachment 2) as a template.
Clarify the plate references in ECDC 20.50.
Clarify the types of facilities allowed in ECDC 20.50.010 through 20.50.060. The matrix provided by staff (Attachment
4) was created to help clarify the issue and could be included in the code language if the Board desires.
Revise ECDC 18.05 to ensure adequate criteria is established from PUD pole retrofits.
Mr. Clugston referred the Board to Attachment 3 (updated version of Chapter 20.50) and Attachment 5 (updated version of
Chapter 18.05). He advised that several new sections were added to Chapter 20.50 related to site selection criteria. He
reviewed each of the changes as follows:
Section 20.50.002 – Site Selection Criteria. Site selection criteria was added to require that an applicant evaluate
different sites to determine which one would have the least impact and still provide the required service.
Section 20.50.004 – Priority of Location. As currently proposed, an applicant would be required to consider the items
listed in Section 20.50.004 (priority of locations) in order to identify the best possible location for the wireless facility.
The goal of the priority list is to keep the facilities in the more populated and developed areas of the City, and only allow
them to locate in single-family neighborhoods if there are no other options. He reviewed the seven listed items in the
draft language and noted that the City Attorney also recommended an additional item, that would be a blanket provision
allowing wireless facilities to locate in single-family residential areas only if no other sites are available and the
applicant can show engineering proof that it is the only option.
Section 20.50.006 – Siting Priority on Public Property. This section provides an additional process for identifying
priorities on public properties. The intent is to focus on the public properties and keep the facilities away from single-
family neighborhoods as much as possible.
Section 20.50.008 – Co-Location. This language provides standards that encourage co-location to minimize adverse
visual impacts associated with the proliferation of towers.
City Attorney Snyder recalled that at their last discussion, Board Member Stewart suggested the City require or encourage
environmental compliance. He noted that Chapter 18.05 already has a provision that utilities must comply with all State and
Federal laws, which should address her concern. He reminded the Board that siting wireless facilities to provide adequate
coverage in Edmonds is particularly difficult because of topography, and the City cannot prohibit a carrier from putting in a
new facility if it is necessary to provide the service. That is why he recommended an additional item in Section 20.50.004 to
allow the facilities to be located in single-family neighborhoods if all other options fail.
City Attorney Snyder recalled the Board previously discussed the idea of not allowing a provider to file a building permit
application until a neighborhood meeting has been held. He reminded the Board that under the State’s current vesting
Packet Page 372 of 384
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
3
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
4
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
5
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
6
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
7
o
f
3
8
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
7
8
o
f
3
8
4
Packet Page 379 of 384
Packet Page 380 of 384
Packet Page 381 of 384
Packet Page 382 of 384
Packet Page 383 of 384
Packet Page 384 of 384