The URL can be used to link to this page

2010.10.26 CC Agenda Packet AGENDA Edmonds City Council Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds OCTOBER 26, 2010 6:30 p.m. - Meeting with Planning Board, Architectural Design Board and Sister City Commission candidates. 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-3474 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2010. C. AM-3476 Approval of claim checks #121845 through #121987 dated October 21, 2010 for $745,372.10. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #49886 through #49916 for the period October 1, 2010 through October 15, 2010 for $640,417.80. D. AM-3466 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Donna L. Breske ($799.37). E. AM-3473 Community Services and Economic Development Quarterly Report – October, 2010. F. AM-3461 Interlocal Agreement with the Snohomish Conservation District. G. AM-3462 Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mountlake Terrace for an engineering study as part of the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Forum Capital Improvement Plan. H. AM-3463 Authorization to advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for design and construction support services for the 2011 Waterline Replacement Project. I. AM-3468 Ordinance amending ECC 10.90.020 to provide for up to two nonvoting members in the Packet Page 1 of 235 I. AM-3468 Ordinance amending ECC 10.90.020 to provide for up to two nonvoting members in the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission. 3. (5 Minutes) AM-3469 Community Service Announcement: Edmonds Chamber of Commerce - Tree Lighting. 4. (15 Minutes) AM-3475 Presentation on Washington State Ferries (WSF) Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal. 5. (15 Minutes) AM-3470 Discussion of bond payment for Edmonds Public Facilities District/Edmonds Center for the Arts. 6.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)* *Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings. 7. (2 Hours) AM-3481 Budget Discussion 8. (15 Minutes) AM-3472 Discussion and possible action on City Council budget analyst. 9. (15 Minutes) Council reports on outside committee/board meetings. 10. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments 11. (15 Minutes) Council Comments Adjourn Packet Page 2 of 235 AM-3474 Item #: 2. B. City Council Meeting Date: 10/26/2010 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 October 19, 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 10-19-10 Draft City Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 10/22/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/22/2010 09:12 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 10/21/2010 11:10 AM Final Approval Date: 10/22/2010 Packet Page 3 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 1 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES October 19, 2010 At 5:00 p.m., Council President Steve Bernheim called the Special Meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Steve Bernheim, Council President Al Compaan, Chief of Police Strom Peterson, Councilmember Debi Humann, Human Resources Director Lora Petso, Councilmember Sandy Chase, City Clerk Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Jana Spellman, Sr. Executive Council Asst. Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember (arrived at 6:10 p.m.) Council President Bernheim explained that the purpose of the 5:00 p.m. Special Meeting was to interview applicants for the City Council Budget Analyst. He stated that three applications were received in response to the Request for Qualifications advertized for the position. A 30-minute interview was scheduled for each applicant. The following individuals were interviewed: 5:00 p.m. – Harry M. Gatjens 5:30 p.m. – Gary Morgan 6:00 p.m. – Ash Consulting – Erica Ash and Melanie Yunis The interviews concluded at 6:16 p.m. At 6:30 p.m. Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding threatened litigation and labor negotiation strategy. He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately 30 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, Fraley- Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, and Petso. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder, Attorney Geoff Bridgman, Human Resources Director Debi Humann, City Engineer Rob English, Public Works Director Phil Williams, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 7:00 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced the executive session would be extended until 7:15 p.m. At 7:15 p.m. City Clerk Sandy Chase announced the executive session would be extended until 7:30 p.m. The executive session concluded at 7:28 p.m. The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute. Packet Page 4 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 2 ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT Mike Cooper, Mayor Steve Bernheim, Council President Michael Plunkett, Councilmember Lora Petso, Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember Strom Peterson, Councilmember Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT D. J. Wilson, Councilmember ALSO PRESENT Peterson Gibson, Student Representative STAFF PRESENT Al Compaan, Police Chief Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director Phil Williams, Public Works Director Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director Rob Chave, Planning Manager Rob English, City Engineer Gina Coccia, Planner Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst. Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY- MONILLAS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Bernheim was not present for the vote.) 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Petso requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Bernheim was not present for the vote.)The agenda items approved are as follows: A. ROLL CALL B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 5, 2010. C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #121604 THROUGH #121730 DATED OCTOBER 7, 2010 FOR $553,178.24, AND CLAIM CHECKS #121731 THROUGH #121844 DATED OCTOBER 14, 2010 FOR $208,454.39. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT AND CHECKS #49850 THROUGH #49885 FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 16, 2010 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 FOR $649,462.10. D. ACCEPTANCE OF SEPTEMBER 2010 WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD RENEWAL LOG. E. AUTHORIZE $82,415 IN MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL TAX FROM THE STREET CONSTRUCTION/IMPROVEMENT FUND (FUND #112) FOR THE 2009 ASPHALT OVERLAY PROJECT. G. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3812 – RELATING TO PUBLIC RECORDS; AMENDING EDMONDS CITY CODE 1.20.020 TO MAKE THE CODE CONSISTENT WITH 2010 LEGISLATION. Packet Page 5 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 3 ITEM F. APPROVE CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - CITY OF EDMONDS PROSECUTOR Councilmember Petso explained the Prosecutor’s contract includes an increase to $156,000/year. The 2010 budget for the Prosecutor was $138,000. The most recent actual is $72,000 in 2007, indicating the Prosecutor’s contract has more than doubled since 2007. She requested additional time to research that increase, whether it was necessary, appropriate and warranted. She requested the Finance Committee consider the contract again at their November meeting. Councilmember Buckshnis explained the Police Chief explained to the Finance Committee that the contract reflects the increase from one calendar per week to two calendar nights per week. She agreed further research should be done to determine whether the increase was warranted if the case load has not changed. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE NOVEMBER FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President Bernheim was not present for the vote.) Mayor Cooper asked when the Prosecutor’s contract expires. Police Chief Al Compaan answered the current contract is technically not expired; the original term ended March 31, 2010. The contract can be extended by mutual agreement of both parties for up to two additional years. For the additional work the Prosecutor does in the interim, he expected to be billed on an hourly basis. For Councilmember Plunkett, Chief Compaan answered the Prosecutor’s contract is included in the draft 2011 budget under Non-departmental. Mayor Cooper advised the draft 2011 budget includes $144,000 for the Prosecutor. The proposed contract would take effect before the end of the year. Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained there was enough authority in the 2010 budget at $144,000 to fund the contract through yearend. The full year cost of the contract is $156,000; if the Council approves the Prosecutor’s contract, augmentation of the draft 2011 budget will be required. Remarks by Councilmember Fraley-Monillas Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she was diagnosed with lung cancer in July. After numerous tests, her doctors decided to remove the lower two lobes of her right lung which was done successfully approximately one month ago. She will begin a 16-week course of chemotherapy next week as a precautionary measure. Although she quit smoking eleven years ago, lung cancer is the fastest growing cancer among young women who have never smoked. Notable people who have died of lung cancer include Dana Reeves, Christopher Reeves’ wife, and Peter Jennings. She explained lung cancer is a silent killer because it is often not discovered early. Her cancer was detected early because it was in one of her windpipes. November is Lung Cancer Month. Lung cancer kills more people than breast, colon and ovarian cancers combined. Unfortunately because of the stigmatism of lung cancer, it does not receive the attention or research funding that many other cancers do. She thanked everyone for their prayers, candy, flowers, books, cards, emails and support. She thanked the Councilmembers who kept in contact with her. She expressed her appreciation to Mayor Cooper, a cancer survivor, for his support. In conclusion, Councilmember Fraley-Monillas also thanked Mayor Cooper for the budget he prepared in her absence. Packet Page 6 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 4 3. INTRODUCTION OF NEW STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE Council President Bernheim introduced Peter Gibson, a student at Edmonds Woodway High School and described his background. Student Representative Gibson commented he has attended Council meetings in the past related to neighborhood issues and was interested in participating as the Student Representative. 4. PROCLAMATION DECLARING OCTOBER 17TH-23RD "FRIENDS OF THE EDMONDS LIBRARY WEEK." Mayor Cooper read a Proclamation declaring October 17-23 Friends of the Edmonds Library Week. Richard Suico, Interim Managing Librarian, Edmonds Library, thanked the City for recognizing the value of the Friends of the Edmonds Library. As a result of their hard work and the funds they raise, the library is able to promote literacy and programs for children, teens and adults. Maryanne Zagorski, Edmonds Library Board Chair, invited the Council, Mayor and public to the Friends of the Edmonds Library book sale. A preview sale for members only is on Friday, October 22 from 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.; the public can become members at the door. The sale is open to everyone on Saturday from 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. and a bulk sale, $3 bag/box of books, from 2:00 – 4:00 p.m. She encouraged everyone to bring their own reusable bags. 5. CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF A HEARING EXAMINER DECISION TO DENY A “TYPE III- B” VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE PITCH OF THE ROOF ON TWO MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS TO REMAIN AS CONSTRUCTED WITH LESS THAN A 4/12 SLOPE. THE BUILDINGS WERE CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE 30’ HEIGHT LIMIT, BUT THE PITCH WAS REDUCED BETWEEN THE 25’ AND 30’ MARK INCONSISTENT WITH ECDC 16.30.030(A) FOOTNOTE #1. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 23709 AND 23711 84TH AVE W. AND IS ZONED RM1-5. APPLICANT: MITCH SOROS / FILE NO. PLN20100040 AND APL20100003 NOTE: THE APPLICANT MADE A REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL ON 10-13-10. THE WITHDRAWAL WILL BE ENTERED IN THE RECORD AT THE MEETING. Planner Gina Coccia advised the applicant requested their appeal be withdrawn. COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL AND ENTER IT INTO THE RECORD. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSED UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURPOSE, EFFECT AND CONTEXT STATEMENTS, AND HEARING EXAMINER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW REQUIREMENTS. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained the update is necessary due to: • New regional plan – Vision 2040 • New Community Sustainability Element establishing framework policies for the overall Comprehensive Plan • Correcting outdated language and/or GMA references Vision 2040 does the following: • New regional plan establishes the policy guidance for the entire region • Was developed through a collaboration of all jurisdictions as members of the Puget Sound Regional Council Packet Page 7 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 5 • Reflects an emphasis on sustainability and an elevation of environmental principles within the planning context, consistent with Edmonds’ own plan goals and policies • Reflected in updated Regional Context section Mr. Chave displayed and described a diagram illustrating the relationship between GMA, multicounty planning policies, countywide planning policies, local plans and Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) planning. He explained one of the reasons for the amendments relates to sustainability. The Community Sustainability Element states, “…intended to provide a framework tying the other plan elements together, illustrating how the overall plan direction supports sustainability within the Edmonds community.” This is reflected in the updated language; examples including: • Purpose section: “support sustainable development” and “provision of sustainable public services” • Goal: that commercial & industrial enterprises support “achieving a sustainable community” – but are still not the “dominant activity of the community” Mr. Chave commented commercial and industrial uses help make Edmonds sustainable. Referring to Edmonds as only a residential community ignores the relationship between uses. The goal also states commercial and industrial enterprises are not the dominant activity of the community. The amendments are also necessary to address: • The Plan purpose and effect has not been updated since GMA took effect o Does not reflect GMA hierarchy of policy and development regulations o Does not reflect evolution of city’s development regulations since GMA and Regulatory Reform o Does not distinguish between the Hearing Examiner as a quasi-judicial decision-maker and the Planning Board/Council as policy-making bodies Mr. Chave clarified the overall intent of the amendment was not to create new vision. The vision is reflected in the overall goals and policies. If the Council wanted to undertake a visioning process, that would be more appropriate as part of the 2014 Comprehensive Plan update. Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to his comments to the Planning Board with regard to including language regarding affordable housing. He commented on the possibility of the proposed project on Sunset Avenue extending their application. Next, he reported the Hearing Examiner already visits sites that are the subject of hearings. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, relayed his interpretation that Edmonds is residential, noting there are no malls, the retail view is 180 degrees rather than 360, and there is no regional traffic other than ferry traffic and on Highway 99. He was concerned with the proposed amendment that eliminated residential to describe Edmonds. He suggested each Councilmember state their definition of sustainability, commenting the term was used loosely and means different things to different people. He questioned the penalty of not amending the code to reflect Vision 2040 and suggested the City’s Comprehensive Plan reflect individualism. He expressed concern with removing “to promote public health, safety, order...” “orderly and coordinated development,” “conserve and restore natural beauty,” and “discourage piecemeal, spot or strip zoning” in favor of providing sustainable public services. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Packet Page 8 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 6 Council President Bernheim expressed his support for retaining the language about discouraging piecemeal and spot zoning and regarding the residential nature of Edmonds. He suggested amending the language to state “achieving a sustainable residential community,” noting the community was primarily residential and his decisions as an elected official were made for the benefit of its residential character. He questioned the addition of “public” to the statement regarding preserving views. Mr. Chave responded the addition of public was to recognize that the City’s code only addresses public views such as in the shoreline regulations. With regard to Edmonds being a residential community, he acknowledged Edmonds was largely residential but the Planning Board recognized Edmonds as a sustainable community overall. He noted “residential community” related to residential suburbs and how suburbs originated in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. As growth has occurred, the area has become more diverse and downtown, Highway 99 and neighborhood centers form an integral part of the overall community. Replacing the residential language with sustainability language recognized that diversity. The language also recognizes that while commercial and industrial are important, they are not the overall focus of the community. Council President Bernheim pointed out the Planning Board minutes included in the packet (June 23, 2010 public hearing) do not address the residential versus sustainable community language. Mr. Chave recalled the Planning Board briefly discussed the importance of sustainability but the residential nature of the community was not discussed in detail. In response to Mr. Rutledge’s comment, Councilmember Buckshnis advised Mr. Chave and she are working on an interjurisdictional affordable housing project. Although she did not object to the regional language, she felt private projects should have City review and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave explained the hierarchy in GMA is Comprehensive Plan policies, goals and statements form the general rubric; jurisdictions then adopt development regulations that carry those out. Competing goals and policies are balanced when the City develops its development regulations. If consistency determinations are made with regard to development regulations as well as the Comprehensive Plan, the result may be inconsistent decisions. There are instances when consideration is given to Comprehensive Plan Policies such as rezones, conditional use permits (CUP), etc., typically those decisions are more broad in scope and do not have specific development regulations to guide the decision. That is not proposed to be changed. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained these provisions were in the Comprehensive Plan when State law provided that development regulations controlled over Comprehensive Plan provisions. In older code provisions, one of the criteria is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. That changed with adoption of the GMA; the development regulations are subordinate to the Comprehensive Plan. The remedy for someone who thinks development regulations are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). The original purpose for the language has been obviated by the GMA. Mr. Chave explained the Legislature separated decisions regarding regulations’ consistency with the Comprehensive Plan; those decisions are heard by the GMHB. Challenges to specific decisions on projects, based on the City’s regulations, are heard by the local hearing authority and potentially by the court. Councilmember Petso referred to the list of amendments she planned to propose, one of which was to retain the policy that private projects be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She relayed her personal experience that good policies in the Comprehensive Plan allowed a court to review things apart from the development regulations. She relayed an example: the City’s development regulations applicable to an area that frequently flooded set forth a drainage standard. She was able to convince a Superior Court Judge that a Comprehensive Plan study that evaluated the flooding and stated what needed to be done, should dictate the required drainage. Councilmember Peterson relayed the working definition of sustainability in the Sustainability Element, created by the World Commission on Environment and Development states sustainable development Packet Page 9 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 7 “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” He explained the idea of sustainability applies not only to environmental issues but is a very reasonable and valuable goal for the City. Mr. Chave encouraged anyone who did not understand what the City meant by sustainability to read the Sustainability Element. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INCLUDE THE AMENDMENTS IN ORDINANCE(S) ADOPTING ALL OF THE 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION LATER THIS YEAR. Councilmember Plunkett advised he planned to propose eight amendments. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED TO BE DELETED ON PAGE 1 OF EXHIBIT 1, “TO ANTICIPATE AND INFLUENCE THE ORDERLY AND COORDINATED DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AND BUILDING USE OF THE CITY AND ITS ENVIRONS, AND CONSERVE AND RESTORE NATURAL BEAUTY AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES.” AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED TO BE DELETED ON PAGE 1 OF EXHIBIT 1, “TO ENCOURAGE COORDINATED DEVELOPMENT AND DISCOURAGE PIECEMEAL, SPOT OR STRIP ZONING AND INHARMONIOUS SUBDIVIDING.” AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH B, “PUBLIC PROJECTS. NO STREET, PARK OR OTHER PUBLIC WAY, GROUND, PLACE, SPACE, OR PUBLIC BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, OR UTILITY [WHETHER PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY OWNED] SHALL BE ABANDONED, CONSTRUCTED OR AUTHORIZED UNTIL THE HEARING EXAMINER HAS REVIEWED AND REPORTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE LOCATION, EXTENT AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE HEARING EXAMINER'S REPORT SHALL BE ADVISORY ONLY. NOTICE OF THE HEARING BY THE HEARING EXAMINER SHALL BE GIVEN IN THE MANNER SPECIFIED IN EACH CASE BY THE CITY COUNCIL.” Council President Bernheim commented that having the Hearing Examiner review and issue an advisory opinion seems extraneous. He suggested consistency with the Comprehensive Plan be determined via other mechanisms. Mr. Snyder explained staff’s logic is the Council develops a Transportation Improvement Program and other planning documents that list the projects the City plans to build which are then included in the Comprehensive Plan. Requiring the Hearing Examiner to review projects that the Council has already determined would be constructed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan seemed redundant. Councilmember Peterson echoed Council President Bernheim’s comments. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged Council President Bernheim, Councilmember Peterson and Mr. Snyder’s comments, explaining more public input and additional professional input can bring to light a number of issues; history has proven that to be the case. UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, BUCKSHNIS, AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. Packet Page 10 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 8 COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REINSERT LANGUAGE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE LAST SENTENCE IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 3, “ITS DESIRED GROWTH LEVEL AND UP TO THE GOVERNMENT, PARTICULARLY ELECTED OFFICIALS.” Council President Bernheim did not support the proposed amendment, preferring a regional policy. Councilmember Peterson echoed Council President Bernheim’s comments, pointing out Edmonds was a member of PSRC and regional decisions were made with the City’s input. Edmonds needs to be a good neighbor and work collaboratively. Councilmember Plunkett recognized part of the intent of the amendments was to regionalize the City. He did not want to concede that the region would make a decision for him as an elected official in Edmonds. He was willing to work collaboratively but did not to give up what this paragraph suggests. He recognized the language was not sustainable because the GMA would frown upon it but as a local elected official, he wanted to retain as much local control as possible. AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED IN PARAGRAPH A.3 ON PAGE 3, “AND RESIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE AREA.” AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Councilmember Plunkett recalled several years ago the Council considered whether to regulate views and determined it was impractical. At that time the Council voted 6-1 not to regulate views; he was the dissenting vote. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REMOVE “PUBLIC” FROM A.4.c. Council President Bernheim asked how this language would apply to any specific case as in his opinion views were not protected. To state in the Comprehensive Plan that development should strive to protect views when it could not be done was hypocritical. He supported the change recommended by the Planning Board although he did not believe public views were protected either. He recognized there were some legal view protections such as in the shoreline. Mr. Snyder noted there were also view corridor protection provisions for public projects. Under Washington law there is no protection of natural light or view. He referred to State goals on page 5, “Property rights: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions” suggesting if the Council wanted to protect private views, it 1) be docketed for next year to allow for a full discussion of how to regulate views, or 2) the public hearing re-noticed as this was a significant change that was not considered by the Planning Board. Councilmember Peterson echoed Council President Bernheim’s comments, agreeing that to change the language to imply private views would be protected was untenable. If the intent of the Council was to protect private views, that raised an entirely different issue. Councilmember Plunkett recognized that addressing views in this manner was awkward and problematic and he was willing to take Mr. Snyder’s suggestion and raise the issue in a different format. Packet Page 11 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 9 COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT PROPOSED WITHDRAWING HIS MOTION; THE SECOND, COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, DID NOT AGREE AND REQUESTED FURTHER DISCUSSION. Councilmember Petso disagreed with Mr. Snyder that this was not discussed by the Planning Board, noting the change suggested in the amendment was to retain the language as it currently exists. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out in addition to the language regarding views the section states any growth or development should strive to preserve for itself and its neighbors the following values: light, privacy, freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution. She suggested deleting the entire section, pointing out the City’s ability to enforce preservation of light and freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution was limited. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the language regarding preserving views and freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution has existed in the Comprehensive Plan. He asked whether the language has created problems for the City. Mr. Snyder responded the City has development regulations that require stepbacks of upper stories to preserve sunlight. The issue of preserving privacy arose during the Council’s discussion regarding backyard play equipment. The City’s standard police powers allow regulation of noise pollution via the noise ordinance and visual pollution via the sign ordinance and Architectural Design Board. He summarized the majority of the provisions were already reflected in the City’s development regulations and were standard exercises of the City’s police powers. The City clearly does not regulate views; Councilmember Plunkett’s amendment appeared to indicate that the City would take a broader viewpoint and seek to preserve both public and private views. Responding to Councilmember Plunkett, Councilmember Petso stated a policy that required growth and development to preserve light, privacy, views, and shorelines was a good policy. She recalled one of these provisions was before the Council in Council President Bernheim’s case with regard to the building behind his property obstructing light. To the extent there is any legal authority to the Comprehensive Plan, she wanted courts to find that the City cared about new development preserving light, natural features, etc. rather than the court finding the City no longer cared because they removed the language from the Comprehensive Plan. Council President Bernheim clarified in his lawsuit the issue was an ordinance that restricted construction of new buildings above a certain height in the BD zone if it interfered with a neighbor’s view. Following the litigation, the City Council repealed that view protection ordinance. Mr. Snyder commented staff’s concern was taking from one party and giving to another which is a broader property rights issue. For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Snyder explained removing “public” implies private views are protected and makes this section inconsistent with the City’s development code. Washington law does not protect views and the proposed amendment would transfer development rights from one party to another in violation of the later provision. The proposed amendment clarifies and makes this sentence consistent with the City’s code. If the Council wants to protect private views, it is a very complex subject. He preferred not to create an expectation that private views would be protected via the amendment Councilmember Plunkett proposed. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the language has existed for a long time and he assumed it has been identified by applicants in the past. He asked whether the City has relied on precedent that views are not protected. Mr. Snyder referred to Council President Bernheim’s explanation, noting the provision in the code that potentially implemented view protection over a certain height was removed from the code. The code does not contain any private view protection provisions; the code does refer to consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for decisions such as rezones. Mr. Chave explained the language that referred to ADB review with regard to views was removed because there were no standards and as such was Packet Page 12 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 10 unenforceable. He summarized the language as it currently exists is a standalone statement that implies view protection but there is no implementing development regulation. Mr. Snyder clarified staff was not saying the Council could not regulate views. View protection has been discussed several times over the years; it is a very complex subject because it requires defining views and view corridors, what protections a property owner has and potentially changing property owners’ assumptions. AMENDMENT FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND PETSO VOTING YES. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO REINSTATE THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED FROM A.6 ON PAGE 5, “TO ENSURE THAT THE REGIONAL GROWTH POLICY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATED LOCAL POLICY,” SO THAT A.6 READS, “EDMONDS SHOULD COOPERATE WITH SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES TO ENSURE THAT THE REGIONAL GROWTH POLICY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STATED LOCAL POLICY AND HELP ENSURE A COORDINATED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGIONAL GROWTH STRATEGY. AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE PROPOSED TO BE DELETED IN SECTION A, “CREATE A REGIONAL SYSTEM OF CENTRAL PLACES FRAMED BY OPEN SPACE.” Mr. Chave explained the language proposed to be removed was included in the old Vision 2020 and is not stated in that manner in the Vision 2040 plan. The 2040 Plan elevates environmental issues, making them more prominent, but does not use that phrase. AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO RETAIN OLD PARAGRAPH E UNEDITED, “TO FACILITATE PROVISION FOR PUBLIC SERVICES – SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION, POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION, WATER SUPPLY, SEWAGE TREATMENT, AND PARKS.” Council President Bernheim pointed out the old paragraph E was very similar to new paragraph D which was revised to read, “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. He asked why Councilmember Petso was not satisfied with the proposed revision. Councilmember Petso responded adequate was the key word; adequate public services took precedence over sustainable public services, particularly police and fire protection. The use of adequate also matched the State goal. She did not feel the need to include the language at the end of the sentence, “that are consistent with the community’s values and needs” as long as adequate was included. COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO INCLUDE, “THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY’S VALUES AND NEEDS. Councilmember Peterson asked why staff had rephrased the paragraph. Mr. Chave responded there was a big difference between adequate and sustainable. For example, he envisioned citizens would have a more positive reaction to the City providing sustainable public facilities rather than adequate public facilities. Sustainability addresses a much broader set of issues, not just level of service, but also financial support, ensuring the City has the wherewithal to provide services today and in the future. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the City has a working definition of sustainable and he questioned the definition of Packet Page 13 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 11 adequate. He recommended the City strive to be more than adequate and to include sustainability language whenever possible, particularly with regard to transportation, fire and fire protection, water supply, sewage treatment and parks. Those key elements of City government need to be sustainable. AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO AMEND TO INCLUDE “SUSTAINABLE,” SO THAT ITEM D READS, “TO FACILITATE ADEQUATELY THE PROVISION OF SUSTAINABLE PUBLIC SERVICES – SUCH AS TRANSPORTATION, POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTIONS, WATER SUPPLY, SEWAGE TREATMENT AND PARKS – THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY’S VALUES AND NEEDS.” Councilmember Petso pointed out the Comprehensive Plan already included a Sustainability Element. Her intent via the amendment was a commitment of policy to have adequate public services. She preferred to provide adequate public services and do it sustainably. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented adequate was not the appropriate way to describe the provision of public services. The City’s services need to be sustainable and not just adequate. AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO. UPON ROLL CALL, THE AMENDMENT (AS AMENDED) FAILED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT, FRALEY-MONILLAS AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND PETERSON VOTING NO. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE IN OLD PARAGRAPH A ON PAGE 2, “PRIVATE PROJECTS. ALL PRIVATE PROJECTS REQUIRING CITY REVIEW AND APPROVAL SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.” Mr. Snyder pointed out the proposed language in new paragraph B states the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan shall serve as a guide for all development projects – both public and private. He suggested inserting old paragraph A at the end of new paragraph B. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO WITHDREW HER AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND. COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD THE LANGUAGE, “ALL PROJECTS REQUIRING CITY REVIEW AND APPROVAL SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN” AT THE END OF NEW PARAGRAPH B. Mr. Chave commented by including language requiring that all projects be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan creates a problem with the development regulations. Some development regulations specifically test for consistency and others do not because the regulations were developed to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He preferred not to imply that the Comprehensive Plan would be reviewed for policies that support each development/project when that was not the City’s practice. Councilmember Plunkett suggested including the language “when applicable.” Mr. Snyder answered that was the intent of the new paragraph B, that the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan shall serve as a guide. Mr. Chave clarified it was one thing to use the Comprehensive Plan as a guide; it would be Packet Page 14 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 12 very different to require affirmative findings that all developments/projects were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Council President Bernheim commented the amendment was not to require affirmative findings, only that projects be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which would allow someone who objected to a project to raise an inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan as the basis for their objection. He asked whether there were public/private projects that were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave answered it was by implication; when development regulations are adopted, there are findings that the regulations further and implement the Comprehensive Plan. By implication, approving a project that was consistent with the regulations meant it was also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A new requirement that requires second guessing whether the regulation was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in addition to reviewing the project against development regulations creates a situation that invites challenges. Rezones, CUP and subdivisions include criteria that require review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave did not agree with including a general statement that implied that the Comprehensive Plan would be reviewed for each and every project. He used an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) as an example, explaining the regulations regarding ADUs further the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan but there are few policies in the Comprehensive Plan specifically related to ADUs. Mr. Snyder provided an example: a property owner applies for a 25-foot building; a person opposes it, stating it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Typically the specific controls the general. By including the amended language as part of paragraph B, it would be read in context. He agreed with Mr. Chave that standalone criteria could be problematic. AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND PETERSON VOTING NO. THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON 2011 BUDGET AND REVENUE SOURCES/ Mayor Cooper advised staff was present to record questions; answers would be provided to the Council and the public at the October 26 budget workshop. Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, thanked Mayor Cooper and Finance Director Lorenzo Hines for providing a weekly list of frequently asked budget questions, finding it an efficient way to provide information to citizens. He was perplexed to see 2011 budget figures compared to 2010 budget figures rather than 2010 estimates. The practice in the past has been to compare the budget to the previous year’s estimates. The reason for the comparison is to determine trends; comparing the current budget to the previous year’s budget defeats that effort. For example, the expenditure summary by fund shows a decrease in the 2011 budget over the 2010 budget of $3.5 million or 4.9%; the real change is reflected by comparing the 2011 budget to the 2010 estimates, an increase of over $2 million or 3.1%. Pointing out that compensation in the 2011 budget for the City’s 211 employees amounts to 53% of all expenses, he suggested that element of the budget needed thorough review by the Council. The proposed Non-Represented Compensation (NRC) plan for 2011 will soon be presented to the Council; adjustments to the NRC result from benchmarking City salaries with several other cities. Due to the current economic environment, he recommended the City’s review also consider employee concessions as well as COLAs and pay cuts in comparable cities. He also suggested Snohomish and King Counties as well as State employees be included in the benchmarking. Packet Page 15 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 13 Betty Larman, Edmonds, explained last year $36,500 was transferred from the Flower Program Trust Fund into the General Fund. This violates RCW 35.21.100 that states when there are terms or conditions attached to a donation, the city must use the funds to carry out the terms of the donation. She requested the $36,500 be returned to the Flower Trust Fund and that the Council ensure such a transfer does not occur again. She pointed out the Mayor’s survey revealed after police and fire, the flower program is the most important to citizens. The flower program is an economic driver for the City; many people visit to look at the corner gardens and baskets that are created and maintained by the Parks Department and Floretum Garden Club. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, commented the City has an excellent fund balance. He encouraged the Council to implement protections in order to make the right decisions. He anticipated the fund balance and projected revenues would be sufficient to fund City operations. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Mayor Cooper relayed Council President Bernheim’s preference that Councilmembers submit questions and requests for additional information to the Mayor’s office and he will ensure the questions are forwarded to the appropriate director for response at the October 26 budget workshop. He advised additional information regarding decision packages, such as $50,000 for traffic calming, would also be provided to the Council at the budget workshop. 8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, requested Washington State Ferry’s proposed alternative to replace the Mukilteo terminal be scheduled on two City Council agendas. In an October 12 email, City administration revealed to the Council WSF’s proposal for two development concepts for the Main Street terminal designed to eliminate the need for a Mukilteo terminal. Edmonds Crossing has also been reviewed by WSF. Mayor Cooper and Mr. Clifton had significant concerns about, 1) the existing Main Street concept and 2) the Main Street improvements concept. The City convinced WSF to hold a public scoping meeting on October 27 from 4:00 – 7:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall. To better inform residents, she recommended the Council schedule a report from administration on the October 26 agenda. The report would explain WSF’s proposal at the Main Street and Edmonds Crossing sites and the administration’s position on those proposals. Following the scoping meeting, she suggested the Council schedule a public hearing on November 1 or November 16. The Council could then convey its reactions to WSF’s proposals prior to the November 19 public comment deadline. She pointed out the consequences of WSF’s proposals is that service to Edmonds would be provided from both Kingston and Clinton which is in addition to the stated desire in the long range plan to divert traffic from the Bainbridge-Seattle route. She cited the importance of informing citizens via the meetings she proposed. Al Rutledge, Edmonds, explained the Edmonds Log Cabin was donated to the City in 1975 and moved to its current site. In 2000 when the City contemplated removing the building due to needed repairs, a group of citizens raised $103,000 to restore the cabin. Recognition of the 10th anniversary of the restorations will be held on October 30 from 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out the ADB must state in their motions that their decision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Next, he expressed disappointment that the City and the public had not been properly informed regarding WSF’s plans for the Main Street terminal. He expressed concern with the potential for 2 slips, 5 toll booths, increased bus bays and the accompanying traffic. He feared the expansion would cause Edmonds to simply become a highway as well as impact future plans for the waterfront. He recommended the Council revisit the 4 No’s, the City’s original response to expansion of the Main Street terminal. He supported Ms. Shippen’s suggestion to hold a public hearing so Packet Page 16 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 14 that citizens could learn about WSF’s plans. He commented if the Main Street terminal were expanded, the traffic lights on 9th Avenue would be needed. Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, welcomed Councilmember Fraley-Monillas back and wished her a speedy recovery. Next, he quoted from County Executive Aaron Reardon’s 2011 Snohomish County budget address, “It’s time for government to accept that the game has changed. The economic turmoil we’ve seen over the past three years has set a new baseline for both the public and private sector. Our job now is not to look back at how things were done in the past, but to continue charting a path forward that provides for the needs of our people in a sustainable way.” He felt this was good advice for Edmonds as well. Councilmember Plunkett explained there was a proposal to move the Mukilteo terminal to Edmonds and to use the old Antique Mall site for parking. He asked whether the State, via imminent domain, could remove a park in that area. Mr. Snyder answered it would depend on the source of funding for the park. He explained one of the reasons the City purchased property to the north with federal funds was to invoke a provision of federal funding that prevents agencies that receive federal highway funds such as the ferry system from acquiring parking property that was acquired with federal funds. He offered to provide a written response under the attorney-client privilege. This topic had been addressed in the past, it was part of the strategy for acquiring the old marine site, and would require limited research. 9. DISCUSSION OF COMPLETE STREETS PROGRAM. Councilmember Peterson explained Complete Streets is a guiding principle that encourages the City to consider pedestrians, bicycles and ADA compliance as infrastructure improvements are made. Cascade Land Conservancy (CLC) presented a draft Complete Streets ordinance to the Community Services/Development Services Committee who forwarded it to the full Council. Jeff Aken, Cascade Land Conservancy, explained CLC and Cascade Bicycle Club (CBC) have been working with Edmonds citizens, City staff and Councilmember Peterson to develop a Complete Streets ordinance. He provided the definition of Complete Streets, “designed and operated to enable safe access for all users.” Under old assumptions, bike, pedestrian, disabled and bus access were seen as an amenity or an optional component of street design. Complete Streets accommodates all users; if users cannot be accommodated, a reasonable explanation is required why the services/accessibility cannot be provided. A Complete Streets ordinance is about creating a structure for implementing the improvements. The ordinance builds on the City’s current plans: • Transportation Master Plan Policy 2.4 – design arterial and collector streets as complete streets that serve automobile, transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. • Sustainability Element Comprehensive Plan A.1 – holistic solutions should be developed that employ such techniques as low impact development, transit oriented development, complete streets that support multiple modes of travel and other techniques that assure future development and redevelopment enhances Edmonds’ character and charm for future generations to enjoy. • Strong citizen support Complete Streets infrastructure includes sidewalks, traffic calming, shared use paths, paved shoulders, accessible curbs, crosswalks, planting strips, medians, curb bulbs, street furniture, etc. Not all elements are required; it is an engineering judgment where the components are appropriate. He displayed photographs of traffic calming, crosswalks, bike lanes, medians, planting strips, and access to transit. To the question of why to routinely accommodate the public’s needs in the public right-of-way, David Hiller, Cascade Bicycle Club, explained 33% of the public in central Puget Sound cannot drive because they are too young, disabled, etc. In addition, a PSRC survey found that 4 out of 10 households have no access to a motor vehicle. This illustrates the need for a comprehensive, edge of the right-of-way look at Packet Page 17 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 15 how the public is served by the public right-of-way. Reasons include livability, health, safety, equity, economic development, and limited additional cost. Cities with Complete Streets ordinances include Kirkland, Everett, Issaquah, Redmond, Renton, Seattle, Sedro Woolley, Tacoma, Tukwila as well as 168 jurisdictions nationwide. Kirkland’s ordinance is simple and codified the language from the Federal Highway Administration. The Complete Streets ordinance applies to new projects and major maintenance of existing infrastructure. Exceptions include cost excessively disproportionate to need or probability of use, locations where bikes and pedestrians are prohibited, and locations where there is an absence of current and future need. Councilmember Plunkett assumed Complete Streets would include additional bike lanes and therefore a reduction in lanes for automobiles. He noted there had been an appreciable reduction in car lanes in Seattle to create bicycle lanes. Mr. Hiller answered there needs to be a balance in the public space and meeting the public’s needs. An example would be re-channelization to add protected pedestrian crossings. Such engineering judgments would be made by staff. Councilmember Plunkett asked if the ordinance could state where there is not a bike lane, lanes for traffic could be reduced. Mr. Hiller stated the ordinance was not written in that manner and the intent was not to pit people against each other in the public space. The intent was to build a public space that does not disenfranchise people whose needs have previously been looked at as secondary. He pointed out 25% of all trips are a mile or less, yet many environments are constructed so that it is easier to drive that mile than to walk. The ordinance provides a rationale for exceptions so that instead of only the occasional project accommodating access, staff would need to justify why not to accommodate pedestrians, bicycles and the disabled. Councilmember Plunkett recognized the result was often eliminating space for cars in order to accommodate a more balanced approach. He asked if the exceptions would be approved by the Council. Mr. Aken responded most decisions would be guided based on plans in place; for example the Transportation Plan has streets that are identified as pedestrian and/or bike streets. Mr. Hiller commented it was also context appropriate. For example a dead end street that does not currently have sidewalks likely does not need sidewalks due to low speeds and low traffic volumes. A rural 2-lane highway may only need a 4-foot shoulder. The approach on a street downtown may include 8-foot sidewalks, street trees, enhanced light fixtures, etc., but may not need dedicated bicycle facilities because traffic speeds are relatively slow. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether HOV lanes in an urban area were part of Complete Streets. Mr. Hiller answered that would depend on the City’s Transportation Plan. Councilmember Plunkett asked the increase in cost to accommodate Complete Streets. Mr. Hiller answered a marginal cost analysis of Complete Streets conducted by the Oregon Department of Transportation found that the average cost increase of a design/build project was 1-4% which was lower than the average cost overrun. He advised that report was available online. Councilmember Buckshnis commented this was the third Complete Streets presentation she had seen. Her understanding was the Complete Streets ordinance would encourage the City to consider pedestrians and bicycles in transportation and comprehensive planning. Council President Bernheim noted the draft Complete Streets ordinance was not included in the Council packet. Councilmember Peterson explained a draft ordinance was presented to the Community Services/Development Services Committee. Staff, Councilmember Petso and he had several questions and felt it was more appropriate to introduce the concept to the City Council and then with the help of Packet Page 18 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 16 CLC, CBC and staff, develop a draft ordinance for another review by the Community Services/ Development Services Committee and then the full Council. Student Representative Gibson asked about the purple area on the map downtown. Mr. Aken advised the map was in the City’s Transportation Plan and the purple denoted commercial nodes. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.) Councilmember Peterson thanked CLC and CBC for conducting a number of community meetings to gauge Edmonds’ citizens interest in Complete Streets. Staff has been working on many of these ideas in the past and this is an opportunity to formalize their ideas in ordinance form so that these improvements are considered during major maintenance projects 10-20 years in the future. He looked forward to working with CLC, CBC and staff to develop an ordinance. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 20 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Fraley-Monillas was not present for the vote.) 10. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 12, 2010. Community Services/Development Services Committee Councilmember Peterson reported the Committee delayed review of organization and membership of Community Technology Advisory Committee to next month’s meeting. The Committee considered an authorization of $82,415 in motor vehicle fuel tax from the Street Construction/Improvement Fund (Fund #112) for the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project which was approved on tonight’s Consent Agenda. The Committee also was provided a presentation on oversight of the Edmonds Underwater Park and use of buoys. Staff provided an overview of 196th Street SW/88th Avenue W Intersection Study. Councilmember Petso offered to discuss this item with Councilmember Wilson since he asked Council to reconsider and review the findings of the 2007 traffic study and further discussion may occur at the November Community Services/Development Services meeting Finance Committee Councilmember Buckshnis reported the Committee discussed the Mayor’s discretionary pay increases for vacant positions. Ms. Humann and the City Attorney will revise the current regulations to provide a time limit. The Committee also discussed and reviewed debt service in Funds 125 and 126. Councilmember Petso suggested paying off bonds early, moving debt to Fund 125, or using funds from the Public Safety Reserve Fund to pay off the bonds. The Edmonds Chamber of Commerce requested $5,000 for the 4th of July. It was agreed future funding requests would be considered as part of the annual budget. Next, Ms. Humann provided a report on the health benefits process and consultant analysis. She also presented the 2011 Non-Represented Compensation Policy (NRC); this will be presented to the full Council for discussion. The Committee also discussed the Professional Services Contract with Prosecutor Zachor Thomas, Inc. As a result of questions raised tonight by Councilmember Petso, this will be discussed further at the November meeting. The Committee recommended approval of an ordinance related to making public records available via the internet. Mr. Hines presented revenue and expenditure trends for the General Fund and current forecasts for the City’s major revenue sources 11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS Mayor Cooper provided a reminder that Thursday, October 21 is the first day of the Edmonds International Film Festival and continues through Sunday, October 24. Unrelated to the Film Festival, a Packet Page 19 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 17 movie was filmed downtown yesterday in front of the theater from noon until after midnight. They came to Edmonds after hearing good things about the City’s relationship and willingness to work with the Film Festival. After the shoot, they sent the City Clerk an email expressing their thanks for the treatment they received from the City. With regard to Edmonds’ selection as the location for the next Dick’s Drive-In, Mayor Cooper expressed his thanks to Stephen Clifton and Rob Chave and their staffs for the work they did. While other cities were making speeches about how hard they were working to attract Dick’s Drive-In to their community, Edmonds staff quietly went about their business answering the Spady family’s questions. The Spady’s had a very positive reaction to staff’s work and they have repeatedly thanked staff for answering their questions promptly. He also thanked Council President Bernheim for his participation to ensure the Spady’s were aware the elected officials also supported their locating in Edmonds. He commented that while Dick’s Drive-In may not be the biggest business around, it is an icon in the community and a signal to other businesses that Edmonds is open for business. He noted the homecoming assembly at Edmonds- Woodway High School was interrupted to announce Edmonds’ selection as the site for the next Dick’s Drive-In. With regard to WSF’s proposal, Mayor Cooper encouraged the Council and the public to attend the public meeting on October 27. He explained the scoping being done by WSF is to comply with Environmental Protection Act requirements to scope multiple locations for a ferry terminal in addition to the Mukilteo terminal. In May Mr. Clifton and former Mayor Haakenson learned there were eight possible sites including the existing Mukilteo site, a site in south Everett and two in Edmonds – a single slip site at Main Street and a site at Edmonds Crossing. A few days before notice was published regarding public meetings in Mukilteo and in Clinton, Edmonds learned there were nine proposals; the ninth being a double slip at Main Street. Mr. Clifton contacted WSF to suggest they hold a public meeting in Edmonds if three of the nine sites under consideration were located in Edmonds. WSF’s initial response was they planned to have an online meeting. Mr. Clifton and he informed WSF that was not acceptable and within a few hours WSF added a public meeting in Edmonds on October 27 as well as a meeting in Everett. He has subsequently been in contact with the legislative delegation in the 32nd and 21st District to express his concerns. Mayor Cooper explained expansion in Edmonds would encroach on two existing parks at Brackett's Landing, widen the existing ferry terminal pier to eight lanes, lengthen the pier and provide two finger piers/slips. Staff is in the process of developing comments that Mr. Clifton and he will provide on behalf of the City at the October 27 meeting to express the City’s concerns and reminding that the Main Street site was not a preferred alternative when consideration was given to expanding the Edmonds terminal and that the mid-marina and Pt. Edwards site were the preferred sites. Staff also has concerns with upland environmental impacts on the community, cutting off the waterfront at Main Street, closing Main Street from Sunset Avenue to Railroad Avenue, and the on-grade railroad crossing as well as water elated environmental issues such as the impact of additional prop wash on eel grass beds and the ability to use the underwater dive park. Staff and he plan to be very vocal about their opposition to Main Street being considered as an alternative to the Mukilteo site. He concluded the result of relocating the Clinton route to Edmonds would be an additional 18 boats which is not acceptable to him or staff and he hoped would not be acceptable to the City Council. Mayor Cooper relayed he has been in contact with Mukilteo’s Mayor Joe Marine and they both believe Edmonds and Mukilteo have valuable ferry communities; the ferry terminals are economic drivers and each community should have their own ferry terminal. They will not allow WSF to destroy Mukilteo’s or Edmonds’s downtown or waterfront. Packet Page 20 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 18 Mayor Cooper encouraged Councilmembers to review the materials regarding WSF’s proposal that were emailed by Mr. Clifton. All the information WSF is considering is available on WSF’s website. He encouraged the public to attend and speak at the October 27 meeting. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Buckshnis thanked the Mayor for his efforts regarding WSF’s proposal. She thanked the United Methodist Church, the People of Puget Sound and the Friends of the Marsh for their participation in the Marsh Cleanup. She also thanked the volunteers of the Off Leash Area Edmonds for their assistance with Halloween Howl which raised $1000. Councilmember Buckshnis reported Council President Bernheim, Mayor Cooper, Human Resources Director Debi Humann and she met with the Finance Department to discuss short term goals of financial clarity and better communication as well as long term goals of financial clarity, compliance with the ordinance and perhaps placing a levy on a future ballot. Issues raised included questions not being answered, monthly and quarterly report compliance with the ordinance, communicating so everyone is on the same page, and comparing Edmonds to other cities. Issues related to the monthly and quarterly reports will continue to be discussed because the Finance Department believes they are complying with the policies. With regard to questions not being answered, Mr. Hines indicated he does not see this as a problem nor does he believe it is being disrespectful because he is a very busy person. She emphasized it was all about perception. She hoped future questions posed to the Finance Department would be answered in a timely manner. Councilmember Plunkett welcomed Student Representative Peter Gibson. He thanked Student Representative Gibson for speaking at the first meeting and encouraged him to continue speaking at future Council meetings. Councilmember Petso relayed a request from Councilmember Wilson for the Council to renew the Council Assistant’s contract which she noted had been rescheduled to next week’s agenda. Councilmember Wilson also requested the Council consider authorizing the use of Council Chambers for a forum regarding Proposition 1 (the additional $40 vehicle license fee). Councilmember Petso commented she was excited to have Dick’s Drive-In locate in Edmonds. She relayed her son’s disappointment that he would graduate from Edmonds-Woodway High School before the Dick’s Drive-In opened. Councilmember Petso remarked last weekend she contributed to Mt. Vernon’s gas tax and sales tax revenue while attending a soccer tournament this weekend. Unfortunately when the Mt. Vernon team plays her son’s team, they will not have the opportunity to contribute to Edmonds’ sales tax revenue because the games will be played in Bothell rather than Edmonds. Councilmember Peterson noted events in Edmonds this weekend include the Edmonds International Film Festival, the Friends of the Edmonds Library Book Sale honoring Peggy Pritchard-Olson on Saturday, and shows at the Edmonds Center for the Arts on Thursday and Sunday. Further information is available at ec4arts.org. Councilmember Peterson reported on Snohomish County Green Drinks, an international movement where people concerned about the environment and sustainability meet. Many of the people attending the event hosted at Pt. Edwards were happy the event was held in Edmonds because Edmonds was the most sustainable city in Snohomish County. Packet Page 21 of 235 Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes October 19, 2010 Page 19 Council President Bernheim echoed Councilmember Buckshnis’ comments regarding the meeting with the Finance Department. He pointed out every other city in Washington whose financial reports have been examined submit reports to their City Council and citizens in a format that is completely different than Edmonds. He found all the other cities’ reports extremely comprehensive and understandable. That has not been his experience with Edmonds’ reports. He clarified that was not a criticism of the current administration but the way that reports have been prepared for a long time. He looked forward to voluntary changes in the reporting format. Council President Bernheim thanked everyone for the demonstration of organization and efficiency in the Comprehensive Plan amendment discussion, noting when Councilmembers come prepared with amendments they can be reviewed in an orderly manner. Council President Bernheim reported the Council interviewed three extremely qualified candidates for the Budget Analyst position. Although he was favorably impressed by them all, he remained opposed to the idea of the Council hiring its own Budget Analyst. He was committed to placing the responsibility for explaining the City’s budget in the Mayor’s office and was willing to work with Mayor Cooper to make any improvements necessary to ensure that happened. The Council cannot be fighting with the Finance Department over providing clear financial information. It is a crucial matter that is approaching a crisis point. Council President Bernheim reviewed the upcoming schedule for the budget review: • October 26 – 2 hour budget workshop. This is the opportunity for Council to bring their budget questions/comments/suggestions • November 9 – Finance Committee will consider any unanswered budget questions • November 16 – Third Quarter Budget Report • November 23 – Public comment on the budget • December 7 – Final consideration of the budget Council President Bernheim suggested a short presentation be made by Mayor Cooper and/or Mr. Clifton at the next meeting regarding WSF’s proposal. He suggested the Council consider Councilmember Petso’s suggestions to refinance bonds and/or increase parks acquisition funding by using the $600,000 from the sale of fire equipment to pay off bonds. He was interested in developing a plan that would be endorsed by the Finance Department. Councilmember Plunkett expressed concern with Council President Bernheim’s proposal for the Finance Committee to consider any unanswered budget questions and suggested that be reconsidered. Councilmember Plunkett suggested Councilmembers present any amendments to the budget in writing. Council President Bernheim explained his intent was for Councilmembers to provide amendments in writing prior to the October 26 budget workshop for discussion at the workshop. Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the Council will receive actuals and trends prior to the October 26 workshop. Mayor Cooper answered staff is working on it. 13. ADJOURN With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m. Packet Page 22 of 235 AM-3476 Item #: 2. C. City Council Meeting Date: 10/26/2010 Time:Consent Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Submitted By:Nori Jacobson Department:Finance Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Approval of claim checks #121845 through #121987 dated October 21, 2010 for $745,372.10. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #49886 through #49916 for the period October 1, 2010 through October 15, 2010 for $640,417.80. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit and checks. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance #2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or non-approval of expenditures. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2010 Revenue: Expenditure:1,385,789.90 Fiscal Impact: Claims $745,372.10 Payroll $640,417.80 Attachments Claim Checks for 10-21-10 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Finance Lorenzo Hines 10/21/2010 12:16 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/21/2010 01:33 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 10/22/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/22/2010 09:12 AM Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 10/21/2010 11:47 AM Final Approval Date: 10/22/2010 Packet Page 23 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 1 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121845 10/21/2010 069798 A.M. LEONARD INC CI10117454 PRUNERS, ETC. POLE PRUNERS & ACCESSORIES 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 194.99 Freight 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.99 Total :199.98 121846 10/21/2010 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 287008 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 121847 10/21/2010 000135 ABSCO ALARMS INC 47840 FAC - 12V, 7AH Batteries FAC - 12V, 7AH Batteries 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 66.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.27 Total :72.27 121848 10/21/2010 063863 ADVANCED TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 0000002571 Traffic Control - 12" Amber Lights for Traffic Control - 12" Amber Lights for 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 188.38 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 17.89 Total :206.27 121849 10/21/2010 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101775462 M5Z34 CYLINDER RENTAL 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 58.50 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.450.21 5.56 Total :64.06 1Page: Packet Page 24 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 2 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121850 10/21/2010 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 8909 Monthly Wholesale Charges fo Monthly Wholesale Charges fo 411.000.654.534.800.330.00 102,299.11 Total :102,299.11 121851 10/21/2010 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001266948 FIRE STATION #20 FIRE STATION #20 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 123.88 Public Works Facility0197-001267035 Public Works Facility 001.000.650.519.910.470.00 25.44 Public Works Facility 111.000.653.542.900.470.00 96.66 Public Works Facility 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 96.66 Public Works Facility 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 96.66 Public Works Facility 511.000.657.548.680.470.00 96.66 Public Works Facility 411.000.652.542.900.470.00 96.64 FS 160197-001267105 garbage for F/S #16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 130.07 MMC GARBAGE FEES0197-001267813 garbage for MCC 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 54.19 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 5.83 Total :822.69 121852 10/21/2010 001528 AM TEST INC 61683 GREASE ANALYSIS GREASE ANALYSIS 411.000.656.538.800.410.31 100.00 Total :100.00 2Page: Packet Page 25 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 3 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121853 10/21/2010 001430 AMERICAN RED CROSS 11004087 CLASS @ YOST POOL SAFETY CLASS @ YOST POOL 001.000.640.575.510.490.00 77.00 Total :77.00 121854 10/21/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5171313 21580001 UNIFORM SERVICE 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 68.53 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.51 Total :75.04 121855 10/21/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5138977 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC Street Storm Uniform Svc 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.37 Street Storm Uniform Svc 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.36 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.23 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22 PW MATS655-5150803 PW MATS 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01 PW MATS 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84 PW MATS 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37 3Page: Packet Page 26 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 4 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121855 10/21/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34 PW MATS 111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5150804 Street Storm Uniform Svc 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.37 Street Storm Uniform Svc 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.36 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.23 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22 FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5150806 Fleet Uniform Svc 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 6.10 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.58 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5158802 Fac Maint Uniform Svc 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06 FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5163467 Fleet Uniform Svc 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 20.20 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.92 STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5163468 4Page: Packet Page 27 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 5 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121855 10/21/2010 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK Street Storm Uniform Svc 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 2.37 Street Storm Uniform Svc 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 2.36 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.23 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.22 FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5163470 Fleet Uniform Svc 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 6.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.57 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC655-5171309 Fac Maint Uniform Svc 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 32.17 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 3.06 Total :143.49 121856 10/21/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5171308 UNIFORM SERVICES PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 32.04 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.240.00 3.04 Total :35.08 121857 10/21/2010 069819 ASSINK, PHIL 2010ASSINK 2010 CHAPLIN CALLS - PHIL ASSINK STIPEND FOR SUPPORT 7/CHAPLAIN 001.000.410.521.100.410.00 75.00 Total :75.00 121858 10/21/2010 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0116616-IN 01-7500014 DIESEL FUEL 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 3,147.23 5Page: Packet Page 28 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 6 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121858 10/21/2010 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.320.00 298.99 Total :3,446.22 121859 10/21/2010 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0116188-IN Fleet - Diesel - 4182 Gal Fleet - Diesel - 4182 Gal 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 10,337.90 St Excise Tax Diesel, WA Oil Spill 511.000.657.548.680.340.10 1,652.73 BIODiesel - 220 Gal 511.000.657.548.680.340.13 896.24 St Excise Tax BIODiesel, WA Oil Spill 511.000.657.548.680.340.13 90.95 WA St Svc Fee 511.000.657.548.680.340.13 40.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.13 3.80 Fleet Regurlar - 3000 Gal0117563-IN Fleet Regurlar - 3000 Gal 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 6,764.40 St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.657.548.680.340.11 1,180.44 Premium - 7800 Gal 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 18,326.10 St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 3,074.37 WA St Svc Fee 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 40.00 9.5% Sales Tax 511.000.657.548.680.340.12 3.80 Total :42,410.73 121860 10/21/2010 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 57503 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 89.94 6Page: Packet Page 29 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 7 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121860 10/21/2010 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 89.94 UB Outsourcing area #100 Printing 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 92.67 UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 288.97 UB Outsourcing area #100 Postage 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 288.97 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.54 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.54 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.81 Total :876.38 121861 10/21/2010 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST November 2010 NOVEMBER 2010 AWC PREMIUMS 11/10 Fire Pension AWC Premiums 617.000.510.522.200.230.00 4,197.55 11/10 Retirees AWC Premiums 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 27,322.73 11/10 AWC Premiums 811.000.000.231.510.000.00 267,054.28 Total :298,574.56 121862 10/21/2010 063408 BARTELS & STOUT INC SRJ1029A EDMTRE MICROSCOPE MAINT. 411.000.656.538.800.480.31 95.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.31 9.03 Total :104.03 121863 10/21/2010 069218 BISHOP, PAUL 339 WEB SITE MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT SVC Web Site Maintenance 001.000.310.518.880.410.00 1,190.00 7Page: Packet Page 30 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 8 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121863 10/21/2010 (Continued)069218 BISHOP, PAUL Web Site Maintenance - Development 001.000.620.532.200.410.00 800.00 Total :1,990.00 121864 10/21/2010 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC 356 Annual maintenance fees for Permit Annual maintenance fees for Permit 001.000.620.558.800.410.00 7,993.50 Total :7,993.50 121865 10/21/2010 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN13019 YOGA & PILATES CLASSES YOGA #13019 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 579.60 YOGA #13007 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 274.40 YOGA #13010 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 893.20 YOGA #13016 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 836.36 PILATES RELAXED MAT #12925 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 249.90 YOGA #13013 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 1,062.60 PILATES YOGA FUSION #13060 001.000.640.575.540.410.00 531.30 Total :4,427.36 121866 10/21/2010 067947 BROWNELLS INC 06016364.01 INV#06016364.01, A/C#00557761-EDMONDS PD STRIKER ASSEMBLY 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 25.13 LOCKING BLOCK COIL PIN 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 7.65 TAKEDOWN LEVER RETAINING WIRE 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 18.50 FRAME KEY PLUG 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 8.70 8Page: Packet Page 31 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 9 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121866 10/21/2010 (Continued)067947 BROWNELLS INC TRIGGER RETURN SPRINGS 001.000.410.521.400.310.00 26.60 Total :86.58 121867 10/21/2010 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 10386447 INV#10386447 CUST#572105 - EDMONDS PD COPIER RENTAL (4) 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 581.60 COPY CHARGES FOR 08/31-09/30/10 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 258.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.450.00 79.87 Total :920.39 121868 10/21/2010 068484 CEMEX E9CA.Pmt 4 E9CA.PMT 4 THRU 9/29/10 E9CA.Pmt 4 thru 9/29/10 117.200.640.575.500.410.00 1,750.00 E9CA.Pmt 4 thru 9/29/10 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 84,199.03 Total :85,949.03 121869 10/21/2010 068484 CEMEX 9420167556 Roadway - Asphalt Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 315.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 29.93 Roadway - Asphalt9420242474 Roadway - Asphalt 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 245.00 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 23.28 Total :613.21 121870 10/21/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY EV152198 2948000 WELDING SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 185.70 9Page: Packet Page 32 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 10 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121870 10/21/2010 (Continued)003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 17.09 Total :202.79 121871 10/21/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 161277 Water - Carbon Diox Cylinder Fill Water - Carbon Diox Cylinder Fill 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 42.21 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.01 Total :46.22 121872 10/21/2010 070792 CH2O 186784 PS - 55 Gal Inhibiter PS - 55 Gal Inhibiter 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1,086.27 Freight 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 107.78 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 113.44 Total :1,307.49 121873 10/21/2010 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT12953 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #12953 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 78.40 Total :78.40 121874 10/21/2010 061773 CHAVE, ROBERT Chave10/10 National Planning Conference in New National Planning Conference in New 001.000.620.558.600.430.00 224.73 Total :224.73 121875 10/21/2010 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC 17872446 COPIER LEASE PW copier lease for PW 001.000.650.519.910.450.00 643.07 Total :643.07 121876 10/21/2010 063902 CITY OF EVERETT I10002871 Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis 10Page: Packet Page 33 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 11 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121876 10/21/2010 (Continued)063902 CITY OF EVERETT Water Quality - Water Lab Analysis 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 275.40 Total :275.40 121877 10/21/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8196 INV#8196 CUST#45 - EDMONDS PD NEXTEL PHONES - NARCS - 09/10 104.000.410.521.210.420.00 56.37 Total :56.37 121878 10/21/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2239607 Fac Maint - Squeegee Blades, TT, Rolled Fac Maint - Squeegee Blades, TT, Rolled 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 451.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 42.89 FAC - Sqweegee BladesW2239607-1 FAC - Sqweegee Blades 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 43.12 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.10 Total :541.56 121879 10/21/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2240413 CLEANING SUPPLIES/GYMNASTICS & PRESCHOOL CLEANING SUPPLIES FOR GYMNASTICS & 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 36.12 Freight 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 5.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 3.91 GRAFFITI REMOVERW2241765 GRAFFITI REMOVER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 259.56 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.66 Total :329.25 11Page: Packet Page 34 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 12 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121880 10/21/2010 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3239757 Hearing Examiner RFQ/RFP ad Hearing Examiner RFQ/RFP ad 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 93.60 Total :93.60 121881 10/21/2010 069279 DECATUR ELECTRONICS INC 00194904 INV#00194904, WAEDMO - EDMONDS PD GVP-DIRECTIONAL RADAR GUN 001.000.410.521.710.350.00 899.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.710.350.00 85.41 Total :984.41 121882 10/21/2010 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 9/23/10-10/20/10 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL State Share of Concealed Pistol 001.000.000.237.190.000.00 219.00 Total :219.00 121883 10/21/2010 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2011-WAR011645 E6DA.2011 PERMIT FEES E6DA.DOE 2011 PERMIT FEES 125.000.640.594.750.410.00 473.00 Total :473.00 121884 10/21/2010 007253 DUNN LUMBER 3176660 LUMBER LUMBER 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 70.65 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.71 Total :77.36 121885 10/21/2010 068803 EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS 3315367 Storm - Drain cover Storm - Drain cover 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 255.15 8.6% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 21.95 Total :277.10 121886 10/21/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 27976 MISC. BOLTS 12Page: Packet Page 35 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 13 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121886 10/21/2010 (Continued)007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS MISC. BOLTS 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 17.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.69 SUPPLIES28076 WHEEL NUT 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.36 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.60 SUPPLIES28097 FITTINGS, ETC. 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 13.75 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.31 Total :41.46 121887 10/21/2010 073461 EDMONDS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION EAA101510 REFUND REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 200.00 Total :200.00 121888 10/21/2010 062190 EDMONDS POLICE DEPT 9-10 DET PETTY CASH DETECTIVE BUY FUND PETTY CASH 9-30-10 INVESTIGATIVE EXPENSE 10-3689 001.000.410.521.210.490.00 20.00 Total :20.00 121889 10/21/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00655 LIFT ST 7 Lift St 7 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.78 LIFT STATION #81-00925 LIFT STATION #8 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 25.58 LIFT STATION #11-01950 LIFT STATION #1 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 27.78 13Page: Packet Page 36 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 14 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121889 10/21/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION LIFT STATION #21-02675 LIFT STATION #2 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 25.58 Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms1-03950 Public Works Fountain, Bldgs & Restrooms 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 398.48 Public Works Meter Shop1-05350 Public Works Meter Shop 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 104.67 LIFT STATION #61-05705 LIFT STATION #6 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.28 CITY HALL1-13975 CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 397.40 CITY HALL1-14000 CITY HALL 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 95.96 Total :1,157.51 121890 10/21/2010 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 090735 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENT Radix Monthly Maint Agreement - Nov 411.000.654.534.800.480.00 152.00 Total :152.00 121891 10/21/2010 073455 ELPAC 24462 4801 VFD CONTROL PANEL REBUILD 411.000.656.538.800.350.00 4,555.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.350.00 409.95 Total :4,964.95 121892 10/21/2010 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT UBI 312000093000 ES REF # 94513310 7 3Q-10 Unemployment Insurance 001.000.390.517.780.230.00 3,108.07 14Page: Packet Page 37 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 15 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :3,108.0712189210/21/2010 047407 047407 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 121893 10/21/2010 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0065372-IN INV#0065372-IN, ACCT#0011847 EDMONDS PD REMOVE PIN/REMOUNT IN CASE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 7.00 HANDLING FEE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.50 Freight 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 6.86 Total :18.36 121894 10/21/2010 009800 FACTORY DIRECT TIRE SALES 42174 TIRES TIRES/MOUNTING 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 153.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.54 Total :167.54 121895 10/21/2010 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU21256 Water - Parts Water - Parts 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 121.03 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 12.12 Freight 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.50 Water - PartsWAMOU21347 Water - Parts 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 55.16 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.24 Total :200.05 121896 10/21/2010 066590 FELIX LLC, ROBERT W FELIX12888 WITH LOSS WITH HYPNOSIS WEIGHT LOSS WITH HYPNOSIS #12888 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 809.90 Total :809.90 15Page: Packet Page 38 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 16 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121897 10/21/2010 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 18800013 17983 PIPE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 80.49 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.65 Total :88.14 121898 10/21/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-AB8-1176 CITY PARK T1 LINE City Park T1 Line 8/16/10 - 10/15/10 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 822.20 Total :822.20 121899 10/21/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425 712-0423 AFTER HOURS PHONE AFTER HOURS PHONE 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 56.54 Total :56.54 121900 10/21/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-197-0932 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS~ Numbers TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS~ Numbers 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 260.98 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS~ Numbers 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 260.98 FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE425-672-7132 FLEET MAINTENANCE FAX LINE 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 96.08 SEWER - PW TELEMETRY425-774-1031 SEWER - PW TELEMETRY 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 47.18 LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281 LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 40.15 LS 7425-776-2742 LS 7 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 25.56 LS 8425-778-5982 LS 8 16Page: Packet Page 39 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 17 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121900 10/21/2010 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 54.58 Total :785.51 121901 10/21/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 42.37 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691 SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 41.72 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER 001.000.640.574.350.420.00 53.84 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM 001.000.640.576.800.420.00 106.79 Total :244.72 121902 10/21/2010 073459 GOETZ, CHRISTINE GOETZ13211 ALL OCCASION CARDS ALL OCCASION CARDS #13211 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 72.00 Total :72.00 121903 10/21/2010 069332 HEALTHFORCE OCCMED 1948 INV 1948 - 3 DIVE TEAM PHYSICALS 09/10 DIVE TEAM EXAM 9/22/10 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 762.00 DIVE TEAM EXAM 9/21/10 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 462.00 DIVE TEAM EXAM 9/27/10 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 462.00 Total :1,686.00 121904 10/21/2010 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 77 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 009.000.390.517.370.230.00 19.00 Total :19.00 17Page: Packet Page 40 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 18 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121905 10/21/2010 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1030684 PS - Camlock PS - Camlock 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.04 Traffic Control - Goofoff3597357 Traffic Control - Goofoff 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 11.96 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 1.14 Storm - Bee Spray38795 Storm - Bee Spray 411.000.652.542.320.310.00 5.94 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.310.00 0.56 Storm - Supplies for Drain Markers38940 Storm - Supplies for Drain Markers 411.000.652.542.320.310.00 79.40 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.320.310.00 7.54 PS - Plumbing Supplies4041222 PS - Plumbing Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.56 Fac Maint - Moss Roof Spray, Cutting 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 198.78 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.79 FAC - Screw Supplies4041224 FAC - Screw Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.76 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.21 Sewer - Sawzall4041234 Sewer - Sawzall 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 12.97 9.5% Sales Tax 18Page: Packet Page 41 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 19 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121905 10/21/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.23 FAC - Maint Supplies4041392 FAC - Maint Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 22.48 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.14 Traffic Control - Barricade Paint4046883 Traffic Control - Barricade Paint 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 51.94 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 4.93 Unit 27 - Truck Supplies4046937 Unit 27 - Truck Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 41.88 Museum - Putty Knife 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 10.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.02 Traffic Control - Supplies4046945 Traffic Control - Supplies 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 51.94 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 4.93 Fac Maint - Primer4048859 Fac Maint - Primer 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.80 Fac Maint -Unit 26 - Bits42179 Fac Maint -Unit 26 - Bits 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 43.88 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.17 City Hall - Paint Supplies4283869 City Hall - Paint Supplies 19Page: Packet Page 42 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 20 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121905 10/21/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 8.79 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.85 Library - Supplies5040965 Library - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 18.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.75 PS - Reducers5041055 PS - Reducers 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.23 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.45 Traffic Control - Barricade Repair5046750 Traffic Control - Barricade Repair 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 157.72 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 14.98 Fac Maint - Bag Filters5080723 Fac Maint - Bag Filters 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.47 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.42 City Hall - Repair Supplies560971 City Hall - Repair Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 28.25 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.68 Sewer - Sawzall6031424 Sewer - Sawzall 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 23.97 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.28 Fac Maint -Unit 26 - Flashlight,6085024 Fac Maint -Unit 26 - Flashlight, 20Page: Packet Page 43 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 21 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121905 10/21/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 49.97 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.75 FAC - Supplies7037374 FAC - Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 19.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.240.00 1.90 Water - Supplies7080189 Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 21.79 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.07 Water - Supplies7565707 Water - Supplies 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 59.95 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 5.70 Water - Supplies, Torch blades, Pliers,7565777 Water - Supplies, Torch blades, Pliers, 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 139.84 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.28 Traffic Control - Unit 46 - Paint Parts8594516 Traffic Control - Unit 46 - Paint Parts 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 25.52 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 2.42 City Hall - Paint Supplies9039120 City Hall - Paint Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 48.87 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.64 FAC - Supplies9576882 FAC - Supplies 21Page: Packet Page 44 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 22 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121905 10/21/2010 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 17.08 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.62 Total :1,340.51 121906 10/21/2010 070042 IKON 83310168 C/A 467070-1003748A4 Finance Copier Rental 9-22-10 to 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 454.07 Meter Charges 7-26-10 to 8-24-10 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 5.52 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.450.00 43.67 Total :503.26 121907 10/21/2010 070042 IKON 83385997 Rent on Engineering copier from Rent on Engineering copier from 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 443.48 Rent on large copier for billing period83385998 Rent on large copier for billing period 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 827.00 Total :1,270.48 121908 10/21/2010 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5015164697 Meter charges on large copier for 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 5.98 Meter charges on large copier for 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 62.97 Meter charges for Engineering copier5015164698 Meter charges for Engineering copier 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 1,132.15 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.620.558.800.450.00 107.55 Total :1,308.65 121909 10/21/2010 064655 INNOVATIVE VACUUM SERVICES INC S17044 4800 22Page: Packet Page 45 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 23 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121909 10/21/2010 (Continued)064655 INNOVATIVE VACUUM SERVICES INC VACUUM TRUCK/SAND FROM INCINERATOR 411.000.656.538.800.410.21 2,013.38 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.21 191.27 Total :2,204.65 121910 10/21/2010 071634 INTEGRA TELECOM 7463714 C/A 768328 PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 1,768.95 Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929; 001.000.240.513.110.420.00 0.54 Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines 001.000.240.513.110.420.00 1.39 Total :1,770.88 121911 10/21/2010 065980 ISS WONDERWARE 400598 WONDERWARE RENEWAL WONDERWARE RENEWAL 411.000.656.538.800.410.22 7,625.00 WONDERWARE RENEWAL/WATER 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 1,175.00 WONDERWARE RENEWAL/SEWER 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,175.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.410.22 724.38 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 111.63 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 111.62 Total :10,922.63 121912 10/21/2010 065056 JOHNSON, TROY Johnson, Troy City Hall Monitor for 10/11/10 Citizen City Hall Monitor for 10/11/10 Citizen 001.000.110.511.100.490.00 36.00 Total :36.00 23Page: Packet Page 46 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 24 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121913 10/21/2010 063923 KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO INC 403-00000115685 Traffic Control - Supplies Traffic Control - Supplies 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 43.72 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 4.15 Total :47.87 121914 10/21/2010 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARDEN KRUCKEBERG13156 BOTANIC GARDEN TOUR BOTANIC GARDEN TOUR #13156 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 22.50 Total :22.50 121915 10/21/2010 069083 LAMPHERE, KAREN LAMPHERE13234 HEALTHY EATING FOR BUSY PEOPLE HEALTHY EATING FOR BUSY PEOPLE #13234 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 245.00 Total :245.00 121916 10/21/2010 073136 LANG, ROBERT LANG101610 GYM MONITOR GYM MONITOR FOR SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE 001.000.640.574.100.410.00 36.00 Total :36.00 121917 10/21/2010 018140 LEIN, JONATHAN 0283 TRAVEL/LEIN TRAVEL/LEIN 411.000.656.538.800.430.00 481.91 Total :481.91 121918 10/21/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105162 Copy paper 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 1.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.27 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 1.26 Copy paper 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 13.33 Copy paper 24Page: Packet Page 47 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 25 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121918 10/21/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 13.33 Copy paper 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 13.33 Total :43.79 121919 10/21/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105165 DRAWER ORGANIZER Drawer organizer 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 4.89 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 0.46 HP INK CARTRIDGE FOR ENDORSER105191I Ink cartridge for endorser 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 19.94 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 1.89 Total :27.18 121920 10/21/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105143 BUSINESS CARD MASTER Business Card Masters~250-00251 001.000.000.141.100.000.00 678.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.000.141.100.000.00 64.41 Total :742.41 121921 10/21/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105177 DVD disc and DVD envelopes for Council DVD disc and DVD envelopes for Council 001.000.110.511.100.310.00 67.32 Total :67.32 121922 10/21/2010 073460 MALAN, LINDA MALAN12940 CARD WEAVING CLASS CARD WEAVING #12940 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 45.60 Total :45.60 121923 10/21/2010 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 71 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement LEOFF 1 Reimbursement 25Page: Packet Page 48 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 26 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121923 10/21/2010 (Continued)019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 009.000.390.517.370.290.00 5,535.00 Total :5,535.00 121924 10/21/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 66954994 123106800 AIR FILTERS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 113.12 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 18.13 12310680067084425 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.86 PIPE FITTING/GAUGE 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 156.32 12310680067214206 BAND SAW/HOSE/PIPE FITTINGS/BUSHINGS 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 332.57 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 18.08 Total :648.08 121925 10/21/2010 068309 MERCURY FITNESS REPAIR INC 10102457 FITNESS MACHINE REPAIR FITNESS ROOM/MACHINE REPAIR 001.000.640.575.540.480.00 374.00 Freight 001.000.640.575.540.480.00 28.96 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.540.480.00 35.53 Total :438.49 121926 10/21/2010 063773 MICROFLEX 00019542 SEP-10 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM SEP-10 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM 001.000.310.514.230.410.00 124.58 Total :124.58 121927 10/21/2010 073457 MIELE INC 1849738 P4257710235 26Page: Packet Page 49 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 27 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121927 10/21/2010 (Continued)073457 MIELE INC BOOSTER PUMP 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 584.04 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 7.06 P42577102351851928 LAB WASHER 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 8,237.94 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 250.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.31 806.37 Total :9,885.41 121928 10/21/2010 073462 MILLER, ERIC MILLER101310 REFUND CANCELLED OVERTIME CHARGES @ CEMETERY - 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 399.68 Total :399.68 121929 10/21/2010 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB13079 FUN FACTORY FUN FACTORY #13079 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 614.83 FUN FACTORY #13081 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 520.80 MINI ME FUN FACTORY #13085 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 235.20 Total :1,370.83 121930 10/21/2010 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S3610358.001 2091 WIRE 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 67.10 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 6.37 2091S3621668.001 ELECTRICAL SUPPLES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 206.01 27Page: Packet Page 50 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 28 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121930 10/21/2010 (Continued)024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 18.95 Total :298.43 121931 10/21/2010 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 37422 CITYEDMTRE HOSE/CENTER PUNCH/GASKET 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 96.02 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.83 Total :104.85 121932 10/21/2010 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 15465 260 SODIUM BISULFITE 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 950.04 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.54 90.25 Total :1,040.29 121933 10/21/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-199605 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: PINE STREET PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-199606 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: SIERRA PARK 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-202454 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: MARINA BEACH 001.000.640.576.800.410.00 1,121.59 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-202457 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC CENTER 001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87 Total :1,691.20 121934 10/21/2010 068117 NPELRA Humann 30702 1/1/11 - 12/31/11 Membership dues (Debi 1/1/11 - 12/31/11 Membership dues (Debi 001.000.220.516.100.490.00 200.00 28Page: Packet Page 51 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 29 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :200.0012193410/21/2010 068117 068117 NPELRA 121935 10/21/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 293105 INV#293105 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD DVC MINI CASSETTES 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 62.35 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 5.92 INV#293106 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD293106 KRAFT PAPER ROLL 40# 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 60.13 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.910.310.00 5.71 INV#349184 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD349184 HP TONER Q5942X 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 223.80 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.210.310.00 21.26 INV#369955 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD369955 WIRELESS MOUSE 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 26.08 BLACK RETRACTABLE PENS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 113.50 STENO BOOKS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 12.12 LEGAL PADS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 11.73 SMALL BINDER CLIPS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 1.10 CD-R RECORDABLE DISCS 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 17.97 CD SLEEVES 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 24.30 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.100.310.00 19.64 Total :605.61 29Page: Packet Page 52 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 30 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121936 10/21/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 299984 Office Supplies - HR Office Supplies - HR 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 47.05 Copy paper 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 4.73 Copy paper 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 4.73 Copy paper 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 4.74 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.220.516.100.310.00 4.92 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.610.519.700.310.00 0.45 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 0.45 Total :67.07 121937 10/21/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 354809 WALL & DESK CALENDAR, MARKERS, FOLDERS Wall and desk calendars, markers, 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 69.68 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.310.514.230.310.00 6.62 Total :76.30 121938 10/21/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 265319 OFFICE SUPPLIES Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 171.34 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 16.28 OFFICE SUPPLIES274612 Office Supplies 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 22.43 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.250.514.300.310.00 2.13 Total :212.18 30Page: Packet Page 53 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 31 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121939 10/21/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 349263 FILE POCKETS, STENO PADS FILE POCKETS 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 35.81 STENO PADS 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 7.78 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.200.310.00 3.40 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.74 LAMINATING SUPPLIES/PRESCHOOL377841 PRESCHOOL LAMINATING SUPPLIES 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 24.57 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 2.34 COVER STOCK395028 COVER STOCK 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 10.44 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.99 P-TOUCH CARTRIDGES418276 P-TOUCH CARTRIDGES FOR LABEL MAKER 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 45.31 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.640.574.100.310.00 4.31 Total :135.69 121940 10/21/2010 073221 ORCHID CELLMARK INC 010-052818 INV#010-052818 - EDMONDS PD EVIDENCE SAMPLES CASE #10-3048 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 610.00 INV#010-052819 - EDMONDS PD010-052819 EVIDENCE SAMPLE CASE #10-2240 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 305.00 INV#010-052820 - EDMONDS PD010-052820 EVIDENCE SAMPLES CASE #10-2385 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 610.00 INV#010-052821 - EDMONDS PD010-052821 31Page: Packet Page 54 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 32 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121940 10/21/2010 (Continued)073221 ORCHID CELLMARK INC EVIDENCE SAMPLE CASE #10-2094 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 305.00 INV#010-052822 - EDMONDS PD010-052822 EVIDENCE SAMPLES CASE #09-3376 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 610.00 INV#010-052823 - EDMONDS PD010-052823 EVIDENCE SAMPLES CASE #09-0846 001.000.410.521.210.410.00 305.00 Total :2,745.00 121941 10/21/2010 064975 PAC STAINLESS LTD 314443 11433 STAINLESS STEEL 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 796.07 Freight 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.30 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.21 76.70 Total :884.07 121942 10/21/2010 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS PACNWFLOAT13154 FALL COLORS &SLAMON SPAWNING FLOAT TRIP FALL COLORS & SALMON SPAWNING FLOAT 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 183.38 Total :183.38 121943 10/21/2010 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.970650 MCH - Paint Supplies MCH - Paint Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 12.71 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.21 Total :13.92 121944 10/21/2010 064552 PITNEY BOWES 3833100OT10 POSTAGE METER LEASE Lease 09/30 to 10/30 001.000.250.514.300.450.00 866.00 Total :866.00 32Page: Packet Page 55 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 33 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121945 10/21/2010 073231 POLYDYNE INC 563699 485778 POLYMER 411.000.656.538.800.310.51 7,436.00 Total :7,436.00 121946 10/21/2010 071409 POMEGRANATE CENTER 580 POMEGRANATE CENTER Imagine Edmonds Workshop Fee. 001.000.610.519.700.410.00 1,000.00 Total :1,000.00 121947 10/21/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 187462 2000 UPS/DEPT OF L&I 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 8.97 Total :8.97 121948 10/21/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 186816 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.24 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.24 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.24 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.25 Water - MetroTech Return Shipping Fees186910 Water - MetroTech Return Shipping Fees 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 33.34 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST187242 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.26 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.26 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.26 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.27 33Page: Packet Page 56 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 34 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121948 10/21/2010 (Continued)071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST187365 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.24 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.24 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.24 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.25 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST187481 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.24 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.24 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.24 Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety 411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.25 Total :69.30 121949 10/21/2010 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER Pier StormWater Rent for Oct 2010 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,665.96 Total :1,665.96 121950 10/21/2010 073056 PROSPECT CONSTRUCTION INC 10 C311 C311 ODOR CONTROL PROJECT 414.000.656.594.320.650.10 73,182.13 Total :73,182.13 121951 10/21/2010 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -CITY HALL 24 hour Alarm Monitoring-City Hall 001.000.651.519.920.420.00 37.85 Total :37.85 34Page: Packet Page 57 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 35 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121952 10/21/2010 073456 PUGET SOUND HOME MAINTENANCE 09302010 PRESSURE WASHING PRESSURE WASHING 411.000.656.538.800.480.23 1,580.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.480.23 150.10 Total :1,730.10 121953 10/21/2010 064291 QWEST 206-Z02-0478 332B TELEMETRY TELEMETRY 411.000.656.538.800.420.00 138.52 Total :138.52 121954 10/21/2010 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 002042 Storm - Dump Fees Storm - Dump Fees 411.000.652.542.320.490.00 1,168.85 Total :1,168.85 121955 10/21/2010 031600 RELIABLE FLOOR COVERINGS 115306 PS - Carpet Repair PS - Carpet Repair 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 140.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 13.30 Total :153.30 121956 10/21/2010 072387 RUSSELL SIGN CO 20553 ENGRAVED SIGNS ENGRAVED SIGNS 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 90.00 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.310.23 8.55 Total :98.55 121957 10/21/2010 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 2265974 Roadway - Cold Patch Asphalt Roadway - Cold Patch Asphalt 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 907.20 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.310.310.00 86.18 35Page: Packet Page 58 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 36 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :993.3812195710/21/2010 033550 033550 SALMON BAY SAND & GRAVEL 121958 10/21/2010 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 195132 INV#195132 - EDMONDS PD TOWING SUBARU 093XYI- #10-3663 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01 INV#195201 - EDMONDS PD195201 TOWING TOYOTA COROLLA #10-3852 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 197.50 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.410.521.220.410.00 18.77 Total :389.28 121959 10/21/2010 072935 SIMMONS, CYNTHIA SIMMONS101910 WOTS CONTEST WINNER 2ND PLACE/FICTION 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 75.00 Total :75.00 121960 10/21/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 123568748 2002-0255-4 24400 HIGHWAY 99/RICHMOND PARK 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 29.28 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.76 20192988-2133522897 8421 244TH ST SW/RICHMOND PARK 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 29.28 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.656.538.800.471.62 1.76 Total :62.08 121961 10/21/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200398956 fire station # 16 fire station # 16 001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,385.52 LIFT STATION #9200611317 LIFT STATION #9 411.000.655.535.800.470.00 196.58 36Page: Packet Page 59 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 37 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121961 10/21/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 SIGNAL LIGHT200706851 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04 SIGNAL LIGHT 961 PUGET DR200723021 SIGNAL LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 36.41 BLINKING LIGHT 9301 PUGET DR201431244 BLINKING LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02 TRAFFIC CONTROL LIGHT 21531 HWY 99201441755 Traffic Control Light 21531 Hwy 99 111.000.653.542.630.470.00 79.77 SIGNAL LIGHT 19600 88TH AVE W201656758 Signal Light at 19600 88th Ave W 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 36.77 TELEMETRY SYSTEM201790003 TELEMETRY SYSTEM 411.000.654.534.800.470.00 30.45 TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99202289450 TRAFFIC LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 159.92 TRAFFIC LIGHT 8602 188TH ST SW202427803 TRAFFIC LIGHT 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS 1400 OLYMPIC AVE202519864 SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHTS 111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02 Total :2,047.54 121962 10/21/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-6027-1 9537 BOWDOIN WAY/YOST POOL 9537 BOWDOIN WAY 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,028.78 8100 190TH ST SW2025-4064-7 8100 190TH ST SW 001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.02 37Page: Packet Page 60 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 38 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount (Continued)Total :1,058.8012196210/21/2010 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 121963 10/21/2010 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT 283526 Sewer - D Leder Sewer - D Leder 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 112.00 Total :112.00 121964 10/21/2010 038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC 304 AUG-10 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE AUG-10 Recreation Services Contract Fee 001.000.390.519.900.410.00 5,000.00 Total :5,000.00 121965 10/21/2010 038700 SO SNO CO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 25759 SO SNO CO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DUES South Snohomish County Chamber of 001.000.390.519.900.490.00 600.00 Total :600.00 121966 10/21/2010 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 2398900-01 Street - Coveralls - B Sanders Street - Coveralls - B Sanders 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 95.30 Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.900.240.00 8.77 Storm - Coveralls - R Wichers4172973-01 Storm - Coveralls - R Wichers 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 89.95 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 8.55 Storm - Coveralls - K Harris4172986-01 Storm - Coveralls - K Harris 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 89.95 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.900.240.00 8.55 Total :301.07 121967 10/21/2010 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L85406 SEPTEMBER-10 AUDIT FEES September 10 Audit Fees 001.000.390.519.900.510.00 638.58 38Page: Packet Page 61 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 39 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121967 10/21/2010 (Continued)039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE September 10 Audit Fees 411.000.652.542.900.510.00 31.93 September 10 Audit Fees 411.000.654.534.800.510.00 106.43 September 10 Audit Fees 411.000.655.535.800.510.00 106.43 September 10 Audit Fees 411.000.656.538.800.510.00 106.43 September 10 Audit Fees 111.000.653.543.300.510.00 31.93 September 10 Audit Fees 511.000.657.548.680.510.00 42.57 Total :1,064.30 121968 10/21/2010 063308 STATE OF WASHINGTON 2010 Unclaimed 2010 UNCLAIMED PROPERTY Check #92513 001.000.640.574.200.410.00 160.00 RE: 00024638-001 MT UTILITY REFUND3-55800 RE: 00024638-001 MT Utility Refund 411.000.000.257.000.000.00 48.16 JUROR'S FEE62907 JUROR'S FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 14.85 JUROR'S FEE62907 JUROR'S FEE 001.000.230.512.540.490.00 14.85 REFUND ON RECEIPT #43685, BLD20070221.ACADIS REFUND ON RECEIPT #43685, BLD20070221. 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 2,455.00 REFUNDHOWE0819 REFUND - RETURNING CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 2.00 ALIEN FIREARM LICENSE - OHMAN, HENRIK M.OHMAN - WSP ALIEN FIREARM LICENSE APPLICATION 001.000.000.237.190.000.00 25.00 39Page: Packet Page 62 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 40 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121968 10/21/2010 (Continued)063308 STATE OF WASHINGTON FBI FINGERPRINT CARD 001.000.000.237.100.000.00 24.00 Refund of City Surcharge Sanderlin onRec#043291 Refund of City Surcharge Sanderlin on 001.000.000.321.930.000.00 15.00 REFUNDTROWBRIDGE1217 CLASS REFUND 001.000.000.239.200.000.00 31.31 Total :2,790.17 121969 10/21/2010 063308 STATE OF WASHINGTON 1-20900 HOLLENBECK, SELLER/RUDD, SELLER RE: 4207-1021854 Utility Refund 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 54.45 RE:#4203-1058077 UB REFUND3-21850 re:#4203-1058077 ub refund 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 62.85 RE: 30008412-319 MC6 UTILITY REFUND3-53000 Re: 30008412-319-MC6 UB Refund 411.000.000.233.000.000.00 59.65 Total :176.95 121970 10/21/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2312414 City Hall - Elect Supplies City Hall - Elect Supplies 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 223.61 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.24 Total :244.85 121971 10/21/2010 073047 STRAUB, JOHN M PLN20100063 Application withdrawn. Application withdrawn. 001.000.000.257.620.000.00 1,431.12 Total :1,431.12 121972 10/21/2010 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 360000657091 C/A 360000657091 Basic e-commerce hosting Sep-10 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95 40Page: Packet Page 63 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 41 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121972 10/21/2010 (Continued)070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC C/A 360000764828360000764828 Sep-2010 Web Hosting for Internet 001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95 Total :69.90 121973 10/21/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10065803 Traffic Control - White Wiping Cloths Traffic Control - White Wiping Cloths 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 239.44 9.5% Sales Tax 111.000.653.542.640.310.00 22.75 Storm - Fl Green Upside down paint for10066433 Storm - Fl Green Upside down paint for 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 602.42 9.5% Sales Tax 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 57.23 Total :921.84 121974 10/21/2010 070890 TEAM ONE NETWORK SGA1102WA.01 INV#SGA1102WA.01 LAVELY SAGE ARMORER SAGE ARMOROR TRAINING - LAVELY~ 001.000.410.521.400.490.00 450.00 Total :450.00 121975 10/21/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1712609 RFQ/RFP - Hearing Examiner RFQ/RFP - Hearing Examiner 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 541.52 Total :541.52 121976 10/21/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1712954 NEWSPAPER AD 10/19 Closed Record Appeal 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 197.08 NEWSPAPER ADS1712955 10/19 Hearing (Comp Plan) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 57.40 NEWSPAPER ADS1713454 10/19 Hearing (Budget) 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 104.72 41Page: Packet Page 64 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 42 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121976 10/21/2010 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY NEWSPAPER ADS1713758 Ordinance 3808 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 32.20 NEWSPAPER ADS1713760 Ordinance 3811 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 37.24 NEWSPAPER ADS1713761 Ordinance 3810 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 38.92 NEWSPAPER AD1713950 Ordinance 3809 001.000.250.514.300.440.00 198.24 Total :665.80 121977 10/21/2010 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 646581 MUSEUM monthly elevator maint-museum 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 188.02 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 17.86 CITY HALL ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE646582 CITY HALL ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 908.61 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 86.32 MONITORING-PS646583 monitoring-PS 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 41.90 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MONITORING655742 SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MONITORING 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 12.61 Total :1,255.32 121978 10/21/2010 062693 US BANK 6060 COSTCO PHOTO CENTER- CHARGE CARD 2 5x7 prints 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 0.78 42Page: Packet Page 65 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 43 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121978 10/21/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK Photo CD 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 2.99 Freight 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 3.98 9.5% Sales Tax 001.000.210.513.100.490.00 0.73 PAYPAL: IDEAS UNFORLD PHOTO SESSION.6078 Greg Urban Photographer. Svcs. for 001.000.210.513.100.410.00 150.00 ACTION FLAG CO. CHARGE CARD PURCHASE6078 8ft. Flagpole Mayors Conf. Rm. 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 140.40 Apollo Stand 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 108.00 Eagle Finial: United States 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 32.00 Spear Final: Washington State 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 30.00 Ball Finial: Edmonds City Flag 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 36.00 Freight 001.000.210.513.100.310.00 13.45 Total :518.33 121979 10/21/2010 062693 US BANK 3280 Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00 Hearing Examiner RFQ/RFP 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 25.00 Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services 001.000.220.516.100.440.00 99.00 Total :149.00 121980 10/21/2010 062693 US BANK 2462 C/A 4485-5901-0077-2462 Software Toolbox Server Maintenace and 43Page: Packet Page 66 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 44 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121980 10/21/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK 411.000.656.538.800.410.11 155.00 Simatic/TI 505 Suite TOP Server - 411.000.656.538.800.310.42 795.00 Ultra 1024MB DDR PC2700,Corsair 2048MB 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 389.55 ACCIS Membership and Fall Conference 001.000.310.518.880.490.00 250.00 HP heat sink for projector laptop 001.000.310.518.880.310.00 60.16 Battery HP Notebook,Kingston 1024MB 001.000.310.518.880.480.00 371.90 Total :2,021.61 121981 10/21/2010 062693 US BANK 3306 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 411.000.656.538.800.310.22 60.00 Total :60.00 121982 10/21/2010 062693 US BANK 3462 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD Misc recorded documents 001.000.250.514.300.490.00 237.00 Recording of Utility Liens 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 1,364.00 Recording of Utility Liens 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 1,364.00 Total :2,965.00 121983 10/21/2010 062693 US BANK 3405 Guardian Security - Old PW Security Guardian Security - Old PW Security 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 55.00 Bartells - Fac Maint - DVD Player 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 43.79 NEEC - Online Bldg Maint Worker II - 001.000.651.519.920.490.00 225.00 PS - Main Burners 44Page: Packet Page 67 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 45 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121983 10/21/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 126.21 PS - G L Simms - Commercial Hardware 001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1,273.92 PS - Misco - Glycol & Battery Tester 001.000.651.519.920.350.00 155.09 Guardian - Old PW Security - Nov 2010 001.000.651.519.920.480.00 55.00 Water/Sewer - Coveralls3439 Water/Sewer - Coveralls 411.000.654.534.800.240.00 140.65 Water/Sewer - Coveralls 411.000.655.535.800.240.00 140.64 Fleet - Columbia Ford - USPS Return3546 Fleet - Columbia Ford - USPS Return 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 4.80 Fleet - Setcom - USPS Return Postage 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 5.24 Storm - Project - Stars 411.000.652.542.400.310.00 342.78 Fleet - Containment Solutions - Return 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 5.44 Fleet - Postage Fees - Disputed 511.000.657.548.680.420.00 4.80 Sewer - WEF Membership Annual Renewal 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 110.00 Total :2,688.36 121984 10/21/2010 062693 US BANK 6045 Click2Mail for SW Edmonds Click2Mail for SW Edmonds 001.000.620.558.600.490.00 1,566.45 Hanna Instrument Buffer Solution for 001.000.620.558.800.310.00 29.03 Total :1,595.48 121985 10/21/2010 062693 US BANK 8669 CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS 45Page: Packet Page 68 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 46 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121985 10/21/2010 (Continued)062693 US BANK GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES: BAR EXTENSION, MAT 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 283.75 FRAMING JOB 117.100.640.573.100.490.00 145.30 BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY TESTER COURSE FOR 001.000.640.576.800.490.00 1,350.00 BAR CABLE TIGHTENERS/GYMNASTICS 001.000.640.575.550.310.00 151.04 DIVING BOARD SUPPLIES 125.000.640.576.800.310.00 329.33 PAYMENT FOR ORDER 117.200.640.575.500.310.00 10.25 WRITE ON THE SOUND SUPPLIES 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 36.77 WRITE ON THE SOUND BOX LUNCHES 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 1,318.80 WRITE ON THE SOUND SUPPLIES 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 60.27 TICKET SALE 117.100.640.573.100.490.00 26.50 COFFEE FOR WOTS 117.100.640.573.100.310.00 53.00 RESERVATION FOR NATALIE GOLDBERG, 117.100.640.573.100.410.00 222.98 Total :3,987.99 121986 10/21/2010 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 0090114 utility locates utility locates 411.000.654.534.800.410.00 72.73 utility locates 411.000.655.535.800.410.00 72.73 utility locates 411.000.652.542.900.410.00 74.94 Total :220.40 46Page: Packet Page 69 of 235 10/21/2010 Voucher List City of Edmonds 47 11:29:45AM Page:vchlist Bank code :front Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount 121987 10/21/2010 073068 VALLEY BANK 10 C/A 348 OUR PROJECT C311 RETAINAGE PROSPECT CONTS. 414.000.656.594.320.650.10 3,501.54 Total :3,501.54 Bank total :745,372.10143 Vouchers for bank code :front 745,372.10Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report143 47Page: Packet Page 70 of 235 AM-3466 Item #: 2. D. City Council Meeting Date: 10/26/2010 Time:Consent Submitted By:Linda Hynd Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Donna L. Breske ($799.37). Recommendation from Mayor and Staff It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry. Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Donna L. Breske 6621 Foster Slough Road Snohomish, WA 98290 ($799.37) Attachments Breske Claim for Damages Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 10/22/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/22/2010 09:12 AM Form Started By: Linda Hynd Started On: 10/20/2010 11:02 AM Final Approval Date: 10/22/2010 Packet Page 71 of 235 Packet Page 72 of 235 Packet Page 73 of 235 AM-3473 Item #: 2. E. City Council Meeting Date: 10/26/2010 Time:Consent Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Department:Community Services Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Community Services and Economic Development Quarterly Report – October, 2010. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Information Previous Council Action N/A Narrative Please refer to the attached report. Attachments Attachment 1 - Community Services and Economic Development Quarterly Report – October, 2010 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/21/2010 11:30 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 10/22/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/22/2010 09:12 AM Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 10/21/2010 10:33 AM Final Approval Date: 10/22/2010 Packet Page 74 of 235 City of Edmonds  Community Services Date: October 22, 2010 To: Mayor Cooper and City Council members From: Stephen Clifton, AICP Community Services and Economic Development Director Subject: Community Services and Economic Development Quarterly Report – October, 2010 As requested by the City Council, this report provides an update on major projects currently worked on by staff of the Community Services and Economic Development Departments. Community Services I. EDMONDS CROSSING Project Description Edmonds Crossing is a regional project intended to provide a long-term solution to current operational and safety conflicts between ferry, rail, automobile, bus, and pedestrian traffic in downtown Edmonds and along State Route 104. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) (including Washington State Ferries [WSF]), and City of Edmonds propose to relocate the existing state ferry terminal from Main Street, in downtown Edmonds, to Pt. Edwards, south of the downtown core. In the process, a multimodal center would be established that would integrate ferry, rail, and transit services into a single complex. A realigned SR 104 from its current intersection with Pine Street would provide access. The new complex would provide an upgraded ferry terminal designed to meet the operational requirements for accommodating forecast ferry ridership demand; a new rail station designed to meet intercity passenger (Amtrak) and commuter rail (Sounder) service; a transit center that would meet local bus system and regional transit system loading requirements; facilities that allow both vehicular commuters and walk-on passengers to utilize various transportation modes; parking, drop-off areas, retail/ concessionaire space, waiting areas; and a system linking these facilities to allow for the safe movement of users. City of Edmonds Community Services Department Economic Development Department Packet Page 75 of 235 2 Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • July, August, September and October, 2010 – No significant activities. • September 29, 2010 – City of Edmonds received notification about public scoping meetings from Washington State Ferries related to the Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal project (see Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal Project under Items of Interest). II. SOUND TRANSIT (PHASE 1, AKA SOUND MOVE) Project Description During the past few years, Sound Transit has been implementing what is called the Sound Move Plan. One element calls for commuter rail services, otherwise known as Sounder. Commuter rail will eventually link Everett in the north with Seattle, Tacoma and Lakewood in the South, a total of 82 miles through three counties. Sounder is being implemented in three phases, one of which includes Everett to Seattle or the North Commuter Rail corridor. Three commuter rail stations exist along this corridor, i.e., Everett, Mukilteo and Edmonds. Everett-Seattle Sounder, at full operation, now calls for 8 trains per day, i.e., four round trips, and will include reverse trips. This is a reduction of two round trips from the originally proposed operational plan. Initial service will be phased in. The first roundtrip train run began in December, 2003. Edmonds Station is currently located between Main and Dayton Streets along both sides of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) tracks. The station area is also co-located with Amtrak’s Edmonds Passenger Station. The Sounder commuter rail station, once completed will include ADA accessible rail platforms, shelters, signage, lighting fixtures, hanging flower baskets, ticket vending machines, on-site parking, and Community Transit bus station. In an attempt to environmental enhance Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh, a culvert will be installed near the Marina Beach property beneath both BNSF Railroad tracks, concurrent with the construction of a second BNSF rail line. This will allow for the eventual daylighting of Willow Creek, if funding is available. Significant Activities since July 22, 2010 • August 13, 2010 – Sound Transit hosted a ground breaking ceremony for the Sound Transit Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. • August 18, 2010 – Sound Transit Commenced Construction. For more information about the project, please link to www.soundtransit.org/edmondsstation, or Roger Iwata, Community Outreach Corridor Lead at 206-689-4904 or roger.iwata@soundtransit.org. Packet Page 76 of 235 3 III. SOUND TRANSIT 2 Expanding the regional mass transit system On Nov. 4, 2008, voters of the Central Puget Sound region approved a Sound Transit 2 ballot measure. The plan adds regional express bus and commuter rail service while building 36 additional miles of light rail to form a 55-mile regional system. For additional information, visit http://soundtransit.org/ Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • September 23, 2010 – Sound Transit CEO Joni Earl presented the 2011 budget to the Sound Transit Board. The budget reflects significant changes in the revenue projections for the ST2 plan. As cited by Sound Transit in past articles, Sound Transit is experiencing a 25% revenue short fall as a result of the recession, and Sound Transit needs to re-set the ST2 plan. The good news is that the Snohomish and North King subareas are in better shape than S. King, Eastside and Pierce County subarea. Projects that are underway, such as the Edmonds Commuter rail station will continue to go forward as will the High Capacity Transit project to Lynnwood and Light Rail to Northgate. This was Executive Earl’s first presentation of the budget, so there may be changes as Sound Transit moves through the budget process which should conclude in December, 2010. I have posed the following three questions to Sound Transit and I’m waiting for a response: 1. Is it true that any cuts to ST2 will not have an effect on ST1 Sound Move projects, i.e., Sound Transit intends to complete of the Sound Transit Edmonds Station east platform and associated amenities. 2. Has the Sound Transit Board rendered a decision to cut funding for project N23A, i.e., expansion of a completed ST1 Sound Move Edmonds Sound Transit Commuter Rail Station? 3. Is Sound Transit still interested in presenting an update to the Edmonds City Council? • September 23, 2010 – I attended a Sound Transit North Link Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting in Shoreline. The PAC is providing and coordinating higher-level policy perspective and guidance for the Sound Transit North Link light rail project. Discussions relate to light rail alternatives, alignment, number of stations, outreach, etc. IV. UNOCAL AKA CHEVRON SITE CLEANUP Project Description The UNOCAL property currently consists of a lower yard which currently contains petroleum contamination resulting from more than 60 years of operation. Chevron, which acquired Packet Page 77 of 235 4 UNOCAL, is now the entity responsible for cleaning up the site. Cleanup work at the lower yard, which began in 2007, is a continuation of remediation work that has been ongoing at the site since 2001. Chevron conducted the following work from summer 2007 through fall 2008: • Excavated soil with metals contamination exceeding Washington State Department of Ecology standards in order to protect against direct contact with the soil (such as ingestion) and impacts to the groundwater. • Excavated soil with petroleum contamination exceeding safe levels for direct contact. Excavation of this soil was for protection of groundwater and surface water. • Excavated contaminated sediment in Willow Creek, on the northern edge of the site. The primary excavation work at the lower yard (including the Willow Creek area) was complete by September 2008. Over 140,000 tons of contaminated soil and 9,000 gallons of petroleum product have been removed from the site. The lower yard site has been re- graded and reseeded. The Willow Creek area has been re-planted with native vegetation. Significant Activities since July 22, 2010 • July, August, September and October, 2010 – Monitoring of the site continues. V. EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT Overview The City Council, pursuant to state law, approved the formation of the Public Facilities District (PFD) at its April 24, 2001 meeting. A PFD is a separate municipal corporation that has authority to undertake the design, construction, operation, promotion and financing of a Regional Center in the city. The Public Facilities District board consists of five members originally appointed by the City Council on June 19, 2001. Phase 1A renovation of the original Edmonds High School Auditorium into a first class Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) and multipurpose facility was completed in September of 2006. Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • September, 2010 – Edmonds Center for the Arts 2010-2011 season is now underway. For information, see http://ec4arts.org/index. VI. SNOHOMISH COUNTY PAINE FIELD Overview On July 14, 2004, a Mead & Hunt Inc. Business Travel Survey was issued which focused on the market potential and options for Paine Field. On August 20, 2004, a Snohomish County Citizen Cabinet issued an Economic Development Final Report -Blueprint for the Economic Future of Snohomish County. Both reports put Paine Field in the regional spotlight as they highlight the possibility of using Paine Field for commercial aircraft operations, thus changing its general aviation status. Packet Page 78 of 235 5 Although Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon and some County Council members have said they do not support commercial air service at Paine Field, federal law obligates the county to accommodate commercial service. Federal law does not allow the county to prohibit or limit scheduled passenger air service. Instead, it requires that the county negotiate with the airlines in good faith to accommodate their proposed service. Horizon Airlines has indicated it wants to operate four times a day to Portland and twice per day to Spokane, using 75-seat Bombardier Q400 turboprop airplanes on both routes. Allegiant has said it plans to operate twice a week to Las Vegas, using 150-seat MD83 jet aircraft. Before airlines may begin commercial service, the FAA must amend the county’s operating certificate for Paine Field as well as the airlines’ operating specifications. The county was required to prepare an environmental assessment for FAA approval before those amendments can occur. Key points of the draft environmental assessment include: 1. Considering all current aircraft operations (take offs and landings) at Paine Field. 2. Traffic mitigation. 3. Emissions affecting air quality. The draft environmental assessment is available for review at the airport office, on the Paine Field Web site http://www.painefield.com/airserviceea.html, at www.snoco.org/departments/airport and also in local public libraries. Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • August, 2010 – Peter Camp with Executive Reardon’s office reported to the Snohomish County Council that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) settled on a format for responding to 800 plus comments (includes City of Edmonds) during an environmental review public comment period. Specifically, the FAA decided to respond to the questions/comments regarding analysis of a greater level of air service with an answer that looks at the hypothetical level of service contained in the Hirsch report, which is appendix K to the draft environmental analysis. The County feels that analysis of a greater level of service than that projected by Horizon Airline and Allegiant Airline benefits the entire community, whether proponents or opponents of commercial air service. The FAA is adamant, however, that it is only required to examine the level of service projected by the airlines. Nevertheless, the FAA will respond to the questions by looking at a hypothetical higher level of service as defined by the Hirsch Report. A scope of work for an amendment to the contract with Bernard Dunkelberg has been agreed with the FAA and Bernard Dunkelberg has priced the work. Following standard FAA protocol, that price is now being vetted by another consultant. The County Council anticipates FAA grant money to cover the cost of the additional work described above. The FAA currently expects to makes its environmental determination in the first quarter of 2011 Packet Page 79 of 235 6 VII. RAILROAD QUIET ZONE Overview As discussed on a few occasions, there is an expressed desire of the City Council and Port of Edmonds to establish a full or partial quite zone along the City's shoreline. A quiet zone is a section of rail line that contains one or more consecutive public crossings at which locomotive horns are not routinely sounded. Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • July, August, September and October 29, 2010 – No new information at this time. VIII. CITY OF EDMONDS / COMCAST FRANCHISE AGREEMENT Overview On July 14, 2008, the City of Edmonds received a letter dated October 22, 2008 from Stan Finley, Comcast Director of Franchising and Government Affairs (Exhibit 2) regarding renewal of the existing franchise agreement. While Comcast is asking to reach a mutually satisfactorily agreement through an informal negotiation process pursuant to Section 626 of the 1984 Cable Act, the second paragraph of the Comcast letter also states “to preserve our statutory rights to this formal procedure, this letter is our official notice to you invoking that provision.” With a record of successfully negotiating Verizon franchise agreements, several members of the North Puget Sound Consortium wish to form a new Consortium for the purposes of negotiating franchise agreements with Comcast. Jurisdictions which have been invited to participate include: Snohomish County, the Cities of Bothell, Carnation, Edmonds, Kenmore, Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island, Shoreline, Woodinville, and the Town of Woodway. Benefits of a coordinated effort include: ensuring that the public receives the maximum rights and benefits from their respective franchise agreements; better coordination of negotiations with Comcast; sharing the costs of negotiations including hiring a national consultant and attorneys to assure the citizens of each jurisdiction that their franchise is competitive, both locally and nationally; and creating a common template and negotiation strategy through the assistance of a national consultant and attorneys to maximize leverage during the negotiations. Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • July, August, September and October, 2010 – The North Puget Sound Consortium agreement template has been prepared and Ogden Murphy Wallace will be reviewing the agreement with their clients (includes the City of Edmonds). I will be discussing with Ogden Murphy Wallace whether the City will need to utilize River Oaks Communications to help tailor the Comcast Franchise to meet the needs of Edmonds. A more narrowly focused review by me and the City Attorney of the draft template will begin soon. Packet Page 80 of 235 7 Economic Development I. PARTNERSHIPS Goal 1, Policy 1a of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan is to promote a results- oriented permit and licensing process, which consolidates review timelines, eliminates unnecessary steps, and maintains a strong customer service approach. Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • July, August, September and October, 2010 – No new information at this time. • September 2, 2010 – City staff has used two recent opportunities to conduct a pre- submission conference on a test case basis with potential business owners looking to open, relocate or expand a business. The purpose of these meetings is to offer an applicant the ability to meet with City staff early in the process prior to a business owner/developer making decisions about a particular location. Two potential applicants found these meetings to be quite helpful. Goal 1 of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: ”foster a healthy business community that provides employment and other economic opportunities.” Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • September 2, 2010 – See comments under September 2, 1010, Goal 1, Policy 1a Economic Development Commission Overview On June 2, 2009 – The City Council approved Ordinance 3735 which creates a new Citizens Economic Development Commission (EDC) in order to determine new strategies for economic development within the City and identify new sources of revenues. In conjunction with the Planning Board, the new commission is to review and consider strategies designed to improve commercial viability, tourism development, and activity. The ED Commission consists of 17 members appointed by Mayor Gary Haakenson and the City Council. The commission is staffed by the City’s Economic Development Director. The Commission will make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council, as well as to other City boards or commissions as appropriate, regarding economic development strategies. The commission will provide an annual report to the Council in December of every year. The commission is scheduled to end on December 31, 2010. Minutes from monthly meetings (once approved by the Edmonds EDC) can be found at http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/EconDevMinutes.stm. Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • August 3, 2010 – Mike Carter, CEO of Stevens Hospital, and Cal Knight, CEO of Swedish Hospital, attended Edmonds City Council meeting to present an update on the Stevens/Swedish affiliation. This meeting served as an opportunity for Stevens and Swedish representatives to communicate directly with the City Council and Packet Page 81 of 235 8 indirectly with Edmonds’ residents who watch Edmonds City Council meetings on the City’s government • August 3, 2010 – The City Council voted 6-1 to authorize City staff to initiate necessary professional services agreements with the University of Washington in order to proceed with implementing special district plans for the Five Corners and Westgate Neighborhood Centers (initially recommended by the Edmonds Economic Development Commission and subsequently supported by City Council Resolution 1224). Although necessary funding was authorized for most of the study, the City Council requested additional information be provided at a later City Council meeting regarding how much it might cost to perform a market analysis for each commercial area. • August 18, 2010 – The Edmonds Economic Development Commission conducted a meeting in the Brackett Meeting Room. The Strategic Planning and Visioning; Technology; Land Use; and Tourism sub groups all presented updates. Additional topics discussed included a year-round farmer’s market, and extending the sunset date of the Economic Development Commission. • August 24, 2010 – The City Council voted 6-1 to allocate $10,000 from the salary savings of the vacant Development Services Director position to pay for a market study tied to special district plans for the Five Corners Neighborhood and Westgate Commercial centers. • September 15, 2010 – The Edmonds Economic Development Commission conducted a meeting in the Brackett Meeting Room. The Strategic Planning and Visioning; Technology; Land Use; and Tourism sub groups all presented updates. Additional topics discussed included a Green Business Partners Program, Community Outreach, and Climate Solutions. • October 20, 2010 – The Edmonds Economic Development Commission conducted a meeting in the Brackett Meeting Room. The Strategic Planning and Visioning; Technology; Land Use; and Tourism sub groups all presented updates. Additional items included: an update from the Port of Edmonds Executive Director regarding the Harbor Square Master Planning Process; an update from Jill Sterrett, Affiliate Instructor with the UW Dept. of Urban Design & Planning, and University of Washington students, about special district planning efforts related to the Five Corners and Westgate Neighborhood Centers; and Strategic Planning funding. Goal 1, Policy 1f of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: ”Continue to partner with business and economic development organizations, and address feedback from the business community.” Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • July, August, September and October, 2010 – I continue to attend monthly Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee meetings and Downtown Packet Page 82 of 235 9 Edmonds Merchants Association (DEMA) meetings in order to share information about City issues and hear about Chamber and DEMA issues/concerns. II. BUSINESS EXPANSION, RETENTION, AND DIVERSIFICATION OF TAX BASE Goal 1, Policy 1c of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Encourage and expand business expansion and retention programs. Goal 3 calls for diversifying the tax base and increasing revenues to support local services.” Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • July, August, September and October, 2010 – I continued working with property and business owners in attempts to help find leaseable space and relocate existing businesses, in addition to discussing potential leasing and redevelopment of buildings and land. Some of the recently proposed, retained or expanded businesses include:  Bill The Butcher (new downtown business)  Cline Jewelry (existing Hwy 99 business - expanding to downtown)  Gallagher’s U-Brew (retention and relocation to the Port of Edmonds)  Saetia (new downtown business)  Carvan Kabab’s (new Firdale Village Business)  Demetri’s Woodstone Taverna (new downtown/waterfront business)  Dick’s Drive In (recruitment – new Highway 99 business) Goal 2, Policy 2i of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Create synergy for commercial businesses where possible, for example, by implementing a “retail core” area in the downtown.” Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • October, 2010 – Frank Yamamoto’s and my communications with Jonathan Mayo resulted in Mr. Mayo agreeing to lease the space for retail use at 315 Main Street (northwest corner of 4th Avenue and Main Street), about the future of Edmonds’ downtown (see Bill The Butcher under Goal 1, Policy 1c). The existing Rapid Refill space next to Starbucks on 5th Avenue is also being leased for retail purposes (See Cline Jewelry under Goal 1, Policy 1c). III. IMPROVING BUSINESS CLIMATE Goal 2, Policy 2e of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “explore options such as Business Improvement Districts/Areas (special assessment districts) as a way to help shopping areas fund marketing and beautification in a sustainable fashion. Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • July, August, September and October, 2010 – Representatives from the City of Edmonds and Greater Edmonds Chamber of Commerce Downtown Edmonds Merchants Packet Page 83 of 235 10 Association (DEMA)continued to meet and discuss the possibility of establishing a Downtown Edmonds Business Improvement District (BID). • September 20, 2010 – The DEMA BID Committee met with Brian Douglas Scott Planning and Urban Design to discuss the status of DEMA BID Committee efforts to date. The meeting offered an opportunity for Mr. Scott to share his views on the DEMA BID progress as well as BID Committee members to ask questions about the overall BID process. Goal 2, Policy 2h of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Work to identify and “brand” distinct business districts, where there is a natural synergy, such as the Highway 99 International District, the Stevens Hospital Medical Corridor, and the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor.” Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • July, August, September and October, 2010 – Highway 99 Enhancement Project - includes adding street lighting fixtures and artwork along the portion of Highway 99 passing through the International District. Light fixtures have been delivered to the City of Edmonds. City staff is preparing documents in preparation of soliciting bids in December of 2010. • July, August, September and October, 2010 – Frances Chapin continues to work on wayfinding signage opportunities including kiosks and locator signs. Additionally, public parking signs, utilizing the universal parking symbol, have been installed at various locations within the downtown area to direct visitors to public parking areas. Small directional signs to the Edmonds Center for Arts and Public Safety Complex have been installed, as well as the first flower pole in front of Olive’s Restaurant on 5th Avenue North; each flower pole will eventually be embellished with artistic elements to make each unique. IV. TECHNOLOGY Goal 3, Policy 3b of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Leverage technology assets, such as existing fiber connections, to pursue new revenue streams.” Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • July, August, September and October, 2010 – The Economic Development and Community Services staff continue to meet monthly with the City’s Community Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC) regarding existing technology assets, e.g., fiber and communications equipment. • August 24, 2010 - The Economic Development Commission Technology subgroup and CTAC members presented a report which outlined the history of CTAC and Fiber initiative; supporting documents included financial information related to expenditures, cost savings, and future revenue. The documents, which helped to provide the public with a better understanding of the overall Fiber Initiative process, should also help provide a base line upon which we can provide future reports and updates. Packet Page 84 of 235 11 • October 20, 2010 – City Staff issued a RFQ to solicit web designers for the purposes updating the City of Edmonds’s website. V. TOURISM Goal 3, Policy 3g of the Edmonds Economic Development Plan states: “Expand tourism efforts to take advantage of regional trends, such as nature tourism.” Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • July, August, September and October, 2010 – The Economic Development Commission Tourism Subgroup has been meeting to discuss tourism development. Items of Interest  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) In March of 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced plans to invest $3.2 billion in energy efficiency and conservation projects in U.S. cities, counties, states, territories, and Native American tribes. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program, funded by President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, will provide formula grants for projects that reduce total energy use and fossil fuel emissions, and improve energy efficiency nationwide. The City of Edmonds received notification that it is eligible for a $160,200 block grant under the EECBG program. The City has until June 25, 2009 to submit an application, i.e., "claim" the grant amount, and 18 months to obligate and three years to expend the funds. This is an entitlement grant for cities over 35,000 in population, rather than a competitive grant. City staff conducted several meetings to discuss possible projects or programs that might be eligible for this type of funding and have developed a preliminary list; these projects are considered short term. City staff also participated in a DOE webcast to learn about application submittal procedures and how the funds can be used. In addition to the above, I contacted other entities such as the Port of Edmonds, Puget Sound Energy, Snohomish County PUD, Edmonds School District and Stevens Hospital, to find out whether they might have projects which are small in scale but could be included in our grant application under a partnership proposal. We are not looking to expend the grant money on a single project, and we have already identified more than enough City of Edmonds projects to expend all of the grant money (several times over). I requested representatives from these entities to share whether they have a project that (1) would have benefits for the entire community, (2) could be small enough in terms of cost to fit within an overall multi-project application, and (3) would have measurable, identifiable results. Examples of projects we are considering include energy-efficient equipment retrofits, vehicle replacement, traffic signal timing, energy Packet Page 85 of 235 12 code training and information programs, and software that can turn off electronic equipment during late night non-working hours. The second reason I contact these entities is to explore opportunities for partnering on projects that may go beyond the funding available in this first round of block grants. US-DOE has indicated that there will be a "competitive round" of grants available, although details have not been established. We believe that grant applications emphasizing partnering on a community or regional level will be what DOE is looking for, especially those that have long-term effects and can serve as "demonstration projects" for others to access. Announcement of the EECBG opportunity was shared with, and a proposed project list was also reviewed by, the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee. On September 22, 2009, the City was notified that the Department of Energy has awarded an Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant to the City of Edmonds. The award is the full amount referenced in the March 2009 eligibility announcement ($160,200). The funds will be used for the following six different projects. Announcement of the EECBG opportunity was shared with, and the attached proposed project list was also reviewed by, the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee. Project 1 - PC Energy Management (federal funds) Purchase and install energy management software for City computers (PC's). Enables automatic shut-down and management of upgrades. The cost covered under the grant is for the purchase of the software and licenses to cover computer workstations throughout City government, linked by network at several building sites. Project 2 - Network Server Energy Upgrades – (federal funds) Purchase and install energy-efficient PC network servers, replacing old servers still in use. Estimated project cost should enable four (4) servers to be replaced. Existing servers will be taken out of service, thereby reducing overall energy usage. Project 3 - Residential & Commercial Energy Meters (federal and local non-federal funds) Purchase energy meters to support residential and commercial energy monitoring, partnering with ongoing programs operated by local utilities. Establish public information plan, coordinated with the utilities, which provides educational resources and web-based support. The meters would be available for loan to private citizens or businesses to help monitor and assess energy needs, encouraging conservation and energy reduction. This program will consist of two components: (1) the purchase of home energy meters for loan to residential households and businesses within the city, and (2) website development to promote the meter program and enable homeowners to log their experiences and energy savings, and to encourage others to participate and ultimately save energy. Packet Page 86 of 235 13 Two types of meters will be purchased, which can be loaned out as a “set.” One meter will be similar to a simple plug-in meter (e.g. the P3 International Kill A Watt EZ Electricity Usage Monitor) which allows monitoring of appliance energy consumption. The second type of meter (e.g. PowerCost Home Electricity Monitor) is a unit that will interface with the home electric utility meter, allowing monitoring of overall electrical energy used in the home. In tandem, these will allow homeowners to monitor and potentially reduce overall energy usage. The meters will be loaned out free of charge, for a defined time period, with information on usage and savings to be reported as feedback to help assess the benefits of the program. The second part of the program is an enhancement to the City’s website to promote and provide for online reporting and feedback on the effectiveness of the program. Privacy will be afforded users, but reporting will be required of residents choosing to participate in the program so as to provide some measurement of effectiveness. Project 4 - Heating System Design and Feasibility Study (federal funds) A consultant will be hired to perform an analysis and feasibility study to replace the Frances Anderson Cultural Center (a heavily used community center) steam boiler heating system with ground source heat pumps or an alternative energy- efficient heating source. The existing system is old and highly inefficient. However, because of the size and complexity of the building and its systems, the City needs to conduct an assessment and feasibility study to evaluate different energy-efficient alternatives before considering replacement of the existing system. Project 5 - Purchase Hybrid Vehicles – (federal and local non-federal funds) The City would purchase up to seven (7) hybrid vehicles to replace existing low- efficiency City vehicles. EECBG funds can only be used to fund the delta between the cost of a hybrid vehicle (or Alternative Fuel Vehicle – AFV) and the cost of a non-hybrid vehicle (or non-AFV). Existing mid-size cars and trucks/pickups would be replaced with small hybrid cars and hybrid utility vehicles (SUV’s). The average fuel efficiency of the existing vehicles ranges from 8 to 22 MPG while the new hybrid replacements provide between 32 and 50 MPG. When purchasing vehicles, the City uses Washington State contracting procedures and contract listing prices. According to the State of Washington Current Contract Information, there are two types of small sedan AFV vehicles available and one small SUV AFV vehicle available for purchase using this process. Note: It is possible that the City may consider the purchase of an electric police scooter and/or other electric sedan(s) in lieu of one or more of the hybrid vehicles identified above as technology and availability improves. This is Packet Page 87 of 235 14 dependant on availability and pricing within the required 3-year expenditure window. Project 6 - Low-Energy Lighting Retrofit – (federal funds) Existing exterior lighting of the outdoor work yard at the Public Works facility is provided by traditional, inefficient 150-watt high pressure sodium fixtures. Based on discussions with the electrical utility provider (Snohomish PUD), the City has determined that energy and cost savings are possible if the existing lights are replaced with low-energy lumen-equivalent lights, such as LED fixtures. This project would complement ongoing City efforts to replace existing lighting fixtures with more energy efficient lights. Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • July, August, September and October, 2010 – No new information at this time.  Burlington Northern Santa Fe – Installation of Second Rail Line As a part of the Sound Transit’s Sound Move, Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) will be installing a second rail line alongside the existing rail line between the areas north of Downtown Edmonds and south of Marina Beach Park. During a meeting with Sound Transit earlier this year, BNSF presented a plan depicting what BNSF believes to be the final alignment and realignment of the second and existing rail lines respectively. The plan depicts Port of Edmonds and City of Edmonds leased areas in addition to what portions of the leased areas BNSF intends to take back from both entities as a result of the above mentioned activities. Upon reviewing the plan, City staff requested that BNSF survey and stake/mark in the field where the fencing (west side of tracks) is to be located. The City and Port of Edmonds submitted this request in order to begin assessing future impacts, and planning for post installation/realignment of the rail lines. As expressed on a number of occasions to BNSF, the City and Port are concerned about potential impacts related to realignment and installation of BNSF rail lines. We are equally concerned about the amount of time the City and Port may have to react to any decision(s) made by BNSF and the potential financial impacts to our budgets. Depending on the magnitude of BNSF construction related impacts, the City and Port of Edmonds may not have the staffing and financial resources to mitigate the impacts. The City has asked BNSF representatives if they have a mitigation fund set aside to mitigate adverse impacts. To date, we have not heard back from BNSF. Based on BNSF engineering plans and field stakes, there will be impacts to Admiral Way and Marina Beach Park. As mentioned in the 2010 Community Services and Economic Development Quarterly Reports, the City secured the services of an engineering firm in order to fully determine the impact and possibly design a new Admiral Way alignment that will maintain access to Marina Beach Park, Port of Edmonds and existing parking areas (see Significant Activities below). Regarding a timeline related to the installation of a BNSF second rail line, BNSF has begun grading south of Dayton Street and the installation and relocation of the existing Packet Page 88 of 235 15 and second rail lines respectively, could begin sometime in 2011 and 2012. This being said, I am trying to obtain a definitive date as to when installation of the second rail line. Significant Activities Since July 22, 2010 • September 15, 2010 - I contacted Walt Smith at BNSF as a follow-up to a March 5, 2010 phone conversation, during which, I requested a clearer picture on the timing of when installation of the second rail line would begin, both south and north of Dayton Street. In March, BNSF mentioned that they are working to better understand their workload and get things prioritized and that BNSF is working with State representatives to help define the status of various projects; this ties somewhat to federal stimulus funding. Additionally, depending on how much the State receives, this could influence project priorities. On September 16, 2010, Mr. Smith responded “As you are aware, we are building the grade now, however since we are still negotiating with WSDOT on other projects, the construction schedule for the track is yet undetermined. Since it appears the negotiations will be lengthy I would suggest that you touch base with me again in about the end of November.” I will contact BNSF in November, 2010. • September and October, 2010 – BNSF has been installing culverts beneath the existing rail line and a future second rail line near Marina Beach Park and off leash area. The culverts, financed by Sound Transit, will allow for the eventual daylighting of Willow Creek.  Washington State Ferries (WSF) Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal Project WSF and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are evaluating concepts to replace or relocate the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal. The environmental process for this project was re- initiated in February 2010 after being on hold since 2007, due to funding and constructability issues associated with previously identified alternatives. As referenced in the July Community Services Economic Development Quarterly Report, as part of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process, the City provided responses on May 26, 2010 to two concepts being considered as alternatives to the Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal, i.e., the existing Edmonds Ferry Terminal Concept at Main Street (no proposed improvements at that time), and the Point Edwards Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Concepts. The concepts, which are two of several, were initially discussed at Mukilteo City Hall in May of 2010. At that time, the WSF proposed Edmonds Ferry Terminal Concept assumed that the present single-slip ferry terminal would be maintained at its existing Main Street location in downtown Edmonds and that the slip would continue to maintain service to Kingston. As part of the process to identify alternatives to be studied in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Mukilteo Multimodal Project, a project team has developed concepts to be evaluated through a two-level screening process. Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal Concepts and documents describing the results of a two level screening Packet Page 89 of 235 16 process have been posted on the City of Edmonds’ home webpage http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/. The project team evaluated ten concepts in the screening process. These concepts, which are described within the document Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions (WSF, September 2010), are listed below and grouped geographically. NOTE: The concepts have been posted on the home page of the City’s website. Existing Mukilteo Terminal • No Build • Existing Site Improvements Elliot Point • Elliot Point – Option 1 • Elliot Point – Option 2 • Elliot Point – Option 3 • Mount Baker Terminal Edmonds • Edmonds - Existing Terminal • Edmonds – Existing Site Improvements • Edmonds – Point Edwards Everett • Port of Everett South Terminal On October 8, 2010, I received an e-mail and related attachments which include the concepts referenced above; the e-mail with attachments was forwarded to the City Council on October 12, 2010. The file titled, MMPTerminal Concept Descriptions depicts concepts being considered by Washington State Ferries. Please note that Mayor Cooper and I have significant concerns about the proposed Existing Main Street Concept, and Existing Main Street Concept With Improvements (see pages 31-33 of 41 pages). During the above referenced May, 2010 meeting, the WSF proposed Edmonds Ferry Terminal Concept assumed that the present single-slip ferry terminal would be maintained at its existing Main Street location in downtown Edmonds and that the slip would continue to maintain service to Kingston. The most recent Existing Main Street Concept With Improvements was not reviewed or discussed with me or other City staff prior to WSF proposing the concept that was reviewed by a project team on September 29, 2010. Upon review of both proposed Concepts located within the City of Edmonds, Mayor Cooper and City staff do not support the Existing Main Street Concept for reasons cited within the attached May 26, 2010 e-mail (this is not an all inclusive list). Regarding the recently proposed Existing Main Street Concept With Improvements, we also do not support this alternative for many reasons, some of which include the following: Packet Page 90 of 235 17 1) Widening and expansion of the existing holding/storage area west of the existing railroad tracks and Railroad Avenue will have significant adverse environmental impacts: a. Significantly and adversely affects Brackett’s Landing North Park and the Underwater Dive Park by encroaching into these areas b. Massive overwater storage area between Brackett’s Landing North and South Parks i. Includes new fill into the Underwater Dive Park ii. Significant lighting impacts iii. Significant impacts to view/aesthetics iv. Impacts to microalgae and eelgrass beds 2) The addition of a ferry slip at Main Street 3) Closure of Main Street west of Sunset to local traffic 4) Loss of access to Brackett’s Landing North via Main Street 5) Retention of an at grade crossing at Main Street will increase conflicts between train and ferry operations, particularly with the potential addition of 17 boats per day. The volume of ferry traffic will rise significantly by adding a new route by reassigning the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route, and in the absence of grade separation, an increase in accidents is likely. The rise in traffic volume will also significantly effect travel along SR 104. 6) The creation of massive parking and storage area(s) between Dayton and Main Streets a. Significant lighting impacts b. Significant loss of connectivity between waterfront area and downtown c. Questionable traffic flow through this area 7) Use of the Old Safeway and Skippers properties for the use of storing/holding vehicles would result in the loss of revenue generating property City staff will be providing a response to the most recent WSF proposed concepts by the November 19, 2010 public comment deadline. NOTE: WSF held public scoping meetings in Mukilteo and Whidbey Island on Oct. 12, 13, and an on-line meeting was held on October 14. A public meeting within the City of Edmonds will be held on October 27, 2010 in the Edmonds City Council Chamber from 5 – 6:30 p.m. To participate in a public meeting and to learn more about the project, please visit the project webpage at www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/ferries/mukilteoterminal/multimodal/. Public meetings notices have been posted on the City’s website and government channel. Packet Page 91 of 235 AM-3461 Item #: 2. F. City Council Meeting Date: 10/26/2010 Time:Consent Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Interlocal Agreement with the Snohomish Conservation District. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement, as well as authorizing up to $7,500 towards the costs of the Snohomish Conservation District providing services beyond what the current assessment will cover by putting on workshops, seminars or engineering support on a variety of issues related to stormwater and natural resource protection including Low Impact Development techniques for stormwater management. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The Snohomish Conservation District (SCD) is a political sub-division of state government that has been working with farmers and landowners since 1941. District boundaries include Camano Island (added in 1961) and most of Snohomish County. Since the SCD was formed in 1941, the area of Edmonds that was part of the County in that year can receive services from the SCD (all except the downtown area). SCD received approval for an assessment of $5 per parcel and $.05 per acre for five years, beginning in 2010. The mission of the SCD is to work cooperatively with others to promote and encourage conservation and responsible use of natural resources. This ILA provides a mechanism for the SCD to provide services directly to Edmonds residents and to provide assistance to Edmonds staff on an as-needed basis. One of areas that Staff feels the SCD can provide assistance is the area of Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater Management. LID is an alternative approach to stormwater management that is encouraged in the City’s new stormwater code. Instead of the typical ponds and storm drains which carry untreated runoff to our local streams and eventually Lake Ballinger and Puget Sound, these practices aim to mimic natural conditions and deal with the water on-site, close to where it originates. LID practices focus on slowing and infiltrating the runoff, allowing the soils and plants to treat and filter the water as it makes its way to ground water and surface waters. Some examples of LID are rain gardens, permeable paving, rain water collection, green roofs (vegetated roofs), and amended soil (healthy soil with lots of organic matter which acts like a sponge to soak up rain water). SCD can provide education, outreach, and technical assistance on LID for homeowners, designers, engineers and contractors on LID issues. Packet Page 92 of 235 In addition, SCD offers: • Classes and workshops • Engineering assistance • Stream and wetland restoration • Volunteer opportunities • An annual Conservation Plant Sale • Educational opportunities • Internships The ILA has been approved as to form by the City Attorney’s office. Fiscal Impact A maximum of $7,500 per year over the life of the agreement (currently expires December 31, 2015) is recommended. The City’s funding will be used to enhance the services provided by SCD in Edmonds related to public outreach and education on LID and stormwater issues. The ILA provides a cost-efficient way to provide these services to Edmonds residents and will be funded by the City’s stormwater utility fund. Attachments Exhibit 1-Interlocal Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 10/21/2010 02:56 PM Public Works Phil Williams 10/21/2010 03:04 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/21/2010 04:52 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 10/22/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/22/2010 09:12 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 10/19/2010 10:52 AM Final Approval Date: 10/22/2010 Packet Page 93 of 235 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 1, 2010 - December 31, 2015 Page 1 of 8 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 1, 2010 – December 31, 2015 This Interlocal Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement") is entered into by and between the City of Edmonds (hereinafter "City"), a political subdivision of the State of Washington, and the Snohomish Conservation District (hereinafter "District"), a Washington municipal corporation established pursuant to Chapter 89.08 RCW. WHEREAS, the District was established pursuant to Chapter 89.08 RCW to undertake a variety of activities relating to the conservation, management, and sustainability of natural resources; and WHEREAS, the District and City are authorized pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, to enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action; and WHEREAS, for over 60 years the District has assisted landowners and local governments as they face resource management challenges relating to water quality and other natural resource issues; and WHEREAS, increasing demands for resource management programs, resulting from more stringent regulations, urban development pressures, and public interest and awareness, has put a strain on both District and City financial resources; and Packet Page 94 of 235 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 1, 2010 - December 31, 2015 Page 2 of 8 WHEREAS, the District has outlined long term goals and objectives in its Long Range Plan; and WHEREAS, the City shares responsibility for conserving and managing the City’s natural resources; and WHEREAS, the District and City support and concur in the need to continually refine and coordinate their long and short term goals, objectives, and programs for managing and conserving the City’s natural resources; and WHEREAS, the revenue from special assessments imposed by Snohomish County (County) pursuant to RCW 89.08.400 will allow the District to work in partnership with the City to obtain grant funding and support the County and the City in addressing requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing of salmon species, and other natural resource protection requirements and needs; NOW, THEREFORE, the District and City mutually agree as follows: I. PURPOSE A. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by this reference. B. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish and define the terms and conditions for the cooperative efforts to be undertaken by the City and the District to promote, facilitate, and undertake certain conservation programs and activities. C. This Agreement shall be implemented through an annual scope of work as provided in Articles IV and V. II. DURATION OF AGREEMENT A. This Agreement shall commence November 1, 2010, and terminate December 31, 2015, unless otherwise modified or terminated in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Packet Page 95 of 235 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 1, 2010 - December 31, 2015 Page 3 of 8 B. The activities described in Appendix 1-2010 that are performed after November 1, 2010, shall be eligible for funding under this Agreement. III. FUNDING Funds for the resource management and conservation programs provided for in this Agreement shall be from the City. The District and City shall endeavor to seek and obtain, whenever possible, grants and other external funding sources to support the projects included in the programs. IV. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DISTRICT A. Scope of Work This Agreement shall be implemented through a scope of work. The City and District shall negotiate a scope of work and budget for each year of this Agreement, which scope of work and budget will coordinate and describe the conservation programs and activities to be undertaken using funds from the City. The first annual scope of work and budget will be set out in Appendix 1-2010 to this document, as described in Section IV.B . Subsequent annual scope of work and budget will be attached to this Agreement labeled as Appendix 1-2011 (or subsequent year). B. Future Scope of Work On or before December 1 of each year, the District will submit to the City, through the Public Works Director, a proposed annual scope of work and budget that describes the District’s conservation programs and activities proposed to be undertaken by the District with funds obtained from the City in the succeeding year. The scope of work will be coordinated with City conservation programs and activities. The District shall actively involve constituents and partners in the development of proposed scope of work. C. Program Reporting On or before January 31of each year, the District shall prepare and submit to the City, through the Public Works Director, an annual report which shall summarize the work performed and expenditures incurred during the preceding year for funding Packet Page 96 of 235 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 1, 2010 - December 31, 2015 Page 4 of 8 provided by the City and evaluate the performance and results of the work performed. The reports shall also include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. A description of work performed during the period and progress made to date. 2. A description of any adverse conditions that affected the program objectives and/or time schedules, and actions taken to resolve them. V. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY A. Cooperation with the District The City shall assist the District in a timely manner in the preparation, review, and modification of the scope of work, including accommodation of sensitive District timelines and assistance in identifying and making plan modifications that are reasonably consistent with the mission and goals of the District. B. Payment of Billing Requests The City shall provide quick payment of billing requests submitted by the District for work activities and expenditures identified by the agreed to scope of work and budget. VI. ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the City and the District and supersedes all proposals, oral and written, and all other communication between the parties in relation to the subject matter of this Agreement. No other agreement exists between the City and the District with regards to the instant subject matter except as expressly set forth in this instrument. Except as otherwise provided herein, no modification of this Agreement shall be effective until reduced to writing and executed by both parties. VII. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS The District shall maintain all books, documents, receipts, invoices, and records, including payroll records, necessary to sufficiently and properly reflect the expenditures associated with this Agreement. The accounting records shall provide for a separate Packet Page 97 of 235 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 1, 2010 - December 31, 2015 Page 5 of 8 recording and reporting of all receipts and expenditures. Financial records pertaining to matters authorized by this Agreement are subject to inspection and audit by representatives of City or the State Auditor upon request. VIII. AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS OF PROGRAM EXPENDITURES A. Changes in Approved Projects or Program Activities The City, through the Public Works Director, must approve the removal of projects of program activities or adding new ones for scope of work. B. Delays Spending for some projects or program activities may be delayed because of extended timeframes for obtaining supporting grant funds, holdups in the permit review/approval processes, or other unforeseen circumstances. Variations in the scope of work or budget for these reasons shall be documented between the District and the City. IX. PROPERTY Title to property purchased by the District in carrying out the scope of work shall vest in the District. X. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Notice Except as set forth elsewhere in this Agreement, notice for purposes of this Agreement, except service of process, shall be given by the District to the City by delivery to the Public Works Director, 121 5th Avenue North; Edmonds, WA 98020. Notice to the District for purposes of this Agreement, except service of process, shall be given to the Chair of the Board of Supervisors of the District and to the District Manager, 528 – 91st Ave. NE. Lake Stevens, WA 98258. B. Compliance with Laws Packet Page 98 of 235 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 1, 2010 - December 31, 2015 Page 6 of 8 The District and the City shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to the performance of this Agreement. The District and the City agree to comply with all the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act and all regulations interpreting or enforcing such act. C. Indemnification The District agrees to protect, defend and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents, from and against all claims, demands and causes of action of any kind or character, including any cost of defense and attorney’s fees, arising out of any negligent actions, errors or omissions of the District, its officials, employees and agents in performing this Agreement except for those arising out of the sole negligence of the City. The City agrees to protect, defend and hold harmless the District, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents, from and against all claims, demands and causes of action of any kind or character, including any cost of defense and attorney’s fees, arising out of any negligent actions, errors or omissions of the City, its officials, employees and agents in performing this Agreement except for those arising out of the sole negligence of the District. The parties specifically promises to indemnify the other party against claims or suits brought under Title 51 RCW by its agent, employees, representatives or subcontractors and waives any immunity that each may have under that title with respect to, but only to, the other party and this indemnification provision. D. Non-assignment The District shall not subcontract, assign or delegate any of the rights, duties or obligations covered by this Agreement without prior express written consent by the City. E. Independent Contractor The District will perform the services under this Agreement as an independent contractor and not as an agent, employee, or servant of the City. The parties agree that the District is not entitled to any benefits or rights enjoyed by employees of the City. The District specifically has the right to direct and control the District’s own activities in Packet Page 99 of 235 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 1, 2010 - December 31, 2015 Page 7 of 8 implementing the scope of work in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The City shall only have the right to ensure performance. F. Interlocal Cooperation Act The parties agree that no separate legal or administrative entities are necessary in order to carry out this Agreement. If determined by a court to be necessary for purposes of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Ch. 39.34 RCW, an administrator or joint board responsible for administering the Agreement will be established by mutual agreement. Any real or personal property used by either party in connection with this Agreement will be acquired, held, and disposed of by that party in its discretion, and the other party will have no joint or other interest herein. No partnership or joint venture between the parties is created by this Agreement. XI. MISCELLANEOUS A. No obligation in this Agreement shall limit the District or the City in fulfilling its responsibilities otherwise defined by law. B. The City shall cause this Agreement to be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditor or, alternatively, to be listed by subject on a public agency's web site or other electronically retrievable public source. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the latest date written below. Packet Page 100 of 235 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT November 1, 2010 - December 31, 2015 Page 8 of 8 SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT Accepted and executed this ____ day of ________________, 2010 By: ____________________________ Mark Craven, Chair Snohomish Conservation District CITY OF EDMONDS Accepted and executed this ____ day of ________________, 2010 By: Mayor Mike Cooper ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: W. Scott Snyder Packet Page 101 of 235 AM-3462 Item #: 2. G. City Council Meeting Date: 10/26/2010 Time:Consent Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mountlake Terrace for an engineering study as part of the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Forum Capital Improvement Plan. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Authorize the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with the City of Mountlake Terrace and authorize up to $12,500 for an engineering study to develop capital improvement project description, scope, and costs for projects listed in the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Forum Capital Improvement Plan. Previous Council Action On September 7, 2010, Council approved an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) and appointed a City representative to the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum. That ILA included a capital improvement plan (CIP). This ILA begins implementation of that CIP. Narrative Lake Ballinger has experienced periodic high lake levels as a result of flooding events a number of times dating back to the mid 1940’s. More recently storm events in 1997, 2003, and 2007 caused flooding of yards, docks, and houses surrounding the lake. To address these flooding problems, the Cities of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, and Shoreline along with Snohomish County formed the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum to develop a Strategic Action Plan to address flooding, water quality and habitat preservation issues. The Strategic Action Plan was approved by the Forum and by all member jurisdictions in 2009. A CIP was developed and approved in January 2010. The CIP listed thirteen separate projects with lead agencies for each project. In the Lake Ballinger portion of the list, there are six specific projects that involve both Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace. The highest ranked projects that involve both cities are: A FEMA flood plain mapping project to revise existing flood plain maps to accurately reflect existing conditions and to develop modeling and flood plain management guidelines. The study would accurately model flow and determine flood plain elevations for Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger along with the development of modeling and floodplain management guidelines to determine the most advantageous elevation of the Lake Ballinger weir. 1. A capital project to lower the existing McAleer Creek weir to allow for the elevation of Lake Ballinger to be lowered. One proposal is to allow the lake to be lowered by 1.5 feet with the installation of a new weir foundation and dredging of the creek channel from the lake outlet to a culvert road crossing accessing the Nile Temple Clubhouse. The other proposal would be allow the lake to be lowered by 3.75 feet by dredging of the creek channel from the lake outlet to the culvert 2. Packet Page 102 of 235 under Interstate 5. This would involve reinstallation of three existing culverts and installation of a new weir structure. Either option would require readjudication of an existing Superior Court Order regarding the lake level. Also to be determined is the timing and duration of the possible lake lowering. Public input to date has suggested that lowering the lake in advance of a storm event or during the winter months may be acceptable. This ILA will be used to fund four tasks towards a better understanding of the steps needed to pursue these CIP projects: Task 1—Gather and Review Existing Data Task 2—Assess the Relationship between Lake Level, Existing Weir Performance and Capacity of the Culverts on the Nile Temple Property and at Interstate 5 Task 3—Develop Preliminary Scope and Costs for the Two Proposed CIP Projects Task 4—Report Preparation The full scope of work is shown in Exhibit 2. Fiscal Impact: As written, this ILA commits the City of Edmonds to $12,500 for the engineering study (identical to Mountlake Terrace’s contribution). This study will be funded in 2010 by the remaining balance in the 2010 CIP project “Lake Ballinger Associated projects” and partially from the 2011 CIP project budget for “Lake Ballinger Associated projects” contained in the Council-approved Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan at $100,000. Attachments Exhibit 1-Interlocal Agreement Exhibit 2-Scope of Work Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 10/20/2010 03:58 PM Public Works Phil Williams 10/21/2010 01:54 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/21/2010 01:59 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 10/22/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/22/2010 09:12 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 10/19/2010 01:43 PM Final Approval Date: 10/22/2010 Packet Page 103 of 235 {BFP824819.DOC;1\00006.900170\ } 1 FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO DEVELOP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION, SCOPE AND COSTS FOR PROJECTS LISTED IN THE LAKE BALLINGER/MCALEER CREEK FORUM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN This agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into on this day by and between the City of Mountlake Terrace (“Mountlake Terrace”), a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, and the City of Edmonds (“Edmonds”), a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as parties to this agreement. WHEREAS, Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds have in the past cooperatively shared responsibility for the effects of stormwater runoff in the Lake Ballinger Basin; and WHEREAS, property owners on the shore of Lake Ballinger have experienced flooding of their docks and yards; and WHEREAS, Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds have participated as member jurisdictions of the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Forum along with the cities of Lynnwood, Lake Forest Park, Shoreline and Snohomish County to collectively deal with flooding issues within the greater Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek watershed; and WHEREAS, the Strategic Action Plan and Capital Improvement Plan developed by the Forum call for projects to be jointly undertaken on Lake Ballinger between Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds; and WHEREAS, an engineering study to prepare an initial project description, scope of work and project costs can accommodate the intent of the Capital Improvement Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and provisions, Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds agree to the following: 1. Purpose: It is the purpose of this agreement to fund an engineering study to develop project description, scope and costs for projects identified to be the joint responsibility of Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds in the Forum Capital Improvement Plan. 2. Implementation: Edmonds agrees to reimburse Mountlake Terrace for an engineering study to develop project descriptions, scope of work and project costs for two Capital Improvement Projects listed in the Forum Capital Improvement Plan. 2.1 Mountlake Terrace shall be responsible for: Packet Page 104 of 235 {BFP824819.DOC;1\00006.900170\ } 2 A. Drafting the scope of work for a qualified consultant to perform the hydraulic engineering study. The scope of work shall be approved by both parties. The total amount for the engineering study shall not exceed $25,000. B. Developing and managing a professional services contract for a qualified consultant. C. Acting as fiscal agent for the parties regarding all funds involved in the hydraulic engineering study. D. Receipt and handling of funds. E. Awarding of contract. F. Public records retention and response. Mountlake Terrace will respond to public records requests made to it relating to the engineering study and will assist Edmonds in response to records requests made to the City of Edmonds. G. Paying 50% of the cost of the engineering study not to exceed $12,500. H. Providing a two hard copies and one electronic copy of the draft and final studies to Edmonds. I. Showing good faith in responding to any comments Edmonds may have on the draft study and incorporating such comments into the final study. 2.2 Edmonds shall be responsible for: A. Paying 50% of the cost of the engineering study not to exceed $12,500. Payment shall be made to Mountlake Terrace within 30 days of a request for reimbursement documented by a contract billing from the consultant performing the study. 3. Representatives. The Parties shall each designate project managers who have authority to administer all aspects of the Agreement. The Parties shall notify each other in writing within 14 days of the execution of this Agreement of these assignments, and shall promptly give notice of any change in the assigned project manager. No separate entity is created by this Agreement. 4. Indemnification. Each party shall defend and indemnify the others, their officers, agents, and employees from any and all judgment, claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, and damages of any nature, arising out of each party’s share of negligent action in the performance of this agreement. It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided herein constitutes the parties' waiver of immunity Packet Page 105 of 235 {BFP824819.DOC;1\00006.900170\ } 3 under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated by the parties. The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 5. Termination. 5.1 Either party may terminate their involvement in this Agreement upon the provision of ten (10) days written notice to the other party. Said termination notice must be received by the other party prior to the date on which a contract for the consulting services described herein is awarded. 5.2 Following the award of a consulting contract, either party may terminate their involvement in the Agreement but shall remain obligated for the cost-sharing amount set forth herein. 5.3 Unless terminated as provided above, this Agreement shall remain in effect until completion of the engineering study by a qualified consultant,. 5.4 If, on the action of either party, this Agreement should be terminated and the contract for the hydraulic engineering study is also terminated, , either party may continue to complete the report on their own and shall have all rights to any partial product performed under this Interlocal Agreement to the date of termination. 6. Legal Relations. 6.1 It is understood that this Agreement is solely for the benefit of the Parties hereto and gives no right to any other party. No joint venture, agent-principal, partnership or separate legal or administrative authority is created by this Agreement. No employees or agents of one party or any of its contractors shall be deemed, or represent themselves to, employees of another party. 6.2 Mountlake Terrace shall require any contractor retained for the hydraulic engineering study to maintain Commercial General Liability, Automobile Liability and Professional and Professional Liability insuring Edmonds, their officers, officials, agents and employees, as additional insureds. The contractor’s insurance shall be the primary to and not contributing with any insurance or self insurance that may be carried by Edmonds. 6.3 The provisions of this section shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement. 6.4 This Agreement, inclusive of the Scope of Work hereto, contains the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to this undertaking, and supersedes all prior oral or written understandings, agreements, or promises. This agreement may not be modified or amended except by written instrument executed by the Parties’ authorized representatives. Packet Page 106 of 235 {BFP824819.DOC;1\00006.900170\ } 4 6.5 This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each shall be deemed an original instrument, and all counterparts together will constitute one and the same Agreement. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first herein above written. City of Mountlake Terrace City of Edmonds ________________________________ _________________________________ City Manager Mayor ________________________________ _________________________________ Date Date Approved as to Form Approved as to Form ________________________________ _________________________________ City Attorney City Attorney ________________________________ _________________________________ Date Date Packet Page 107 of 235 Draft Scope of Work for Forum CIP August 2010 LAKE BALLINGER LAKE LEVEL AND FLOODING ISSUES SCOPE OF WORK Lake Level and Outlet Study – FEMA Flood Mapping INTRODUCTION Lake Ballinger has experienced periodic high lake levels as a result of flooding events a number of times going back to the mid 1940’s. More recently storm events in 1997, 2003 and 2007 caused flooding of yards, docks, and houses surrounding the lake. To address these flooding problems, the Cities of Edmonds, Lake Forest Park, Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline along with Snohomish County formed the Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum to develop a Strategic Action Plan to address flooding, water quality and habitat preservation issues. The Strategic Action Plan was approved by the Forum and by all member jurisdictions in 2009. A Capital Improvement Plan was developed and approved in January 2010. The CIP listed thirteen separate projects with lead agencies for each project. In the Lake Ballinger portion of the list, there are six specific projects that involve both Edmonds and Mountlake Terrace. The highest ranked projects that involve both cities are: 1. A FEMA flood plain mapping project to revise existing flood plain maps to accurately reflect existing conditions and to develop modeling and flood plain management guidelines. The study would accurately model flow and determine flood plain elevations for Hall Creek and Lake Ballinger along with the development of modeling and floodplain management guidelines to determine the most advantageous elevation of the Lake Ballinger weir. 2. A capital project to lower the existing McAleer Creek weir to allow for the elevation of Lake Ballinger to be lowered. One proposal is to allow the lake to be lowered by 1.5 feet with the installation of a new weir foundation and dredging of the creek channel from the lake outlet to a culvert road crossing accessing the Nile Temple Clubhouse. The other proposal would be allow the lake to be lowered by 3.75 feet by dredging of the creek channel from the lake outlet to the culvert under Interstate 5. This would involve reinstallation of three existing culverts and installation of a new weir structure. Either option would require readjudication of an existing Superior Court Order regarding the lake level. Also to be determined is the timing and duration of the possible lake lowering. Public input to date has suggested that lowering the lake in advance of a storm event or during the winter months may be acceptable. TASK 1—GATHER AND REVIEW EXISTING DATA Review available plans, maps, and data that may impact surface water in the study area. Mountlake Terrace and Edmonds can provide to the Consultant the items identified below:  Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Strategic Action Plan  Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Capital Improvement Plan  2007 Clear Creek Lake Level Study  Storm Drainage System Schematic Maps  Topographic maps Packet Page 108 of 235 Draft Scope of Work for Forum CIP August 2010  Existing and projected land use maps  Precipitation and lake level gage information.  Right of entry to private property for survey and hydraulic model data collection  Basin Study information  McAleer Creek Plan and Profile (1982 Lake Ballinger Restoration Project)  Other relevant studies TASK 2—ASSESS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAKE LEVEL, EXISTING WEIR PERFORMANCE AND CAPACITY OF THE CULVERTS ON NILE TEMPLE PROPERTY AND AT INTERSTATE 5 Are existing studies sufficient to proceed ahead with a FEMA flood plain mapping project and to develop plans for possible lowering of the lake? If not, identify additional information needed to proceed ahead with either of the two projects. Questions to be answered include: 1. When does the weir currently control lake outflow/lake level? 2. When do one or more of the downstream culverts control lake outflow/lake level? 3. What is the role of vegetation within the stream channel and the grade and alignment of the stream channel itself on lake outflow/lake level? TASK 3—DEVELOP PRELIMINARY SCOPE AND COSTS FOR THE TWO PROPOSED CIP PROJECTS If information is deemed sufficient to proceed with either of the top CIP projects described above, develop a preliminary project description, scope of work and cost estimate for each project. For the CIP project involving potential weir modification/replacement, evaluation of up to three design alternatives shall be included in the scope of work including ones that would be compatible with the existing hypolimnetic withdrawal system or a modified version of the hypolimnetic withdrawal system. TASK 4—REPORT PREPARATION A draft and final report detailing the work in prior tasks will be prepared and will include the following:  Summary of existing information and data acquisition  Analysis of existing data as it relates to the proposed projects  Preliminary project description, scope of work and cost estimates for each of the projects Packet Page 109 of 235 AM-3463 Item #: 2. H. City Council Meeting Date: 10/26/2010 Time:Consent Submitted For:Mike De Lilla Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Authorization to advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for design and construction support services for the 2011 Waterline Replacement Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Council authorize staff to advertise a RFQ for design and construction support services for the 2011 Waterline Replacement Project. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The 2011 Waterline Replacement Project will upgrade/replace portions of the City’s potable water network by replacing over 7,000 linear feet of existing waterlines and associated appurtenances at various locations within the City. The project will replace pipes that are at the end of their life cycle and upsize and/or loop portions of the existing network to improve flow and pressure. The design services to be provided by the consultant will include the preparation of cost estimates, plans, specifications and bid documents and an option to provide support services during construction. Staff will select a consultant in accordance with the City's purchasing policy. The design and construction costs related to this RFQ will be paid from the City's water utility fund (Fund 412). Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 10/20/2010 02:40 PM Public Works Phil Williams 10/21/2010 01:54 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/21/2010 01:59 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 10/22/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/22/2010 09:12 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 10/19/2010 03:09 PM Final Approval Date: 10/22/2010 Packet Page 110 of 235 AM-3468 Item #: 2. I. City Council Meeting Date: 10/26/2010 Time:Consent Submitted For:Councilman Michael Plunkett Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Ordinance amending ECC 10.90.020 to provide for up to two nonvoting members in the Edmonds 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). During the October 5, 2010 Council meeting: COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMPOSITION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND RETURN IT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Narrative This item has now been placed on the Consent Agenda for approval. Attachment 2: Ordinance AMENDING ECC 10.90.020 Attachments Attach 1 - Ord 3392 HPC Attach 2 - Ord AMENDMENT TO HISTORIC COMMISSION CODE Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/21/2010 09:38 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 10/22/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/22/2010 09:12 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 10/20/2010 Final Approval Date: 10/22/2010 Packet Page 111 of 235 Packet Page 112 of 235 Packet Page 113 of 235 Packet Page 114 of 235 Packet Page 115 of 235 Packet Page 116 of 235 Packet Page 117 of 235 Packet Page 118 of 235 {BFP829500.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - 0006. ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ECC 10.90.020 TO PROVIDE FOR UP TO TWO NONVOTING MEMBERS IN THE EDMONDS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, the code currently provides for only one nonvoting, ex officio position in the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission to be filled by an Edmonds City Council member; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that up to two of its members should served as ex officio members in the Edmonds Historic Preservation Commission; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Amended. 10.90.020 Composition of the commission. Subsection B of ECC 10.90.020 is hereby amended to read as follows: … B. The commission shall consist of nine voting members and one or two nonvoting, ex officio positions to be filled by an Edmonds city council members. The commission shall include at least two professionals who have experience in identifying, evaluating, and protecting historic resources and are selected from among the disciplines of history, architecture, architectural history, historic preservation, planning, cultural anthropology, archaeology, Attachment 2 Packet Page 119 of 235 {BFP829500.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - cultural geography, American studies, law, and/or real estate. Six positions shall be filled by citizens of Edmonds with the demonstrated interest in historic preservation. One position shall be filled as recommended by the Edmonds South Snohomish County Historical Society. A commission action that would otherwise be valid shall not be rendered invalid by the temporary vacancy of one or all of the professional positions, unless the commission action is related to meeting certified local government (CLG) responsibilities cited in the certification agreement between the mayor and the historic preservation officer. Furthermore, in special circumstances, exceptions to the residence requirement of commission members may be granted by the mayor and the city council in order to obtain representatives from those disciplines. Section 2. 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: SANDRA S. CHASE, CITY CLERK 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 120 of 235 {BFP829500.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 ECC 10.90.020 TO PROVIDE FOR UP TO TWO NONVOTING MEMBERS IN THE EDMONDS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 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 121 of 235 AM-3469 Item #: 3. City Council Meeting Date: 10/26/2010 Time:5 Minutes Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Community Service Announcement: Edmonds Chamber of Commerce - Tree Lighting. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative Community Service Announcement: Edmonds Chamber of Commerce - Tree Lighting. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/21/2010 09:38 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 10/22/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/22/2010 09:12 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 10/20/2010 01:56 PM Final Approval Date: 10/22/2010 Packet Page 122 of 235 AM-3475 Item #: 4. City Council Meeting Date: 10/26/2010 Time:15 Minutes Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Department:Community Services Review Committee:Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Presentation on Washington State Ferries (WSF) Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative As referenced in the July and October, 2010 Community Services Economic Development Quarterly Reports, as part of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) process, WSF and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are evaluating several concepts to replace or relocate the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal. The environmental process for this project was re-initiated in February 2010 after being on hold since 2007 due to funding and constructability issues associated with previously identified alternatives. Following a May 5, 2010 meeting in Mukilteo, and after consulting with City staff and the Mayor’s office, I submitted preliminary comments on May 26, 2010 (see attached e-mail) to Washington State Ferries. The comments relate to two concepts being considered within the City of Edmonds as alternatives to constructing a Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal. More specifically, one of the concepts included utilizing the existing Edmonds Ferry Terminal at Main Street (no proposed improvements at that time); a second concept included utilizing the Point Edwards Edmonds Crossing Multimodal plan, albeit at a scaled down version. At that time, the WSF proposed Edmonds Ferry Terminal Concept assumed that the present single-slip ferry terminal would be maintained at its existing Main Street location in downtown Edmonds while serving Kingston and Clinton on Whidbey Island. As part of the process to identify alternatives to be studied in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Mukilteo Multimodal Project, a project team has developed concepts to be evaluated through a two-level screening process. The project team evaluated ten concepts in the screening process. These concepts, which are described within the document Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions (WSF, September 2010), are listed below and grouped geographically. NOTE: The concepts have been posted on the home page of the City’s website http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us/. Existing Mukilteo Terminal • No Build • Existing Site Improvements Elliot Point • Elliot Point – Option 1 • Elliot Point – Option 2 • Elliot Point – Option 3 • Mount Baker Terminal Edmonds • Edmonds - Existing Terminal • Edmonds – Existing Site Improvements • Edmonds – Point Edwards Everett • Port of Everett South Terminal On October 8, 2010, I received an e-mail and related attachments which include the concepts referenced above; the e-mail, with attachments, was forwarded to the City Council on October 12, 2010. The file titled, MMP Terminal Concept Descriptions depicts concepts being considered by Washington State Ferries (see attached). Please note that Mayor Cooper and I have significant concerns about the proposed Existing Main Street Concept, and Existing Main Street Concept With Improvements (see pages 31-33 of 41 pages of the MMP Terminal Concept Descriptions). As referenced above, during the May 5, 2010 meeting in Mukilteo, the WSF proposed Edmonds Ferry Terminal Concept assumed that the present single-slip ferry terminal would be maintained at its existing Main Street location in downtown Edmonds and that the slip would continue to maintain service to Kingston. The most recent Existing Main Street Concept With Improvements was not reviewed or discussed with me or other City staff prior to WSF proposing the concept that was reviewed by a project team on September 29, 2010. Upon review of both proposed Concepts located within the City of Edmonds, Mayor Cooper and City staff do not support the Existing Main Street Concept for reasons cited within the earlier May 26, 2010 e-mail (this is not an all inclusive list). Regarding the recently proposed Existing Main Street Concept With Improvements, we also do not support this alternative for many reasons, some of which include the following: 1) Widening and expansion of the existing holding/storage area west of the existing railroad tracks and Railroad Avenue will have Packet Page 123 of 235 Packet Page 124 of 235 significant adverse environmental impacts: a. Significantly and adversely affects Brackett’s Landing North Park and the Underwater Dive Park by encroaching into these areas b. Massive over water storage area between Brackett’s Landing North and South Parks i. Includes new fill into the Underwater Dive Park ii. Significant lighting impacts iii. Significant impacts to view/aesthetics iv. Impacts to micro algae and eelgrass beds 2) The addition of a ferry slip at Main Street 3) Closure of Main Street west of Sunset to local traffic 4) Loss of access to Brackett’s Landing North via Main Street 5) Retention of an at-grade crossing at Main Street will increase conflicts between train and ferry operations, particularly with the potential addition of 17 boats per day. The volume of ferry traffic will rise significantly by adding a new route by reassigning the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route, and in the absence of grade separation, an increase in accidents is likely. The rise in traffic volume will also significantly effect travel along SR 104. 6) The creation of massive parking and storage area(s) between Dayton and Main Streets a. Significant lighting impacts b. Significant loss of connectivity between waterfront area and downtown c. Questionable traffic flow through this area 7) Use of the Old Safeway and Skippers properties for the use of storing/holding vehicles would result in the loss of revenue generating property City staff will be providing a comprehensive response to the most recent WSF proposed concepts by the November 19, 2010 public comment deadline. NOTE: WSF held public scoping meetings in Mukilteo and Whidbey Island on Oct. 12, 13, and an on-line meeting on October 14. A public meeting within the City of Edmonds will be held on October 27, 2010 in the Edmonds City Council Chamber from 5 – 6:30 p.m. To participate in a public meeting and to learn more about the project, please visit the project web page at www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/ferries/mukilteoterminal/multimodal/. For more specific information about concepts being reviewed and considered by Washington State Ferries, please visit http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F990DB73-8C80-4A5C-8668-1ACE03C6AB97/71063/Mukilteo_ComGuide_100710_pages_lo.pdf Public meeting notices have been posted on the City’s website and government channel. Attachments Attachment 1 - May 26, 2010 e-mail - Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concepts Comments Attachment 2 - WSF MMP Terminal Concept Descriptions Attachment 3 - WSF MMP Terminal 1st Level Screening Attachment 4 - WSF MMP Terminal - 2nd Level Screening Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/21/2010 01:33 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 10/22/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/22/2010 09:12 AM Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 10/21/2010 11:24 AM Final Approval Date: 10/22/2010 Packet Page 125 of 235 Packet Page 126 of 235 file:///L|/...nt%201%20-%20May%2026,%202010%20e-mail%20-%20Mukilteo%20Multimodal%20Project%20Concepts%20Comments.txt[10/22/2010 2:54:26 PM] From: Clifton, Stephen Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 4:06 PM To: 'Paxson, Michelle L' Cc: Haakenson, Gary; Miller, Noel; English, Robert; Hauss, Bertrand; Chave, Rob Subject: RE: Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concepts Comments Hi Michelle, As requested, the City of Edmonds submits this e-mail in response to two Washington State Concepts being considered for evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as part of the Mukilteo Multimodal Project. Specifically, City responses follow the Existing Ferry Terminal Concept and the Edmonds Point Edwards Concepts listed below. 4.1 Edmonds – Existing Ferry Terminal Concept The Edmonds Ferry Terminal Concept assumes that the present single-slip ferry terminal would be maintained at its existing Main Street location in downtown Edmonds. The slip would continue to maintain service to Kingston. The overhead loading bridge and other pedestrian-related improvements, such as the widened walkway leading to a covered area for ADA requirements, would remain in place. Only normal maintenance and preservation activities would occur at this terminal. The existing terminal vehicle holding does not meet WSF requirements for a reservation system. Holding capacity is not sufficient and would need to be increased by a minimum of 60 vehicles. Most likely an offsite location would need to be located. Frequent freight train activity continues to interfere with the sailing schedule and safety of customers. Exiting ferry traffic is frequently stopped to allow transit busses through the intersection which adds valuable minutes to the loading process and curtails on time performance and fuel savings. There is insufficient parking to allow for HOV and commuter vehicles. Under this concept the ferry terminal is 770 feet from the bus stop and it is 1,500 feet from the ferry to the Edmonds Station. The bus stop to the rail at Edmonds Station is a distance of 730 feet. Single slip does not allow enough flexibility in the running schedule for two destinations to be effective. This concept significantly increases the ferry crossing time to 45 minutes. Currently there are 23 weekday sailings from Edmonds to Kingston. Assuming this remains unchanged, there are currently 37 weekday sailings from Clinton to Mukilteo. Altering the route from Edmonds to Clinton would reduce sailings to 17, a 55% reduction in service. Due to the increased distance, an additional 839 gallons of fuel would be expended per day per day increasing operations by approximately $2,500 per day City of Edmonds Response: According to the Need for Action contained within the Edmonds Crossing Final EIS and related Record of Decision issued in 2005, references to the existing Edmonds Ferry Terminal “The existing facilities are inadequate due to inefficient system linkages, inadequate capacity, travel and transportation demand, modal interrelationships, social and economic factors, operational and safety conflicts, and congestion.” The document also contains specific reasons related to each which Packet Page 127 of 235 file:///L|/...nt%201%20-%20May%2026,%202010%20e-mail%20-%20Mukilteo%20Multimodal%20Project%20Concepts%20Comments.txt[10/22/2010 2:54:26 PM] contribute to the need for proposing action such as the Edmonds Crossing Multimodal Terminal project. These same reasons also provide justification as to why the Existing Edmonds Ferry Terminal is not a feasible concept System Linkages Central Edmonds is currently served by multiple modes of transportation, each with separate terminal facilities. The lack of an integrated terminal serving all modes of travel makes transfers between modes cumbersome and time-consuming, particularly for pedestrians. The terminals for ferry, rail, and transit modes are not sited appropriately, nor are the connecting linkages efficient from the user’s perspective. Without improvement, inconvenience and delay to travelers could be expected to increase in the future. Inadequate facilities, conflicts in operations, and inappropriate locations of terminals currently hamper the transfer and connection functions among modes. These factors result in inefficiencies and hazards in the movement of persons and goods. Specifically, the following conditions are encountered on a recurring basis: • Routine loading and unloading of ferry vessels results in the disruption of the normal flow of vehicles and pedestrians between downtown Edmonds and the waterfront, reducing capacity and creating potential hazards. • Ferry loading and unloading are interrupted frequently by trains moving along the mainline railroad tracks. The existing at-grade rail crossing slows the movement of people and goods across the rail lines and creates a safety hazard. These conflicts increase with each additional train (volumes are expected to increase from 35 trains per day (year 2005) to as many as 70 trains per day in 2020 and 104 in 2030). • When buses access the stop near the ferry terminal, they must maneuver through difficult intersections, crossing the railroad tracks twice. Frequently, they conflict with loading or unloading ferry traffic. • The rail station is located away from the ferry terminal and across the tracks from the nearest bus stop, making the use of transit and rail modes for ferry riders less desirable. • Bicyclists must wait in the auto holding area and load before or after vehicle loading, impeding the overall loading process and creating safety concerns. In the future, the above listed conflicts will occur more frequently if additional vessels are assigned to the route as 1) ferry headways are likely to be reduced in order to accommodate more ferry routes, 2) a lack of improvements to the existing terminal and surrounding area will create conditions that result in further deterioration, 3) the movement of people and goods would be increasingly interrupted by the bottleneck at the Edmonds ferry terminal, and 4) demand increases. Essentially, adding a new route by reassigning the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route will only exacerbate the ability of the Edmonds-Kingston route to operate in a safe and efficient manner. Capacity The existing ferry terminal provides only a single ferry mooring slip, which is inadequate to serve current peak travel demands. The single slip limits flexibility and creates difficulty in adhering to ferry schedules. These limitations will be aggravated if Packet Page 128 of 235 file:///L|/...nt%201%20-%20May%2026,%202010%20e-mail%20-%20Mukilteo%20Multimodal%20Project%20Concepts%20Comments.txt[10/22/2010 2:54:26 PM] additional vessels are assigned to the route and ferry headways are likely to be reduced in order to accommodate more ferry routes. While capacity for loading and unloading the ferries is constrained by the many conflicts discussed earlier, the capacity of the vehicle holding areas is insufficient to accommodate the efficient loading of vehicles onto the ferry, yet alone the possible addition of 17 ferry boats if the Mukilteo-Clinton route is reassigned to create an Edmonds-Clinton Ferry route. Even though the existing holding areas provide a theoretical capacity of 510 vehicles, only 180 of these vehicles are between the tollbooth and the ferry. The remaining spaces are along SR 104, creating congestion and safety concerns. The capacity is difficult to manage in an efficient manner because traffic moves forward sporadically, leaving gaps and causing drivers to keep engines running, which increases pollution. Finally, using SR 104 to hold ferry traffic diminishes its capacity to serve other existing and potential land uses in and around downtown Edmonds. Capacity along SR 104 is needed to serve potential development of parcels in the downtown area and areas to the south and east. Transportation Demand The Edmonds-Kingston ferry route is the fastest-growing route in the state’s ferry system. Ridership more than doubled during the 1980s, increasing from nearly 1,950 vehicles and more than 4,250 persons daily in 1980 to over 4,500 vehicles and 9,200 persons daily in 1990. Ridership also increased appreciably in the 1990s, growing by more than 40 percent to over 6,750 vehicles and 13,000 persons daily during 2000. The existing Edmonds- Kingston Ferry route carries the largest number of vehicles and second largest number of passengers within the overall WSF system. Adding a new route by reassigning the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route will compromise the ability of the Edmonds-Kingston route to operate in a safe and efficient manner. Modal Interrelationships Interface between the various modes of transportation is currently disjointed and practically nonexistent in Edmonds. Users must find ways to shift modes of transportation with practically no assistance under the current operations. Buses serve the area adjacent to the ferry terminal but do not arrive in a coordinated manner and have very little space to stop for passenger service. Train service is provided by Amtrak at a rail station approximately 1/3 mile from the ferry terminal. Sound Transit provides Sounder commuter rail service at a platform adjacent to the Amtrak rail station. Very few opportunities exist for parking to allow people to leave their vehicles and use other modes of transportation and vehicle storage will decrease upon the construction of the Sound Transit Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. In total, the existing Main Street facility is lacking in its ability to efficiently and effectively serve modal shifts. Bicycles are also provided limited space for queuing. Social and Economic Factors During ferry loading and unloading, non-ferry traffic and access to local businesses are interrupted. Pedestrian movement between the recreational opportunities along the Puget Sound waterfront and downtown is disrupted. Downtown Edmonds has become increasingly cut off from the waterfront by the heavy volume of ferry traffic. The Edmonds Downtown/Waterfront Plan is intended to better integrate the downtown core with the waterfront, improve shoreline pedestrian access and traffic circulation, and encourage mixed-use development. Current conditions as described in this section Packet Page 129 of 235 file:///L|/...nt%201%20-%20May%2026,%202010%20e-mail%20-%20Mukilteo%20Multimodal%20Project%20Concepts%20Comments.txt[10/22/2010 2:54:26 PM] limit the city's ability to achieve these plan goals by making it difficult to move between the two areas, minimizing the value of the shoreline as a public resource and amenity, and adversely affecting the potential for redevelopment. Adding a new route by reassigning the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route will significantly and negatively impact connectivity between the Downtown and Edmonds waterfront, and shoreline pedestrian and bicycle access. Safety The multiple conflicts occurring at the Edmonds ferry terminal give rise to a number of traffic hazards. The SR 104 and Dayton Street intersection is one of Edmonds’ high- accident locations, and the existing ferry landing and toll booth also experience high rates of accidents. The at-grade railroad crossing also causes safety concerns. The volume of ferry traffic will rise significantly by adding a new route by reassigning the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route, and in the absence of improvements, an increase in accidents is likely. Congestion SR 104 connects the Edmonds ferry terminal to Interstate 5 (I-5), SR 99, and SR 522, serving more than 80 percent of ferry traffic. Currently, ferry traffic backups extend along SR 104 approximately 3/4 mile south of Pine Street and many times in excess of 1 mile; sometimes backup can extend beyond the Westgate Shopping area. These queues create conflicts at intersections and interrupt the flow of through-traffic along the highway. In the future without the proposed project, queues could extend 1.5 miles beyond the Pine Street intersection or further. Queues of this length would severely impact traffic circulation in the central Edmonds area and along SR 104 nearly to the Westgate area. Currently, three primary higher volume intersections are located between the Edmonds Waterfront and Interstate 5. Two intersections located at SR104 and 205th/240th Street currently operate at levels of service D, and SR104 and 100th Avenue will operate at level of service D in year 2015. Additionally, other intersections operating at level of service D would also be affected by increased ferry operations. The effects of adding a new route by reassigning the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route will add to existing congestion problems and has not been studied. 4.2 Edmonds – Pt. Edwards Concept The Point Edwards concept would relocate the Edmonds Ferry Terminal and develop a multimodal megaterminal at Point Edwards, located approximately 2/3 mile south of the Main Street Terminal. This terminal would offer service from Edmonds to both Kingston and to Clinton. Access to the proposed complex would be provided by realigning SR 104 from its current intersection with Pine Street. Realigned SR 104 would traverse the lower portion of the bluffs within the existing UNOCAL property. This concept includes 2 exit lanes on the south side, 2 exit lanes on the north side with 8 lanes for the two routes for staging. Realigned SR 104 would cross over the BNSF railroad tracks and would extend over the Port of Edmonds southern breakwater to a three-slip ferry terminal. The multimodal center would be located in the lower yard of the existing UNOCAL property, and vehicle access would be provided via a road off realigned SR 104. This concept will manage pedestrian and ferry vehicular traffic better than the existing terminal within the holding and loading areas, and will not have non-ferry traffic circulating through the loading and unloading zones, this concept would increase Packet Page 130 of 235 file:///L|/...nt%201%20-%20May%2026,%202010%20e-mail%20-%20Mukilteo%20Multimodal%20Project%20Concepts%20Comments.txt[10/22/2010 2:54:26 PM] security for the terminal as well as provide public parking. The concept would also eliminate interference from train traffic. This multimodal concept would be best served with separate exit lanes for each destination so that vessels arriving and departing from the different destinations would not interfere with each other. The center would include a new railroad station with two loading platforms that straddle double tracks; a bus terminal that accommodates up to 10 regular-sized buses; a two-level, 460-space parking garage to accommodate park-and-ride and overnight commuters and a 90-space short-term parking lot; a pedestrian walkway system that would interconnect the various modes and areas within the center, and a weather protected walkway that would accommodate pedestrian movement between the center and the ferry terminal. Under this concept the ferry terminal is 2,390 feet from the bus stop and it is 4,470 feet from the ferry to the Edmonds Station. The bus stop to the rail at Edmonds Station is a distance of 2,080 feet, providing very limited connectivity. This concept significantly increases the crossing time to Clinton to approximately 55 minutes. The Mukilteo Clinton route currently provides 37 sailings daily. Preliminary studies of sailing schedules for Clinton to Pt. Edwards reduce sailings to approximately 18 weekday sailings, a 52% reduction in service. Due to the increased distance, an additional 839 gallons of fuel would be expended per day per day increasing operations by approximately $2,500 per day. City of Edmonds Response: System Linkages Central Edmonds is currently served by multiple modes of transportation, each with separate terminal facilities. The lack of an integrated terminal serving all modes of travel makes transfers between modes cumbersome and time-consuming, particularly for pedestrians. The terminals for ferry, rail, and transit modes are not sited appropriately, nor are the connecting linkages efficient from the user’s perspective. Without improvements, inconvenience and delay to travelers could be expected to increase in the future. Inadequate facilities, conflicts in operations, and inappropriate locations of terminals currently hamper the transfer and connection functions among modes. These factors result in inefficiencies and hazards in the movement of persons and goods. The proposed WSF Point Edwards concept, which does not include incorporating a Sound Transit Commuter Rail Station (contradicts with Edmonds Crossing FEIS ROD proposal), means that the rail station would be located 2/3 of a mile away from the ferry terminal. The effects of adding a new route by reassigning the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route will add to existing congestion problems by making the use of transit and rail modes for ferry riders less desirable than what exists today. Capacity Although an Edmonds Crossing Point Edwards concept would provide more than a single ferry mooring slip, the existing Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Record of Decision (ROD) contains no information on the effects of adding 18 additional boats by reassigning the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route. There could be unanticipated limitations if additional vessels are assigned to the route and ferry headways are likely to be reduced in order to accommodate more ferry routes. As such, the ability to handle future demand could be significantly limited. Packet Page 131 of 235 file:///L|/...nt%201%20-%20May%2026,%202010%20e-mail%20-%20Mukilteo%20Multimodal%20Project%20Concepts%20Comments.txt[10/22/2010 2:54:26 PM] While capacity for loading and unloading ferries, and the ability to accommodate future demand along SR104, has been studied for the Edmonds-Kingston route within the Existing Edmonds Crossing FEIS ROD, no studies have been performed to address whether the capacity of the Edmonds Crossing vehicle holding areas is sufficient to accommodate the efficient loading of vehicles onto the ferry, yet alone the possible addition of 18 ferry boats if the Mukilteo-Clinton route is reassigned to create an Edmonds-Clinton Ferry route. Finally, using SR 104 to channel additional traffic diminishes the ability of the highway to serve other existing and potential land uses in and around downtown Edmonds. Capacity along SR 104 is needed to serve potential development of parcels in the downtown area and areas to the south and east. Transportation Demand The Edmonds-Kingston ferry route is the fastest-growing route in the state’s ferry system. Ridership more than doubled during the 1980s, increasing from nearly 1,950 vehicles and more than 4,250 persons daily in 1980 to over 4,500 vehicles and 9,200 persons daily in 1990. Ridership also increased appreciably in the 1990s, growing by more than 40 percent to over 6,750 vehicles and 13,000 persons daily during 2000. The existing Edmonds-Kingston Ferry route carries the largest number of vehicles and second largest number of passengers within the overall WSF system. Adding a new route by reassigning the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route, using an Edmonds Crossing Point Edwards facility, could negatively impact the future carrying capacity of the Edmonds-Kingston route in addition operating the route in a safe and efficient manner. Modal Interrelationships Interface between the various modes of transportation is currently disjointed and practically nonexistent in Edmonds. Users must find ways to shift modes of transportation with practically no assistance under the current operations. Buses serve the area adjacent to the ferry terminal but do not arrive in a coordinated manner and have very little space to stop for passenger service. Train service is provided by Amtrak at a rail station that would be approximately 2/3 of a mile from an Edmonds Crossing Point Edwards location. This in effect would worsen WSF and Sound Transit/Amtrak connectivity when compared to what exists today. Within the Edmonds Crossing FEIS ROD, Sound Transit is proposed to provide Sounder commuter rail and Amtrak regional rail at a platform within the Edmonds Crossing multimodal facility. Very few opportunities would exist to link efficiently link WSF to Sound Transit and Amtrak under the Point Edwards concept. Congestion SR 104 connects the Edmonds ferry terminal to Interstate 5 (I-5), SR 99, and SR 522, serving more than 80 percent of ferry traffic. Currently, three primary higher volume intersections are located between the Edmonds Waterfront and Interstate 5. Two intersections located at SR104 and 205th/240th Street currently operate at levels of service D, and SR104 and 100th Avenue will operate at level of service D in year 2015. Additionally, other intersections operating at level of service D would also be affected by increased ferry operations. The effects of adding a new route by reassigning the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route will add to existing congestion problems and has not been studied. Comments applicable to both the Existing Edmonds Ferry Terminal Packet Page 132 of 235 file:///L|/...nt%201%20-%20May%2026,%202010%20e-mail%20-%20Mukilteo%20Multimodal%20Project%20Concepts%20Comments.txt[10/22/2010 2:54:26 PM] and Edmonds Point Edwards Concepts The possibility of eliminating the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route and reassigning it to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route could, and/or will, have a negative impact on the following: * Loss of flexibility/options - Generations of people have chosen to live, work and recreate based on existing transportation modes, routes and schedules. A reduction in the number of sailings from Clinton and an increase in the lengths of sailing times (if an Edmonds–Clinton route were established) would limit travel options currently available to residents, business owners and travelers. * Economy of Whidbey Island and Mukilteo – Studies should be prepared to assess/evaluate the economic impact to the housing market, business community, etc., of eliminating the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route and reassigning it to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route. * Congestion along State Route 104 and other corridors – Significant congestion will be added to SR104 and a comprehensive traffic impact analysis should be prepared to assess/evaluate impacts to this corridor, in addition to other corridors and intersections throughout Edmonds. * Commute and general traffic patterns – Commute times will be significantly lengthened and existing traffic patterns will be altered, particularly for those commuting from Whidbey Island to central and north Snohomish County, via Edmonds. * Sailing times – Current sailing times between Clinton and Mukilteo are 15 minutes for a one way trip. The two Clinton-Edmonds Concepts would result in one-way sailing times of 45 and 55 minutes. * Number of choices in the number of ferry boats and routes – Eliminating the Mukilteo-Clinton ferry route and reassigning it to an Edmonds-Clinton ferry route would result in a reduction of sailings from 37 per day to 17 and 18 for the existing Edmonds Ferry Terminal and proposed Point Edwards alternatives. * Environment = An increase in the amount of fuel consumed on a daily basis, i.e., 839 additional gallons per day would add to air pollution in addition to diminishing a non-renewable resource. * Operational expenses related to fuel consumption - An increase in the amount of fuel consumed on a daily basis, i.e., 839 additional gallons per day equates to approximately $2,500 per day, based on current fuel costs. If you have questions, please call or send me an e-mail. Stephen Stephen Clifton, AICP Director Community Services & Economic Development 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 425-771-0251 Clifton@ci.edmonds.wa.us From: Paxson, Michelle L [mailto:EllingM@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 11:38 AM To: dkoenig@ci.everett.wa.us; johnk@portofeverett.com; Heather McCartney; gbaxter@ci.everett.wa.us; Clifton, Stephen; kbarton@ci.everett.wa.us; jmarine@ci.mukilteo.wa.us; carol.thompson@commtrans.org; sritterbush@commtrans.org; manker@islandtransit.org; rose@islandtransit.org; jerryh@portofeverett.com; Vincent Bruscas; Alavi, Barry; Patricia Love Cc: Delwar, Murshed; Warren, Richard; McIntosh, Nicole; Glover, Sandy; Krueger, Paul W (UCO) Subject: Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concepts Comments Packet Page 133 of 235 file:///L|/...nt%201%20-%20May%2026,%202010%20e-mail%20-%20Mukilteo%20Multimodal%20Project%20Concepts%20Comments.txt[10/22/2010 2:54:26 PM] We’d like to thank everyone for attending our pre-workshop meeting on May 5, 2010 at Mukilteo City Hall. Although we are drafting a meeting summery, it is important for our federal lead, FTA, that we get written comments from you on the concepts. I’d like to thank the Port of Everett and the City of Everett for getting me comments by May 19th. We also held a post pre-workshop meeting with the City of Mukilteo (May 17th) and Sound Transit (May 18th). Based on these three meetings, we’ve updated the project concepts. I’ve posted the most current version on our ftp site at: ftp://ftp.wsdot.wa.gov/incoming/Mukilteo%20Multimodal%20Project/ You’ll see changes to the Existing Terminal Improvement concept that expands the amount of bus bays and potentially creates a pick-up/drop off area in front of the relocated terminal passenger building by making Front Street one way between SR 525 and Park Street. We’ve revised the Point Elliot concept to provide for Port Employee parking associated with the Mount Baker Terminal (6 spaces). We’ve revised the Point Edwards concept to show no rail and no associated rail parking garage (parking limited to WSF employees – 55 spaces). Lastly, we revised the South Terminal concept to show parking for WSF employees only (40 spaces). If you could please get me written comments on the concepts by June 10th, that would be greatly appreciated. Let me know if you have any questions and look forward to seeing you again on June 10th at Mukilteo City Hall (starting at 9:00 am) for the Workshop. Michelle Paxson, PE Mukilteo Multimodal Project Manager WSF - Terminal Engineering (206) 515-3855 Packet Page 134 of 235 1 MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT CONCEPT DESCRIPTIONS September 2010 Packet Page 135 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 2 Packet Page 136 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXISTING MUKILTEO TERMINAL CONCEPTS ................................................................... 5 1.1 No Build ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 Existing Site Improvements ................................................................................................... 9 2 ELLIOT POINT CONCEPTS ........................................................................................................ 13 2.1 Elliot Point ........................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Mount Baker Terminal ........................................................................................................ 23 3 EDMONDS CONCEPTS ................................................................................................................ 27 3.1 Edmonds – Existing ............................................................................................................. 27 3.2 Edmonds – Existing Site Improvements .............................................................................. 31 3.3 Edmonds – Point Edwards .................................................................................................. 35 4 EVERETT CONCEPT ..................................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Port of Everett South Terminal ........................................................................................... 39 Packet Page 137 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 4 Packet Page 138 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 5 The following are descriptions of concepts being considered for evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as part of the Mukilteo Multimodal Project. They are organized by location, Mukilteo (Existing Terminal and Elliot Point), Edmonds, and Everett. 1 EXISTING MUKILTEO TERMINAL CONCEPTS 1.1 No Build Overview This concept would continue operations at the existing terminal. Continuing operations at the terminal would require replacement of most terminal structures by 2040 as they reach the end of their useful lives, as shown in Figure 1. The existing dolphins, wingwalls, trestle, transfer span, towers, bulkhead, passenger building, toll booths, and terminal supervisor building would all be replaced. Existing site description The existing Mukilteo Ferry Terminal is located on Possession Sound in the City of Mukilteo. The single slip ferry dock facilities and passenger building are directly adjacent to the Losvar condominiums on the west and Ivar’s restaurant on the east. The toll booths and holding lanes are separated from the ferry dock and the passenger building by Front Street, a local access road that follows the Mukilteo waterfront from Lighthouse Park to the Silver Cloud Inn and Park Avenue. To the east of the holding lanes is parking for Ivar’s restaurant and a local business, the Mongrain Glass Studio. SR 525 is on the west side of the holding lanes. A separate planned, funded WSF project will install a traffic signal at the intersection of SR 525 and Front Street and build a right hand turn lane from northbound SR 525 to Front Street in 2010. Proposed multimodal features Ferry Facilities This concept would replace the existing single slip at the existing location. The passenger building would be replaced at the same location it is at today. The passenger building and offshore mooring structures would not be located and designed to allow for the future inclusion of a second ferry slip or a passenger overhead loading system that would allow the simultaneous loading of pedestrians and vehicles onto the ferry. The toll booths and holding lanes would continue to be located on the other side of Front Street from the trestle and passenger building. The concept assumes the Buzz Inn property currently leased for holding lanes would be purchased. The holding lanes would continue to have the capacity to hold 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (216 vehicles) and allow for separation of high occupancy vehicles, single occupancy vehicles, and large vehicles. The holding lanes would also allow for potential future demand management initiatives such as implementing a reservation system at this facility. Employee parking would continue to be provided at the existing location on the west side of SR 525. This concept would not make changes to the existing street system. No new public access to the waterfront would be provided. Packet Page 139 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 6 This concept can be compliant with some of the Homeland Security requirements as referenced in 33CFR165.1317. However, it would not allow for the vehicle holding area to be secured from general public access in case of an elevated alert. The ferry crossing time would be approximately 15 minutes and 37 weekday sailings would be provided at this location. Bus This concept would continue to provide two bus bays located west of the ferry terminal holding areas at the corner of Front Street and SR 525, approximately 0.08 mile from where passengers would disembark from the ferry. The bus bays are on the west side of SR 525. Buses would continue to make a 180 degree turn in the intersection in front of the ferry dock to access this bus transit facility. Rail Sound Transit currently operates commuter rail service out of the Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station. The station would be located approximately 0.35 mile from where passengers would disembark from the ferry. The rail station would be approximately 0.30 mile from the bus bays at the ferry terminal. Packet Page 140 of 235 7 Pa c k e t Pa g e 14 1 of 23 5 Mu k i l t e o Mu l t i m o d a l Pr o j e c t Co n c e p t De s c r i p t i o n s – Se p t e m b e r 20 1 0 8 Pa c k e t Pa g e 14 2 of 23 5 9 1.2 Existing Site Improvements Overview This concept would use the existing site for a reconstructed Mukilteo Ferry Terminal, as shown in Figure 2. The existing slip would be replaced with a new slip realigned to the east of the existing location. The passenger building would be relocated to the east side of the ferry dock. A passenger overhead loading system would connect the passenger building to the ferry, allowing the simultaneous loading of pedestrians and vehicles onto the ferry. Six new bus bays would be constructed between the ferry holding facilities, Front Street, Park Avenue, and First Street, 0.16 mile from the ferry. First Street would be extended west of Park Avenue to create a signalized intersection with SR 525. The existing Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station would be approximately 0.41 mile from the ferry and 0.22 mile from the bus facilities. The existing two bus bays on the southbound leg of SR 525 will be converted into a right turn merge pocket for vehicles coming from the Lighthouse Park/Losvar condominium area. Front Street between SR 525 and Park Avenue will become one-way eastbound. Passenger pick-up and drop-off would be accommodated in front of the relocated passenger building, with vehicles entering from SR 525 and exiting using Park Avenue and extended First Street back to SR 525. Existing site description The existing Mukilteo Ferry Terminal is located on Possession Sound in the City of Mukilteo. The ferry dock facilities and passenger building are directly adjacent to the Losvar condominiums on the west and Ivar’s restaurant on the east. The toll booths and holding lanes are separated from the ferry dock by Front Street, a local access road that follows the Mukilteo waterfront from Lighthouse Park to the Silver Cloud Inn and Park Avenue. To the east of the holding lanes is parking for Ivar’s restaurant and a local business, the Mongrain Glass Studio. SR 525 is on the west side of the holding lanes. Proposed multimodal features Ferry Facilities This concept would replace the existing single slip with a new slip realigned to the east of the existing location. The realigned slip would be extended far enough offshore to minimize the shoreline scour effects currently caused by vessels and would correct poor line of sight issues for drivers exiting the vessel. A 5,000 square foot passenger building would be located on the shoreline immediately east of the new slip. A passenger overhead loading system would connect the passenger building to the ferry, allowing the simultaneous loading of pedestrians and vehicles onto the ferry1. The passenger building, passenger overhead loading system, and offshore mooring structures would be located and designed to allow for the future inclusion of a second ferry slip. The toll booths and holding lanes would continue to be located on the other side of Front Street from the trestle and passenger building. The concept assumes the Buzz Inn property currently leased for holding lanes would be purchased. The holding lanes would have the capacity to hold 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (216 vehicles) and allow for separation of high occupancy vehicles, single occupancy vehicles, and large vehicles. The holding lanes would also allow for potential future demand management initiatives such as implementing a reservation system at this facility. 1 Passenger overhead loading at Mukilteo is not included in the Washington State Ferries 2009 Long Range Plan. WSF anticipates that ridership would warrant overhead loading at Mukilteo by 2040. It would not be part of the initial implementation of this concept, but would be added as a future phase of construction after 2030. Packet Page 143 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 10 Employee parking would be provided in two locations, the existing location on the west side of SR 525 accessible by Front Street, and a location just south of the holding lanes on the east side of SR 525. First Street would be extended west from where it currently ends at the back of the WSF holding lanes to create a new intersection at SR 525. The extended First Street would need to be raised from its current elevation about 15 feet to reach the elevation of SR 525. Front Street would be changed to a one-way street eastbound between SR 525 and the western most access to Silver Cloud Inn. This will allow for a pick up/drop off area in front of the relocated ferry passenger building. Park Avenue and First Street would provide access from NOAA, the US Air Force Mukilteo Tank Farm property and the Mount Baker Terminal to SR 525. The Port of Everett fishing pier would be removed to accommodate the new slip and would be relocated. No new public access to the waterfront would be provided. This concept can be compliant with some of the Homeland Security requirements as referenced in 33CFR165.1317 by relocating the existing public access pier owned by the Port of Everett. However, it would not allow for the vehicle holding area to be secured from general public access in case of an elevated alert. The ferry crossing time would be approximately 15 minutes and 37 weekday sailings would be provided at this location. Bus This concept would provide six bus bays located east of the ferry terminal holding areas, where the Ivar’s parking lot and the Mongrain Glass Studio are currently located. The distance from the end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark to the bus bays would be approximately 0.16 mile. Access to and from this new bus facility would be provided by the new intersection with First Street and SR 525. Rail Sound Transit currently operates commuter rail service out of the Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station. The end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark would be located approximately 0.41 mile from the station. The new bus facilities at the ferry terminal would be approximately 0.22 mile from the station. Packet Page 144 of 235 11 Pa c k e t Pa g e 14 5 of 23 5 12 1 Pa c k e t Pa g e 14 6 of 23 5 13 2 ELLIOT POINT CONCEPTS 2.1 Elliot Point Overview This concept would relocate the existing Mukilteo Ferry Terminal to the U.S. Air Force Mukilteo Tank Farm. There are three options for this concept. Each option includes a passenger overhead loading system would connect the passenger building to the ferry, allowing the simultaneous loading of pedestrians and vehicles onto the ferry. The existing pier on the Mukilteo Tank Farm site would be removed. Vehicle access to the terminal would be made from the extension of First Street which would have a new connection to SR 525 just north of the railroad overcrossing. Bus facilities would be integrated within the ferry terminal. Option 1: This option would build a single slip at the east end of the Mukilteo Tank Farm property, approximately 0.50 mile to the east of the existing ferry terminal (Figure 3). The bus bays would be approximately 0.15 mile from the relocated ferry slip. The existing Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station would be approximately 0.41 mile from the ferry and 0.19 mile from the bus facilities. Option 2: This option would build a single slip in the middle of the Mukilteo Tank Farm property, approximately 0.34 mile to the east of the existing ferry terminal (Figure 4). The bus bays would be approximately 0.08 mile from the relocated ferry slip. The existing Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station would be approximately 0.19 mile from the ferry and 0.18 mile from the bus facilities. Option 3: This option would build a single slip at the west end of the Mukilteo Tank Farm property, approximately 0.22 mile to the east of the existing ferry terminal (Figure 5). The bus bays would be approximately 0.14 mile from the relocated ferry slip. The existing Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station would be approximately 0.22 mile from the ferry and 0.12 mile from the bus facilities. Existing site description The Elliot Point site is located in the City of Mukilteo, generally between the existing ferry terminal and the Port of Everett Mount Baker Terminal. It is within the U.S. Air Force Mukilteo Tank Farm which is bounded by Possession Sound to the north, Park Avenue to the west, the BNSF Railway mainline tracks (including the Sound Transit Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station) to the south, and the Port of Everett Mount Baker Terminal to the east. The 20-acre tank farm site includes ten concrete foundations for aboveground bulk fuel storage tanks that were formerly on the site, a 100 by 1,368 foot creosote timber pier, and several small buildings. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration maintains a research facility in the remaining buildings. The site also includes paved roads and parking areas. Proposed multimodal features Ferry Facilities All of the options for this concept would build a single slip at the Mukilteo Tank Farm property. The options all include a 5,000 square foot passenger building, as well as a passenger overhead loading system connecting the passenger building to the ferry to allow the simultaneous loading of pedestrians and vehicles onto the ferry2. The passenger building, passenger overhead loading system, and offshore 2 Passenger overhead loading at Mukilteo is not included in the Washington State Ferries 2009 Long Range Plan. WSF anticipates that ridership would warrant overhead loading at Mukilteo by 2040. It would not be part of the initial implementation of this concept, but would be added as a future phase of construction after 2030. Packet Page 147 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 14 mooring structures would be located and designed to allow for the future inclusion of a second ferry slip. Option 1 would locate the slip at the east end of the Mukilteo Tank Farm property, with the passenger building on the trestle. Option 2 would locate the slip in the middle of the property, with the passenger building on the shoreline to the east of the trestle. Option 3 would locate the slip at the west end of the property, with the passenger building on the shoreline to the west of the slip. The holding lanes for all of the options would have the capacity to hold 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (216 vehicles) and allow for separation of high occupancy vehicles, single occupancy vehicles, and large vehicles. The holding lanes would also allow for potential future demand management initiatives such as implementing a reservation system at this facility. Options 1 and 3 would locate the toll booths and holding lanes east of the trestle and passenger building. Option 2 would locate the toll booths and holding lanes west of the trestle and passenger building. Access to the Port of Everett Mount Baker Terminal would be maintained by all of the options. All of the options include a passenger drop-off area, bus bays, WSF employee parking, replacement parking for the Sound Transit Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station, and public short-term parking. Option 1 would locate these elements west of the terminal. The short-term parking would include replacement of the 32 public shoreline access parking spaces near the Mount Baker Terminal. The 65 spaces at the Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station would be replaced on the north side of First Street near the station. Option 2 would locate the passenger drop-off area, bus bays, and public short-term parking to the east of the ferry slip. The public short-term parking would include replacement of the 65 spaces at the Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station. WSF employee parking would be located west of the ferry slip, near the toll booths. The 32 public access parking spaces near the Mount Baker Terminal would not be displaced by either Option 2 or Option 3. Option 3 would locate the passenger drop-off area, bus bays, and public short-term parking to the west of the ferry slip. Parking spaces to replace the 65 spaces at the Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station and the WSF employee parking would be located to the east of the ferry slip. For Options 1 and 2, vehicle and bus access to the terminal would be made from First Street which would have a new connection to SR 525 just north of the railroad overcrossing. The realigned First Street would need to be raised from its current elevation about 15 feet to reach the elevation of SR 525. First Street would be widened from two to four lanes. The eastbound right lane would be striped for ferry queuing. This new queuing area will reduce the potential for ferry queue conflicts with local traffic on SR 525. The eastbound left lane (inside lane) would provide access to the bus bays, passenger pick up/drop off area, and parking at the new terminal. Access to the terminal would be the same for Option 3, except bus access would be from Front Street instead of First Street. Waterfront public access would be provided on both sides of the ferry terminal by all of the options. These public access areas would be connected by a pedestrian pathway around the south perimeter of the facility to minimize conflicts with ferry loading and unloading operations. Option 1 would daylight the portion of Japanese Creek north of the new First Street, currently in a culvert under the Mukilteo Tank Farm, and provide a 50-foot buffer on each side of the creek. Options 2 and 3 would not modify Japanese Creek and would be set back at least 200 feet from the culvert. The Mukilteo Tank Farm pier would be removed by all of the options. The existing ferry terminal would also be removed. The existing Port of Everett fishing pier would remain. All of the options for this concept would be fully compliant with Homeland Security requirements as referenced in 33CFR165.1317. The crossing time would be approximately 15 minutes and 37 weekday sailings would be provided at this location for all the options. Packet Page 148 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 15 Bus All of the options for this concept would provide six bus bays. Option 1 would locate the bus bays west of the ferry slip. The distance from the end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark to the bus bays would be approximately 0.15 mile. Option 2 would locate the bus bays east of the ferry slip. The distance from the end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark to the bus bays would be approximately 0.08 mile. Option 3 would locate the bus bays west of the ferry slip. The distance from the end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark to the bus bays would be approximately 0.14 mile. Rail Sound Transit currently operates commuter rail service out of the Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station. With Option 1, the end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark would be located approximately 0.41 mile from this station. The bus bays at the ferry terminal would be approximately 0.19 mile from this station. With Option 2, the end of the ferry trestle would be located approximately 0.19 mile from this station. The bus bays at the ferry terminal would be approximately 0.18 mile from this station. With Option 3, the end of the ferry trestle would be located approximately 0.22 mile from this station. The bus bays at the ferry terminal would be approximately 0.12 mile from this station. All of the options would widen First Street and eliminate the current 65 parking spaces associated with the Sound Transit Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station. The options would relocate these parking spaces as described above. Sound Transit plans for the rail station to have at least 120 parking spaces in the future. None of the options would preclude Sound Transit from building additional parking spaces in the vicinity of the station. Packet Page 149 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 16 Packet Page 150 of 235 17 Pa c k e t Pa g e 15 1 of 23 5 Mu k i l t e o Mu l t i m o d a l Pr o j e c t Co n c e p t De s c r i p t i o n s – Se p t e m b e r 20 1 0 18 Pa c k e t Pa g e 15 2 of 23 5 19 Pa c k e t Pa g e 15 3 of 23 5 Mu k i l t e o Mu l t i m o d a l Pr o j e c t Co n c e p t De s c r i p t i o n s – Se p t e m b e r 20 1 0 20 Pa c k e t Pa g e 15 4 of 23 5 Mu k i l t e o Mu l t i m o d a l Pr o j e c t Co n c e p t De s c r i p t i o n s – Se p t e m b e r 20 1 0 21 Pa c k e t Pa g e 15 5 of 23 5 Mu k i l t e o Mu l t i m o d a l Pr o j e c t Co n c e p t De s c r i p t i o n s – Se p t e m b e r 20 1 0 22 Pa c k e t Pa g e 15 6 of 23 5 23 2.2 Mount Baker Terminal Overview This concept would relocate the existing Mukilteo Ferry Terminal to the Port of Everett’s Mount Baker Terminal, approximately 0.75 mile east of the existing Mukilteo Ferry Terminal, as shown in Figure 6. A portion of the existing pier would be removed and the remaining pier would be extended into deeper water to create a new ferry slip. Additional ferry terminal facilities would be located on land to the west of the pier. Bus facilities would be located along the waterfront at the north edge of the ferry terminal, 0.24 mile from the ferry. The existing Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station would be approximately 0.68 mile from the ferry and 0.37 mile from the bus facilities. Existing site description The Port of Everett Mount Baker Terminal is located on the boundary between the City of Mukilteo and the City of Everett. The site is bounded by Possession Sound to the north and east, the BNSF Railway mainline tracks to the south, and the U.S. Air Force Mukilteo Tank Farm property on the west. The pier on this site was constructed in 2006 by the Port of Everett to handle oversized containers bound for industrial facilities at Paine Field. It is on property leased from WSDOT, and is registered by the State of Washington as a marine port facility of statewide significance. The pier consists of three segments: a curved approach trestle, a straight pier section, and a pair of finger piers projecting into deeper water. A public access area is located on the west side of the facility. Proposed multimodal features Ferry Facilities This concept would modify the existing pier to add a single ferry slip. To add the slip, the existing finger piers would need to be demolished and the remaining pier extended into deeper water. A 5,000 square foot passenger building would be located near the end of the pier, with a passenger overhead loading system connecting the passenger building to the ferry to allow the simultaneous loading of pedestrians and vehicles onto the ferry3. Pedestrian walkways would be located on both sides of the pier. A pedestrian bridge would extend from the passenger building to the walkway on the east side of the pier. The passenger building, passenger overhead loading system, and offshore mooring structures would be located and designed to allow for the future inclusion of a second ferry slip. Toll booths and vehicle holding lanes would be located west of the new ferry slip. The holding lanes would have the capacity to hold 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (216 vehicles) and allow for separation of high occupancy vehicles, single occupancy vehicles, and large vehicles. The holding lanes would also allow for potential future demand management initiatives such as implementing a reservation system at this facility. Passenger drop-off area, bus bays, and short-term parking would be located west of the holding lanes and would be accessible from First Street. The short-term parking would include replacement of 65 spaces at the Sound Transit Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station. The terminal supervisor’s building, employee parking, and other transit parking would be provided west of the vehicle holding area. The portion of Japanese Creek north of the proposed extension of First Street, currently in a culvert under the Mukilteo Tank Farm, would be daylighted and provided a 50-foot buffer on each side of the creek. In 3 Passenger overhead loading at Mukilteo is not included in the Washington State Ferries 2009 Long Range Plan. WSF anticipates that ridership would warrant overhead loading at Mukilteo by 2040. It would not be part of the initial implementation of this concept, but would be added as a future phase of construction after 2030. Packet Page 157 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 24 addition, the Mukilteo Tank Farm pier would be removed. The existing ferry terminal would also be removed. The existing Port of Everett fishing pier would remain. Access to the terminal would be provided from SR 525 by widening and extending First Street. This concept would be fully compliant with Homeland Security requirements as referenced in 33CFR165.1317. The vessel crossing time would be approximately 15 minutes with 37 weekday sailings provided at this location. Bus This concept would provide six bus bays would be located west of the ferry terminal holding areas. The distance from the end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark to the bus bays would be 0.24 mile. Rail Sound Transit currently operates commuter rail service out of the Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station. The end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark would be located approximately 0.68 mile from the station. The bus facilities at the ferry terminal would be approximately 0.37 mile from this station. Because the widening of First Street will eliminate the current 65 parking spaces associated with the Sound Transit Mukilteo Commuter Rail Station, this parking will be relocated to the ferry terminal parking lot. Sound Transit plans for the rail station to have at least 120 parking spaces in the future. The design of the ferry terminal parking lot would not preclude Sound Transit from building additional parking spaces in the vicinity of the station. Packet Page 158 of 235 25 3 Pa c k e t Pa g e 15 9 of 23 5 Mu k i l t e o Mu l t i m o d a l Pr o j e c t Co n c e p t De s c r i p t i o n s – Se p t e m b e r 20 1 0 26 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 0 of 23 5 27 3 EDMONDS CONCEPTS 3.1 Edmonds – Existing Overview The Edmonds Ferry Terminal Concept, as shown in Figure 7, assumes that the existing terminal would serve both the existing Kingston-Edmonds route and the relocated Clinton-Edmonds route. The present single-slip ferry terminal would be maintained at its existing Main Street location in downtown Edmonds. The overhead loading bridge and other pedestrian-related features, such as the widened walkway leading to a covered area, would remain in place. The existing Edmonds Commuter Rail Station is approximately 0.30 mile from the ferry and 0.12 mile from the new bus facilities under construction by Sound Transit at the ferry terminal. Existing Site Description The existing site is the Edmonds Ferry Terminal in the City of Edmonds. It is located on Puget Sound, with portions of Brackett’s Landing Park on both the north and south sides of the trestle leading to the ferry slip. The terminal has overhead pedestrian loading on the trestle. An at-grade crossing of the BNSF Railway mainline tracks separates the ferry slip from the toll booths and holding lanes. The holding lanes extend along Sunset Ave South. The ferry terminal is located between the downtown Edmonds business district and the Port of Edmonds marina facilities. Proposed Multimodal Facilities Ferry Facilities The concept would use the existing single slip at the Edmonds Ferry Terminal to serve both the route to Clinton and the existing Edmonds-Kingston route. Route schedules would be modified to accommodate operating both routes from the same location. No changes to the existing Edmonds Ferry Terminal are proposed. The overhead loading bridge and other pedestrian-related features, such as the widened walkway leading to a covered area, would remain in place. Some key components will need to be replaced in the next 20 years, including the wingwalls (which reach the end of their expected life in 2018) and some of the steel dolphins (expected to last until 2024). The other steel dolphins are expected to last until 2031 and the timber trestle is expected to last until 2033. A separately planned and funded project is scheduled to replace the timber dolphin later by 2012. The holding lanes would have the capacity to hold 155 vehicles, which is less than 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry for each route (216 vehicles for the Clinton route and 303 vehicles for the Kingston route.) Vehicle access to the terminal would not change. This concept would not be compliant with Homeland Security requirements as referenced in 33CFR165.1317. The ferry crossing time to Clinton from this location would be approximately 50 minutes. Approximately 17 weekday sailings could be provided. Since this concept changes the ferry route between Mukilteo and Clinton, it would require state legislative action and approval from the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT). Bus The existing bus stop (one bay) serving ferry passengers is located on Railroad Avenue, just south of the ferry terminal next to Brackett’s Landing Park. The end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark Packet Page 161 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 28 is 0.15 mile from the existing bus stop. In addition, Sound Transit is building additional bus bays near the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. These bus bays would be approximately 0.19 mile from the ferry. Rail Sound Transit currently operates commuter rail service out of the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. The end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark is approximately 0.30 mile from the ferry to the station. The distance from the bus bays under construction at the ferry terminal to the station is approximately 0.12 mile. Packet Page 162 of 235 29 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 3 of 23 5 Mu k i l t e o Mu l t i m o d a l Pr o j e c t Co n c e p t De s c r i p t i o n s – Se p t e m b e r 20 1 0 30 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 4 of 23 5 31 3.2 Edmonds – Existing Site Improvements Overview The Edmonds Existing Site Improvements concept, as shown in Figure 8, assumes that improvements would be made to the existing terminal to meet the needs of both the existing Kingston-Edmonds route and the relocated Clinton-Edmonds route. The present single-slip ferry terminal would be widened to accommodate additional overwater vehicle holding and a second slip. The overhead loading bridge and other pedestrian-related features, such as the widened walkway leading to a covered area, would be remodeled to provide access to both slips. New pedestrian bridges would separate pedestrians from ferry vehicle traffic and rail traffic. Vehicle holding would be relocated and expanded to existing business and WSDOT property on the west side of SR 104. The existing Edmonds Commuter Rail Station would be approximately 0.30 mile from the ferry and 0.08 mile from the new bus facilities under construction by Sound Transit at the ferry terminal. Existing Site Description The existing site is the Edmonds Ferry Terminal in the City of Edmonds. It is located on Puget Sound, with portions of Brackett’s Landing Park on both the north and south sides of the trestle leading to the ferry slip. The terminal has overhead pedestrian loading on the trestle. An at-grade crossing of the BNSF Railway mainline tracks separates the ferry slip from the toll booths and holding lanes. The holding lanes extend along Sunset Ave South. The ferry terminal is located between the downtown Edmonds business district and the Port of Edmonds marina facilities. Proposed Multimodal Facilities Ferry Facilities This concept would expand the existing terminal to include two ferry slips that would serve both the existing Mukilteo-Clinton route as well as the Edmonds-Kingston route. The passenger building would remain where it is today. The terminal would continue to have a pedestrian walkway system to provide overhead loading for the ferries. The existing vehicle holding lanes would be expanded to hold 1.5 times the capacity of the ferries (216 vehicles for the Clinton ferry and 303 vehicles for the Kingston ferry). This additional vehicle holding capacity would be provided both on land and over the water. The existing holding lanes on land would be expanded to the west by acquiring the adjacent commercial property (Waterfront Antique Mall). These holding lanes would be able to accommodate 295 vehicles. The holding lanes at the existing trestle would be expanded to accommodate 224 vehicles by enlarging the fill at the shoreline and also widening and extending the trestle. The holding lanes would allow for separation of high occupancy vehicles, single occupancy vehicles, and large vehicles. The holding lanes would also allow for potential future demand management initiatives such as implementing a reservation system at this facility. A passenger drop-off area and employee parking would be located east of the holding lanes and would be accessible from Sunset Avenue South. Part of the area currently used for holding lanes would be modified to provide short-term parking. Pedestrian bridges would be provided for pedestrians crossing the ferry loading and unloading lanes to go between the north and south portions of Brackett’s Landing Park and also to go between downtown Edmonds and the waterfront. These pedestrian bridges would separate pedestrians from ferry vehicle traffic and rail traffic. Vehicles would access the terminal from Dayton Street, approximately 250 feet west of the existing intersection with SR 104. Main Street would be closed to vehicle traffic west of Sunset Avenue South, except for buses serving the bus bays at the terminal. Packet Page 165 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 32 This concept would not be compliant with Homeland Security requirements as referenced in 33CFR165.1317. Schedules for both routes would be modified to accommodate operating both routes from the same location. The ferry crossing time to Clinton from this location would be approximately 50 minutes. Approximately 17 weekday sailings could be provided. Since this concept changes the ferry route between Mukilteo and Clinton, it would require state legislative action and approval from the WSDOT. Bus This concept would provide eight bus bays to the west of the holding lanes, adjacent to the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. These bus bays include the bus bays Sound Transit is building adjacent to the station. Buses would access the bays by using either a transit-only crossing of the ferry loading and unloading lanes at Main Street or through the Sound Transit parking lot. The end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark would be approximately 0.26 mile from the bus bays. A pedestrian bridge over the BNSF Railway mainline tracks would connect the bus bays to the ferry. Rail Sound Transit currently operates commuter rail service out of the Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. The end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark would be approximately 0.30 mile from the station. The distance from bus stop at the ferry terminal to the station would be approximately 0.08 mile. Packet Page 166 of 235 33 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 7 of 23 5 Mu k i l t e o Mu l t i m o d a l Pr o j e c t Co n c e p t De s c r i p t i o n s – Se p t e m b e r 20 1 0 34 Pa c k e t Pa g e 16 8 of 23 5 35 3.3 Edmonds – Point Edwards Overview The Point Edwards concept, as shown in Figure 9, would relocate both the Mukilteo Ferry Terminal and Edmonds Ferry Terminal to Point Edwards, located approximately 2/3 mile south of the existing Edmonds Ferry Terminal. This terminal would offer service from Edmonds to both Kingston and to Clinton. Access to the proposed complex would be provided by realigning SR 104 from its current intersection with Pine Street. A new overpass would be built across the BNSF tracks to provide pedestrian and vehicle access to the ferry terminal. The existing Edmonds Commuter Rail Station would be approximately 0.82 mile from the ferry and 0.49 mile from the bus facilities at the ferry terminal. Existing Site Description The site is located in the City of Edmonds approximately 2/3 mile south of the existing Edmonds Ferry Terminal, on a vacant former industrial site owned by WSDOT. It is south of the Port of Edmonds marina on Puget Sound and immediately north of a residential development located on a bluff above the site. The BNSF Railway mainline goes through the site parallel to Puget Sound. Proposed Multimodal Features Ferry Facilities This concept would build a new terminal with three ferry slips to serve both the existing Mukilteo-Clinton route as well as the Edmonds-Kingston route. A pedestrian walkway system would also be constructed that would provide overhead loading for the ferries similar to the existing Edmonds Ferry Terminal. The walkway system would interconnect the various modes and areas within the terminal, and a weather- protected walkway that would accommodate pedestrian movement between to and from the ferry slips. A passenger pick-up/drop-off area, six bus bays, and WSF employee parking would be located at the terminal. The holding lanes would have the capacity to hold 1.5 times the capacity of the ferries (216 vehicles for the Clinton ferry and 303 vehicles for the Kingston ferry) and allow for separation of high occupancy vehicles, single occupancy vehicles, and large vehicles. The holding lanes would also allow for potential future demand management initiatives such as implementing a reservation system at this facility. Willow Creek would be realigned and partially daylighted in an open channel from where it currently enters a culvert near the proposed passenger drop-off area to Puget Sound. Vehicle access the proposed terminal would be provided by realigning SR 104 from its current intersection with Pine Street. The realigned SR 104 would traverse the south edge of the site, at the bottom of the adjacent bluffs. This concept includes two exit lanes on the south side, two exit lanes on the north. This would provide separate exit lanes for each destination. Ferry traffic arriving and departing from the different destinations would not interfere with each other. The concept would provide a grade separation to separate ferry traffic from rail traffic on the BNSF Railway mainline tracks. This concept would be fully compliant with Homeland Security requirements as referenced in 33CFR165.1317. This crossing time to Clinton would be approximately 50 minutes. Approximately 18 weekday sailings could be provided. Packet Page 169 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 36 Since this concept changes the ferry route between Mukilteo and Clinton, it would require state legislative action and approval from the USDOT. Bus This concept would provide eight bus bays. They would be located approximately 0.39 mile from the end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark. Rail This concept assumes that Sound Transit would continue to serve Edmonds at the existing Edmonds Commuter Rail Station. The rail station is located approximately 0.82 mile from the end of the proposed ferry trestle where passengers would disembark. It would be approximately 0.49 mile from the proposed bus bays at the ferry terminal. Packet Page 170 of 235 37 Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 1 of 23 5 Mu k i l t e o Mu l t i m o d a l Pr o j e c t Co n c e p t De s c r i p t i o n s – Se p t e m b e r 20 1 0 38 Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 2 of 23 5 39 4 EVERETT CONCEPT 4.1 Port of Everett South Terminal Overview This concept would relocate the existing Mukilteo Ferry Terminal to the Port of Everett’s South Terminal, as shown in Figure 10. The existing wharf would be extended to create a new ferry slip. Other ferry terminal facilities would be built on the existing wharf. A new overpass would be built across the BNSF tracks from the intersection of Bond Street and Wall Street to Terminal Avenue. Bus facilities would be integrated within the ferry terminal, approximately 0.14 mile from the end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark. Sound Transit currently provides commuter rail service to Everett Station, approximately 1.75 miles from the Port of Everett’s South Terminal. Existing site description The Port of Everett South Terminal is located at the south end of the Port of Everett’s existing deep‐water marine terminal area and encompasses approximately 27 acres. It lies to the west of downtown Everett, Washington, at the base of Rucker Hill. The site is bounded by the BNSF Railway mainline tracks to the east, the Pigeon Creek Beach Viewpoint to the south, Port Gardner Bay to the west, and the Port’s existing Pacific Terminal to the north. The terminal has an existing 705-foot concrete wharf constructed in 1972. Concrete marine structures built at that time where typically designed with a 50-year lifespan. Many of them have since been estimated to actually have 75-year lifespans. The wharf has a 40,000 sq ft covered storage shed and a maintenance building. Proposed multimodal features Ferry facilities This concept would include a single slip that would require a short extension of the existing wharf. From the extended pier, a single slip would be provided with a transfer span, towers, wingwalls, and dolphins. A 5,000 square foot passenger building would be located adjacent to the slip, with a passenger overhead loading system connecting the passenger building to the ferry to allow the simultaneous loading of pedestrians and vehicles onto the ferry4. The offshore mooring structures and passenger overhead loading system would be located and designed to allow for the future inclusion of a second ferry slip. The toll booths and holding lanes would be located east of the ferry slip and passenger building. The holding lanes would have the capacity to hold 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (216 vehicles) and allow for separation of high occupancy vehicles, single occupancy vehicles, and large vehicles. The holding lanes would also allow for potential future demand management initiatives such as implementing a reservation system at this facility. A passenger pick-up/drop-off area, bus bays, and WSF employee parking would be located southeast of the ferry slip. Two new overpasses would be constructed near the intersection of Bond Street and Wall Street, connecting to the new ferry terminal access road in the South Terminal area. These overpasses would separate ferry traffic from existing rail traffic. The ferry terminal access road would not provide access 4 Passenger overhead loading at Mukilteo is not included in the Washington State Ferries 2009 Long Range Plan. WSF anticipates that ridership would warrant overhead loading at Mukilteo by 2040. It would not be part of the initial implementation of this concept, but would be added as a future phase of construction after 2030. Packet Page 173 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions – September 2010 40 into the Port of Everett’s marine terminals. Vehicles would continue to access the Port of Everett from Everett Avenue, approximately one mile northeast of the proposed ferry terminal site. This concept could be fully compliant with Homeland Security requirements as referenced in 33CFR165.1317. New security fencing and cameras would be required to separate the Port of Everett facilities from the ferry terminal facilities. The ferry crossing time would be approximately 35 minutes from Clinton to the Port of Everett South Terminal. A total of 21 weekday sailings could be provided at this location. Since this concept changes the ferry route, it would require state legislative action and approval from the USDOT to modify the current ferry route and re-designate the access route as a State Highway. The closest existing State Highway is State Route 529 at the intersection of Everett Avenue and West Marine View Drive. Bus This concept would provide six bus bays. They would be located southeast of the ferry terminal, approximately 0.14 mile from end of the ferry trestle where passengers disembark. No bus routes currently serve this location. Rail Sound Transit currently operates commuter rail service out of the Everett Station. The Everett Station would be approximately 1.75 miles east of the ferry and bus facilities proposed at Port of Everett South Terminal. Packet Page 174 of 235 41 Pa c k e t Pa g e 17 5 of 23 5 MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT Level 1 Screening Results September 2010 Packet Page 176 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 2 Packet Page 177 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 3 Introduction As part of the process to identify alternatives to be studied in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Mukilteo Multimodal Project, the project team developed concepts to be evaluated through a two-level screening process. This document describes the results of the first level (Level 1) of the screening process. A separate document describes the results of the second level (Level 2) screening process. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Washington State Ferries (WSF) will use the results of the two-level screening process, along with comments received throughout the scoping process, to choose which concepts will be studied in the EIS. The project team evaluated ten concepts in the Level 1 screening process. These concepts are described in the document Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions (WSF, September 2010). The concepts are listed below, grouped geographically. Existing Mukilteo Terminal • No Build • Existing Site Improvements Elliot Point • Elliot Point – Option 1 • Elliot Point – Option 2 • Elliot Point – Option 3 • Mount Baker Terminal Edmonds • Edmonds - Existing Terminal • Edmonds – Existing Site Improvements • Point Edwards Everett • Port of Everett South Terminal The project team developed a set of criteria to evaluate the concepts based upon the purpose and need statement for the project (see Attachment A). The Level 1 screening criteria are described below. The project team used these criteria to evaluate the ten concepts. Packet Page 178 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 4 Level 1 Screening Criteria (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 1(A) Does the concept improve safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing conflicts? Green = All conflicts reduced. Yellow = Some conflicts reduced. Red = Does not change existing conflicts and/or makes them worse. 1(B) Does the concept address the structural deficiencies of the existing terminal? Green = Yes Red = No 1(C) Does the concept allow for the facility to be secured as required by Homeland Security? Green = Yes Red = No (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 2(A) Would the concept provide a terminal with improved multimodal connections? Green = All multimodal connections improved Yellow = Some multimodal connections improved Red = Connections not improved and/or made worse 2(B) Would the concept provide adequate facilities for future bus transit service? Green = Yes Red = No 2(C) Is there enough room to provide holding facilities that can handle at least 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (approximately 215 vehicles)? Green = Yes Red = No 2(D) Would the concept provide improved facilities for loading and unloading the ferry reliably to maintain schedules? Green = Improved Red = Not improved or made worse (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? 3(A) Ecosystem resources (aquatic habitat, wetlands)? Green = Avoids Yellow = Somewhat avoids Red = Does not avoid 3(B) Historic, cultural, and parkland resources? Green = Avoids Yellow = Somewhat avoids Red = Does not avoid 3(D) Proximity effects (noise and visual)? Green = Avoids Yellow = Somewhat avoids Red = Does not avoid Packet Page 179 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 5 The results of the screening evaluation are presented in this document in the following screening results matrixes, grouped by the geographic areas described above. Each screening results matrix shows the rating for each criterion and the reasoning for that rating. A key to the graphical coding of the ratings is provided below.  Green Meets criterion  Yellow Partially meets criterion  Red Does not meet criterion A summary screening results matrix can be found at the end of this document. Packet Page 180 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 6 Packet Page 181 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 7 Existing Mukilteo Terminal Concepts CRITERION NO BUILD (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 1(A) Does the concept improve safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing conflicts?  No. Concept retains existing conditions, which will get worse as the number of people using the terminal increases in the future. 1(B) Does the concept address the structural deficiencies of the existing terminal?  Yes. Would replace existing terminal with new structures. 1(C) Does the concept allow for the facility to be secured as required by Homeland Security?  No. The existing facility cannot be secured. No changes would be made. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 2(A) Would the concept provide a terminal with improved multimodal connections?  No. Connections between modes would not change. 2(B) Would the concept provide adequate facilities for future transit service?  No. Bus transit facilities are inadequate today and would not be changed. Existing terminal has one two bus bays. 2(C) Is there enough room to provide holding facilities that can handle at least 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (approximately 215 vehicles)?  Yes. The current holding facilities would be maintained. 2(D) Would the concept provide improved facilities for loading and unloading the ferry reliably to maintain schedules?  No. Congestion at existing facility, which hampers the ability to maintain schedules, would continue. As demand increases in the future, the ability to maintain the current ferry schedule would be impaired. (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? RATING REASONING 3(A) Ecosystem resources (aquatic habitat, wetlands)?  Somewhat avoids. Existing terminal would continue to have the same footprint over the water. Shoreline erosion at the Losvar Condominiums would continue. 3(B) Historic, cultural, and parkland resources?  Does not avoid. Concept has the potential for new adverse effects on identified historic and cultural resources. It would be within a historic site and require at least some overlap with a known archaeological resource. Access to a popular city park may be affected. 3(C) Proximity effects (noise and visual)?  Somewhat avoids. Terminal would continue to have noise and visual effects on adjacent residential properties and a nearby hotel. Packet Page 182 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 8 Existing Mukilteo Terminal Concepts CRITERION EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 1(A) Does the concept improve safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing conflicts?  Somewhat. While the concept would reduce conflicts between ferry traffic modes, it would still have conflicts between ferry and non-ferry traffic of all modes. These conflicts would get worse as the number of people using the terminal increases in the future. 1(B) Does the concept address the structural deficiencies of the existing terminal?  Yes. Would replace existing terminal with new structures. 1(C) Does the concept allow for the facility to be secured as required by Homeland Security?  No. The existing facility cannot be secured. The proposed modifications would not allow it to be secured. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 2(A) Would the concept provide a terminal with improved multimodal connections?  Partially. Distance between commuter rail and ferry would not change. Distance between ferry and bus bays would increase, but bus bays would be closer to commuter rail. 2(B) Would the concept provide adequate facilities for future transit service?  Yes. Could accommodate up to six buses concurrently. Circulation for buses improved by separating them from ferry loading/unloading operations. 2(C) Is there enough room to provide holding facilities that can handle at least 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (approximately 215 vehicles)?  Yes. The current holding facilities would be maintained. 2(D) Would the concept provide improved facilities for loading and unloading the ferry reliably to maintain schedules?  Yes. Concept designed to allow reliable loading and unloading. (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? RATING REASONING 3(A) Ecosystem resources (aquatic habitat, wetlands)?  Somewhat avoids. Location of terminal would be slightly modified from existing, with a larger footprint over the water. Current shoreline erosion could be addressed. There would likely be some short term construction effects. 3(B) Historic, cultural, and parkland resources?  Does not avoid. Concept has the potential for new adverse effects on identified historic and cultural resources. It would be within a historic site and require at least some overlap with a known archaeological resource. Access to a popular city park may be affected. 3(C) Proximity effects (noise and visual)?  Somewhat avoids. Terminal would continue to have noise and visual effects on adjacent residential properties and a nearby hotel. Packet Page 183 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 9 Elliot Point Concepts CRITERION ELLIOT POINT - OPTION 1 (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 1(A) Does the concept improve safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing conflicts?  Partially. Most conflicts would be reduced but passengers going between the ferry and the commuter rail station would need to cross the flow of vehicles going to and from the ferry. 1(B) Does the concept address the structural deficiencies of the existing terminal?  Yes. Would replace existing terminal with a new structure. 1(C) Does the concept allow for the facility to be secured as required by Homeland Security?  Yes. Concept could be designed to allow it to be secured if needed. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 2(A) Would the concept provide a terminal with improved multimodal connections?  Partially. Distance between commuter rail and ferry would similar to existing terminal. Distance between ferry and bus bays would increase, but bus bays would be closer to commuter rail. 2(B) Would the concept provide adequate facilities for future transit service?  Yes. Could accommodate up to six buses concurrently. Circulation for buses improved by separating them from ferry loading/unloading operations. 2(C) Is there enough room to provide holding facilities that can handle at least 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (approximately 215 vehicles)?  Yes. Concept could be designed to have adequate holding facilities. 2(D) Would the concept provide improved facilities for loading and unloading the ferry reliably to maintain schedules?  Yes. Concept could be designed to allow reliable loading and unloading. (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? RATING REASONING 3(A) Ecosystem resources (aquatic habitat, wetlands)?  Avoids. There would be a net decrease in overwater coverage. Overwater coverage of new facility would be less than the amount of existing overwater coverage removed (existing terminal and former tank farm pier). Design would prevent scour from ferry operations. There would likely be some short term construction effects. 3(B) Historic, cultural, and parkland resources?  Does not avoid. Concept has the potential for new adverse effects on identified historic and cultural resources. It would be within a historic site and require at least some overlap with a known archaeological resource. 3(C) Proximity effects (noise and visual)?  Does not avoid. Would introduce new sources of light, glare, and additional noise (vehicles, terminal announcements) for adjacent residential area uphill from site. Packet Page 184 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 10 Elliot Point Concepts CRITERION ELLIOT POINT - OPTION 2 (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 1(A) Does the concept improve safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing conflicts?  Yes. Concept could be designed to avoid conflicts. 1(B) Does the concept address the structural deficiencies of the existing terminal?  Yes. Would replace existing terminal with a new structure. 1(C) Does the concept allow for the facility to be secured as required by Homeland Security?  Yes. Concept could be designed to allow it to be secured if needed. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 2(A) Would the concept provide a terminal with improved multimodal connections?  Yes. Bus bays would be close to ferry (like the existing terminal). Both the ferry and buses would be closer to the commuter rail station than the existing terminal. 2(B) Would the concept provide adequate facilities for future transit service?  Yes. Could accommodate up to six buses concurrently. Circulation for buses improved by separating them from ferry loading/unloading operations. 2(C) Is there enough room to provide holding facilities that can handle at least 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (approximately 215 vehicles)?  Yes. Concept could be designed to have adequate holding facilities. 2(D) Would the concept provide improved facilities for loading and unloading the ferry reliably to maintain schedules?  Yes. Concept could be designed to allow reliable loading and unloading. (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? RATING REASONING 3(A) Ecosystem resources (aquatic habitat, wetlands)?  Avoids. There would be a net decrease in overwater coverage. Overwater coverage of new facility would be less than the amount of existing overwater coverage removed (existing terminal and former tank farm pier). Design would prevent scour from ferry operations. There would likely be some short term construction effects. 3(B) Historic, cultural, and parkland resources?  Does not avoid. Concept has the potential for new adverse effects on identified historic and cultural resources. It would be within a historic site and require at least some overlap with a known archaeological resource. 3(C) Proximity effects (noise and visual)?  Does not avoid. Would introduce new sources of light, glare, and additional noise (vehicles, terminal announcements) for adjacent residential area uphill from site. Packet Page 185 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 11 Elliot Point Concepts CRITERION ELLIOT POINT - OPTION 3 (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 1(A) Does the concept improve safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing conflicts?  Partially. Most conflicts would be reduced but passengers going between the ferry and the commuter rail station would need to cross the flow of vehicles going to and from the ferry. 1(B) Does the concept address the structural deficiencies of the existing terminal?  Yes. Would replace existing terminal with a new structure. 1(C) Does the concept allow for the facility to be secured as required by Homeland Security?  Yes. Concept could be designed to allow it to be secured if needed. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 2(A) Would the concept provide a terminal with improved multimodal connections?  Partially. Distance between ferry and bus bays would increase, but bus bays would be closer to commuter rail. Distance between commuter rail and ferry would be shorter than at the existing terminal. 2(B) Would the concept provide adequate facilities for future transit service?  Yes. Could accommodate up to six buses concurrently. Circulation for buses improved by separating them from ferry loading/unloading operations. 2(C) Is there enough room to provide holding facilities that can handle at least 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (approximately 215 vehicles)?  Yes. Concept could be designed to have adequate holding facilities. 2(D) Would the concept provide improved facilities for loading and unloading the ferry reliably to maintain schedules?  Yes. Concept could be designed to allow reliable loading and unloading. (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? RATING REASONING 3(A) Ecosystem resources (aquatic habitat, wetlands)?  Avoids. There would be a net decrease in overwater coverage. Overwater coverage of new facility would be less than the amount of existing overwater coverage removed (existing terminal and former tank farm pier). Design would prevent scour from ferry operations. There would likely be some short term construction effects. 3(B) Historic, cultural, and parkland resources?  Does not avoid. Concept has the potential for new adverse effects on identified historic and cultural resources. It would be within a historic site and require at least some overlap with a known archaeological resource. 3(C) Proximity effects (noise and visual)?  Does not avoid. Would introduce new sources of light, glare, and additional noise (vehicles, terminal announcements) for adjacent residential area uphill from site. Packet Page 186 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 12 Elliot Point Concepts CRITERION MOUNT BAKER TERMINAL (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 1(A) Does the concept improve safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing conflicts?  Yes. Concept could be designed to avoid conflicts. 1(B) Does the concept address the structural deficiencies of the existing terminal?  Yes. Existing structure is designed for larger loads than would be necessary for ferry oriented traffic. 1(C) Does the concept allow for the facility to be secured as required by Homeland Security?  Yes. Concept could be designed to allow it to be secured if needed. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 2(A) Would the concept provide a terminal with improved multimodal connections?  No. Ferry would be farther from commuter rail than existing terminal. Bus bays would be farther from ferry and commuter rail than existing terminal. 2(B) Would the concept provide adequate facilities for future transit service?  Yes. Could accommodate up to six buses concurrently. Circulation for buses improved by separating them from ferry loading/unloading operations. 2(C) Is there enough room to provide holding facilities that can handle at least 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (approximately 215 vehicles)?  Yes. Concept could be designed to have adequate holding facilities. 2(D) Would the concept provide improved facilities for loading and unloading the ferry reliably to maintain schedules?  Yes. Concept could be designed to allow reliable loading and unloading. (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? RATING REASONING 3(A) Ecosystem resources (aquatic habitat, wetlands)?  Somewhat avoids. While there would be a net decrease in overwater coverage with removal of existing terminal, this location would adversely affect known eelgrass beds (overwater coverage and scour). There would likely be some short term construction effects. 3(B) Historic, cultural, and parkland resources?  Does not avoid. Concept has the potential for new adverse effects on identified historic and cultural resources. It would be within a historic site and require at least some overlap with a known archaeological resource. 3(C) Proximity effects (noise and visual)?  Does not avoid. Would introduce new sources of light, glare, and additional noise (vehicles, terminal announcements) for adjacent residential area uphill from site. Packet Page 187 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 13 Edmonds Concepts CRITERION EDMONDS – EXISITNG (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 1(A) Does the concept improve safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing conflicts?  No. Existing conflicts will get worse because of additional traffic from the Clinton route. 1(B) Does the concept address the structural deficiencies of the existing terminal?  Yes. The Edmonds terminal does not have the same structural deficiencies as the existing Mukilteo terminal. 1(C) Does the concept allow for the facility to be secured as required by Homeland Security?  No. The existing Edmonds terminal cannot be secured. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 2(A) Would the concept provide a terminal with improved multimodal connections?  Partially. Buses are farther from the ferry than the existing Mukilteo terminal, but commuter rail station is closer to the ferry. Buses are closer to commuter rail than at existing Mukilteo terminal. 2(B) Would the concept provide adequate facilities for future transit service?  No. The Edmonds terminal does not have enough space to handle additional bus service. 2(C) Is there enough room to provide holding facilities that can handle at least 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (approximately 215 vehicles)?  No. The Edmonds terminal does not have enough space for adequate holding facilites to serve two routes. 2(D) Would the concept provide improved facilities for loading and unloading the ferry reliably to maintain schedules?  No. The Edmonds terminal could not reliably load and unload two routes and maintain schedules. (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? RATING REASONING 3(A) Ecosystem resources (aquatic habitat, wetlands)?  Avoids. Removes existing Mukilteo terminal without expanding existing Edmonds terminal, resulting in a net reduction in overwater coverage. 3(B) Historic, cultural, and parkland resources?  Somewhat avoids. Creates access issues between parks on both sides of ferry dock. 3(C) Proximity effects (noise and visual)?  Somewhat avoids. No changes to the facility, but more vehicles would be there more often. Vehicles would back-up into adjacent neighborhoods on SR 104 farther and more frequently. Packet Page 188 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 14 Edmonds Concepts CRITERION EDMONDS – EXISITNG SITE IMPROVEMENTS (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 1(A) Does the concept improve safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing conflicts?  Partially. Would reduce bicycle and pedestrian conflicts with vehicles and trains but not address conflicts between vehicles and trains. 1(B) Does the concept address the structural deficiencies of the existing terminal?  Yes. Would replace existing Edmonds and Mukilteo terminals with a new structure. 1(C) Does the concept allow for the facility to be secured as required by Homeland Security?  No. The existing facility cannot be secured. The proposed modifications would not allow it to be secured. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 2(A) Would the concept provide a terminal with improved multimodal connections?  Partially. Buses are farther from the ferry than the existing Mukilteo terminal, but commuter rail station is closer to the ferry. Buses are closer to commuter rail than at existing Mukilteo terminal. 2(B) Would the concept provide adequate facilities for future transit service?  Yes. Could accommodate at least eight buses concurrently. 2(C) Is there enough room to provide holding facilities that can handle at least 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (approximately 215 vehicles)?  Yes. Concept could be designed to have adequate holding facilities. 2(D) Would the concept provide improved facilities for loading and unloading the ferry reliably to maintain schedules?  No. The terminal could not reliably load and unload two routes and maintain schedules because of the at-grade crossing of the BNSF Railway mainline. (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? RATING REASONING 3(A) Ecosystem resources (aquatic habitat, wetlands)?  Does not avoid. Expansion of Edmonds terminal likely to result in a net increase of overwater coverage. There would likely be some short term construction effects. 3(B) Historic, cultural, and parkland resources?  Does not avoid. Would require parkland acquisition to expand terminal and also to provide a bridge separating pedestrians and bicyclists from ferry vehicle traffic. 3(C) Proximity effects (noise and visual)?  Does not avoid. More cars would be at the terminal more often. Ferry vehicle traffic would back-up into adjacent neighborhoods on SR 104 farther and more frequently. Extensive overhead structures for pedestrians and bicyclists would likely affect views. Packet Page 189 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 15 Edmonds Concepts CRITERION EDMONDS – POINT EDWARDS (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 1(A) Does the concept improve safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing conflicts?  Yes. Concept could be designed to avoid conflicts. 1(B) Does the concept address the structural deficiencies of the existing terminal?  Yes. Would replace existing Edmonds and Mukilteo terminals with a new structure. 1(C) Does the concept allow for the facility to be secured as required by Homeland Security?  Yes. Concept could be designed to allow it to be secured if needed. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 2(A) Would the concept provide a terminal with improved multimodal connections?  No. All modes would be farther apart than at the existing Mukilteo terminal. 2(B) Would the concept provide adequate facilities for future transit service?  Yes. Could accommodate at least eight buses concurrently. 2(C) Is there enough room to provide holding facilities that can handle at least 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (approximately 215 vehicles)?  Yes. Concept could be designed to have adequate holding facilities. 2(D) Would the concept provide improved facilities for loading and unloading the ferry reliably to maintain schedules?  Yes. The terminal could be designed to reliably load and unload two routes to maintain schedules. (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? RATING REASONING 3(A) Ecosystem resources (aquatic habitat, wetlands)?  Does not avoid. Existing terminals at Edmonds and Mukilteo would be removed, but concept is likely to result in a net increase in overwater coverage. Industrial pier at site has already been removed as mitigation for a future Point Edwards terminal. There would likely be some short term construction effects. 3(B) Historic, cultural, and parkland resources?  Somewhat avoids. Would require parkland acquisition at new terminal location, but would benefit parks adjacent to existing Edmonds ferry terminal. 3(C) Proximity effects (noise and visual)?  Somewhat avoids. Downtown Edmonds would be improved, but residential development adjacent to proposed location would be affected. Packet Page 190 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 16 Packet Page 191 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 17 Everett Concept CRITERION PORT OF EVERETT SOUTH TERMINAL (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 1(A) Does the concept improve safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing conflicts?  Yes. Concept could be designed to avoid conflicts. 1(B) Does the concept address the structural deficiencies of the existing terminal?  Yes. Would replace existing terminal with a newer structure that does not have structural deficiencies. 1(C) Does the concept allow for the facility to be secured as required by Homeland Security?  Yes. Concept could be designed to allow it to be secured if needed. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? RATING REASONING 2(A) Would the concept provide a terminal with improved multimodal connections?  No. All modes would be farther apart than at the existing Mukilteo terminal. 2(B) Would the concept provide adequate facilities for future transit service?  Yes. Could accommodate up to six buses concurrently. Circulation for buses improved by separating them from ferry loading/unloading operations. 2(C) Is there enough room to provide holding facilities that can handle at least 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (approximately 215 vehicles)?  Yes. Concept could be designed to have adequate holding facilities. 2(D) Would the concept provide improved facilities for loading and unloading the ferry reliably to maintain schedules?  Yes. Concept could be designed to allow reliable loading and unloading. (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? RATING REASONING 3(A) Ecosystem resources (aquatic habitat, wetlands)?  Somewhat avoids. Uses existing overwater structures. New overwater footprint at least as large as existing Mukilteo terminal. There would likely be some short term construction effects. 3(B) Historic, cultural, and parkland resources?  Avoids. No known resources would be affected at this location. 3(C) Proximity effects (noise and visual)?  Avoids. No known resources would be affected at this location. Packet Page 192 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 18 Packet Page 193 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 1 Screening Results – September 2010 19 LEVEL 1 SCREENING RESULTS SUMMARY No B u i l d Ex i s t i n g S i t e I m p r o v e m e n t s El l i o t P o i n t – Op t i o n 1 El l i o t P o i n t – Op t i o n 2 El l i o t P o i n t – Op t i o n 3 Mo u n t B a k e r T e r m i n a l Ed m o n d s - Ex i s t i n g T e r m i n a l Ed m o n d s - Ex i s t i n g S i t e Im p r o v e m e n t s Ed m o n d s - Po i n t E d w a r d s Po r t o f E v e r e t t S o u t h Te r m i n a l (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 1(A) Does the concept improve safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing conflicts?           1(B) Does the concept address the structural deficiencies of the existing terminal?           1(C) Does the concept allow for the facility to be secured as required by Homeland Security?           (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 2(A) Would the concept provide a terminal with improved multimodal connections?           2(B) Would the concept provide adequate facilities for future transit service?           2(C) Is there enough room to provide holding facilities that can handle at least 1.5 times the capacity of the ferry (approximately 215 vehicles)?           2(D) Would the concept provide improved facilities for loading and unloading the ferry reliably to maintain schedules?           (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? 3(A) Ecosystem resources (aquatic habitat, wetlands)?           3(B) Historic, cultural, and parkland resources?           3(C) Proximity effects (noise and visual)?           Attachment A: Purpose and Need Packet Page 194 of 235 1 MUKILTEO MULTIMODAL PROJECT Level 2 Screening Results September 2010 Packet Page 195 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 2 Screening Results – September 2010 2 Packet Page 196 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 2 Screening Results – September 2010 3 Introduction As part of the process to identify alternatives to be studied in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Mukilteo Multimodal Project, the project team developed concepts to be evaluated through a two-level screening process. This document describes the results of the second level (Level 2) of the screening process. The project team evaluated ten concepts in the screening process. These concepts are described in the document Mukilteo Multimodal Project Concept Descriptions (WSF, September 2010). The concepts are listed below, grouped geographically. Existing Mukilteo Terminal • No Build • Existing Site Improvements Elliot Point • Elliot Point – Option 1 • Elliot Point – Option 2 • Elliot Point – Option 3 • Mount Baker Terminal Edmonds • Edmonds - Existing Terminal • Edmonds – Existing Site Improvements • Edmonds – Point Edwards Everett • Port of Everett South Terminal Similar to the Level 1 screening, the project team developed a set of criteria for Level 2 to evaluate the concepts based upon the purpose and need statement for the project (see Attachment A). The Level 2 screening criteria are described in Exhibit 1. The project team used these criteria to evaluate the ten concepts in more detail than the Level 1 screening. The results of this evaluation are presented in this document by geographic area. The screening matrix shows the rating for each criterion and the basis for that rating. For the criteria that evaluate safety and security or transportation options, each of the concepts is rated in terms of how well it meets each of the criteria.  Green Meets criterion  Yellow Partially meets criterion  Red Does not meet criterion For the criteria that evaluate environmental effects, green indicates that a concept is very likely to avoid adverse effects. Yellow indicates that the likelihood of the concept avoiding adverse effects is uncertain. This could be due to a lack of information at this stage of the analysis or because the concept would likely have a mixture of adverse effects and benefits that makes the net result uncertain. Red indicates that a concept is very unlikely to avoid adverse effects. Packet Page 197 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 2 Screening Results – September 2010 4  Green Likely to avoid adverse effects  Yellow Avoidance uncertain or mixed  Red Likely to not avoid adverse effects A brief screening results summary is provided at the end of this document. Packet Page 198 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 2 Screening Results – September 2010 5 Exhibit 1: Level 2 Screening Criteria (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 1(A) Does the concept reduce conflicts between local and ferry vehicle traffic compared to existing conditions? Green = Yes, no conflicts. Yellow = Yes, conflicts reduced but some remain. Red = No, conflicts similar or worse. 1(B) Does the concept reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists during ferry loading and unloading? Green = Yes, no conflicts. Yellow = Yes, conflicts reduced but some remain. Red = No, conflicts similar or worse. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 2(A) Does the concept improve the reliability of ferry loading/unloading operations compared to the existing Mukilteo terminal? Green = Yes, reliability improved. Yellow = Partial improvement. Red = No, reliability not improved. 2(B) Would the location of the terminal avoid ferry conflicts with maritime traffic that would adversely affect ferry schedule reliability? Green = No conflicts likely. Yellow = Infrequent conflicts likely. Red = Frequent conflicts likely. 2(C) Does the concept provide effective connections between modes (ferry, bus, and rail)? Green = All modes within ¼ mile of each other. Yellow = All modes within ½ mile of each other. Red = No, all modes not within ½ mile of each other. 2(D) Does the concept improve or maintain the connection between Whidbey Island and Seattle- Everett metropolitan area for the majority of users? 2(D1) How does the concept affect peak period trip time? [estimated travel time] Ferry/HOV Change in trip time compared to existing location / total estimated trip time Ferry/SOV Change in trip time compared to existing location / total estimated trip time Ferry/Transit Change in trip time compared to existing location / total estimated trip time Ferry/Rail Change in trip time compared to existing location / total estimated trip time 2(D2) How does the concept affect service frequency on the ferry route? Green = Frequency improved (report sailings/day). Yellow = Frequency same (report sailings/day). Red = Frequency worse (report sailings/day). Packet Page 199 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 2 Screening Results – September 2010 6 (3) How well does the concept avoid adverse environmental effects? 3(A) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on stream habitat and species? Green = High potential for avoiding: Avoids all streams and buffers or makes improvements to existing conditions. Yellow = Medium potential for avoiding: Affects only buffers and makes no improvements. Red = Low potential for avoiding: Concept likely to adversely affect a stream and makes no improvements. 3(B) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on marine and near-shore habitat and species? Green = High potential for avoiding: Marine/near-shore habitat footprint same as existing or net reduction. Yellow = Medium potential for avoiding: Marine/near- shore habitat footprint greater than existing and no or unknown potential effect on important habitat features (e.g. eelgrass beds). Red = Low potential for avoiding: Marine/near-shore habitat footprint greater than existing and likely to have adverse effect on known important habitat features (e.g. eelgrass beds). 3(C) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on wetland habitat and species? Green = High potential for avoiding: Avoids all wetlands and buffers or makes improvements to existing conditions. Yellow = Medium potential for avoiding: Affects only buffers and makes no improvements. Red = Low potential for avoiding: Concept likely to adversely affect a wetland and makes no improvements. 3(D) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on upland habitat valuable to migratory birds? Green = High potential for avoiding: Avoids upland habitat valuable to migratory birds. Affected area developed, with little or no vegetation. Yellow = Medium potential for avoiding: Somewhat avoids upland habitat valuable to migratory birds. Affected area partially covered with vegetation. Red = Low potential for avoiding: Does not avoid upland habitat valuable to migratory birds. Affected area mostly covered with vegetation. 3(E) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on historic properties? Green = High potential for avoiding: Site is unlikely to adversely affect historic properties (no potentially NRHP- eligible properties based on existing documentation, soils documented to be previously disturbed) Yellow = Medium potential for avoiding: Historic properties are known to be at or near the site, but have been determined to be avoidable; site is not within or adjacent to historic site or district; site is not within ¼ mile of a known or recorded archaeological site. Red = Low potential for avoiding: Historic properties are known to be at site and not avoidable or site is within ¼ mile of a known or recorded archaeological site. Packet Page 200 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 2 Screening Results – September 2010 7 3(F) What is the potential for avoiding the use of parklands (publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges)? Green = High potential for avoiding: No anticipated use. Yellow = Medium potential for avoiding: Would use a known resource but could potentially be a de minimis use. Red = Low potential for avoiding: Would use a known resource, use not likely de minimis. 3(G) What is the potential for avoiding conflicts with land use plans and zoning? Green = High potential for avoiding. Yellow = Medium potential for avoiding. Red = Low potential for avoiding. 3(H) What is the potential for avoiding conflicts with shoreline plans? Green = High potential for avoiding. Yellow = Medium potential for avoiding. Red = Low potential for avoiding. 3(I) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on neighborhoods from ferry traffic? Green = High potential for avoiding: Ferry traffic queues in neighborhoods likely to be shorter than existing, fewer conflicts with driveways and local streets. Yellow = Medium potential for avoiding: Ferry traffic queues in neighborhoods likely to be similar to existing, similar conflicts with driveways and local streets. Red = Low potential for avoiding: Ferry traffic queues in neighborhoods likely to be worse than existing, more conflicts with driveways and local streets. 3(J) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on navigable waterways from the placement of new structures? Green = High potential for avoiding. Yellow = Medium potential for avoiding. Red = Low potential for avoiding. Packet Page 201 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 2 Screening Results – September 2010 8 Packet Page 202 of 235 9 Existing Mukilteo Terminal Concepts CRITERION NO-BUILD EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS RATING REASONING RATING REASONING (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 1(A) Does the concept reduce conflicts between local and ferry vehicle traffic compared to existing conditions?  Existing conflicts between local and vehicle traffic will continue.  Existing conflicts between local and vehicle traffic will continue. 1(B) Does the concept reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists during ferry loading and unloading?  Existing conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists will continue.  Pedestrians and bicyclists going between the ferry and either the bus or rail facilities would no longer conflict with ferry vehicle traffic. Other conflicts would continue. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 2(A) Does the concept improve the reliability of ferry loading/unloading operations compared to the existing Mukilteo terminal?  Would not change the ferry loading/unloading operations.  Concurrent loading of pedestrians and vehicles would improve reliability of ferry loading/unloading operations. Some potential conflicts would remain. 2(B) Would the location of the terminal avoid ferry conflicts with maritime traffic that would adversely affect ferry schedule reliability?  Conflicts that would adversely affect ferry schedule reliability not likely.  Conflicts that would adversely affect ferry schedule reliability not likely. 2(C) Does the concept provide effective connections between modes (ferry, bus, and rail)?  Bus/ferry: 0.08 mile apart Rail/ferry: 0.35 mile apart Rail/bus: 0.30 mile apart  Bus/ferry: 0.16 mile apart Rail/ferry: 0.41 mile apart Rail/bus: 0.22 mile apart 2(D) Does the concept improve or maintain the connection between Whidbey Island and Seattle-Everett metropolitan area for the majority of users? See below. See below. 2(D1) Does the concept improve or maintain peak period trip time? [estimated existing travel time in minutes] Clinton to Seattle (downtown)  Ferry/SOV: 60 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/HOV: 55 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/bus: 76 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/rail: 73 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing.  Ferry/SOV: 60 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/HOV: 55 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/bus: 76 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/rail: 73 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Clinton to Seattle (University of Washington)  Ferry/SOV: 55 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/HOV: 51 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/bus: 92 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/rail: trip not possible for this destination.  Ferry/SOV: 55 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/HOV: 51 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/bus: 92 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/rail: trip not possible for this destination. 2(D2) Does the concept improve or maintain service frequency on the ferry route?  37 sailings would be provided. Frequency of ferry service would not change.  37 sailings would be provided. Frequency of ferry service would not change. Packet Page 203 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 2 Screening Results – September 2010 10 Existing Mukilteo Terminal Concepts (continued) CRITERION NO-BUILD EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS RATING REASONING RATING REASONING (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? 3(A) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on stream habitat and species?  No potential stream habitat effects have been identified.  No potential stream habitat effects have been identified. 3(B) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on marine and near-shore habitat and species?  Overwater footprint would be the same as existing.  Overwater footprint would be approximately 9,000 square feet greater than existing. No important habitat features identified at site. 3(C) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on wetland habitat and species?  No potential wetland habitat effects have been identified.  No potential wetland habitat effects have been identified. 3(D) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on upland habitat valuable to migratory birds?  Affected area developed, with minimal vegetation.  Affected area developed, with minimal vegetation. 3(E) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on historic properties?  Historic properties known to be at the site. No construction effects, but any existing operation effects would continue.  Historic properties known to be at the site, overlap not avoidable. 3(F) What is the potential for avoiding the use of parklands (publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges)?  Would not use parklands.  Would require relocating public fishing pier. Could be de minimis. 3(G) What is the potential for avoiding conflicts with land use plans and zoning?  Current Mukilteo comprehensive plan calls for moving the terminal away from the existing site. Zoning designation: Downtown Business. Ferry terminal allowed by zoning as a conditional use.  Current Mukilteo comprehensive plan calls for moving the terminal away from the existing site. Zoning designation: Downtown Business. Ferry terminal allowed by zoning as a conditional use. 3(H) What is the potential for avoiding conflicts with shoreline plans?  Designated as Urban Waterfront I; management policy – “The purpose of the Urban Waterfront I designation is to provide for development and redevelopment of high-intensity, water-oriented (water enjoyment or water-related) commercial and recreational activities, transportation, and essential public facilities, while protecting existing ecological functions and improving ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.” Ferry terminal consistent with shoreline plans.  Designated as Urban Waterfront I; management policy – “The purpose of the Urban Waterfront I designation is to provide for development and redevelopment of high-intensity, water-oriented (water enjoyment or water-related) commercial and recreational activities, transportation, and essential public facilities, while protecting existing ecological functions and improving ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.” Ferry terminal consistent with shoreline plans. 3(I) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on neighborhoods from ferry traffic?  Would continue to have vehicles queued in adjacent neighborhoods during peak periods.  Would continue to have vehicles queued in adjacent neighborhoods during peak periods. 3(J) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on navigable waterways from the placement of new structures?  No new in-water structures.  New in-water structures would be placed at existing location, outside of navigation channels. Packet Page 204 of 235 11 Elliot Point Concepts CRITERION ELLIOT POINT - OPTION 1 ELLIOT POINT - OPTION 2 ELLIOT POINT - OPTION 3 MOUNT BAKER TERMINAL RATING REASONING RATING REASONING RATING REASONING RATING REASONING (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 1(A) Does the concept reduce conflicts between local and ferry vehicle traffic compared to existing conditions?  No conflicts between local traffic and ferry traffic at the new terminal.  No conflicts between local traffic and ferry traffic at the new terminal.  No conflicts between local traffic and ferry traffic at the new terminal.  No conflicts between local traffic and ferry traffic at the new terminal. 1(B) Does the concept reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists during ferry loading and unloading?  Would eliminate conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists at the ferry slip, but would create a conflict between ferry vehicle traffic and people going between the ferry and the commuter rail station at a signalized intersection.  No conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists at the new terminal.  Would eliminate conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists at the ferry slip, but would create a conflict between ferry vehicle traffic and people going between the ferry and the commuter rail station at a crosswalk.  No conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists at the new terminal. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 2(A) Does the concept improve the reliability of ferry loading/unloading operations compared to the existing Mukilteo terminal?  Concurrent loading of pedestrians and vehicles would improve reliability of ferry loading/unloading operations.  Concurrent loading of pedestrians and vehicles would improve reliability of ferry loading/unloading operations.  Concurrent loading of pedestrians and vehicles would improve reliability of ferry loading/unloading operations.  Concurrent loading of pedestrians and vehicles would improve reliability of ferry loading/unloading operations. 2(B) Would the location of the terminal avoid ferry conflicts with maritime traffic that would adversely affect ferry schedule reliability?  Conflicts that would adversely affect ferry schedule reliability not likely.  Conflicts that would adversely affect ferry schedule reliability not likely.  Conflicts that would adversely affect ferry schedule reliability not likely.  Conflicts that would adversely affect ferry schedule reliability not likely. 2(C) Does the concept provide effective connections between modes (ferry, bus, and rail)?  Bus/ferry: 0.15 mile apart Rail/ferry: 0.41 miles apart Rail/bus: 0.19 mile apart  Bus/ferry: 0.08 mile apart Rail/ferry: 0.19 mile apart Rail/bus: 0.18 mile apart  Bus/ferry: 0.14 mile apart Rail/ferry: 0.22 mile apart Rail/bus: 0.12 mile apart  Bus/ferry: 0.24 mile apart Rail/ferry: 0.68 mile apart Rail/bus: 0.37 mile apart 2(D) Does the concept improve or maintain the connection between Whidbey Island and Seattle- Everett metropolitan area for the majority of users? See below. See below. See below. See below. 2(D1) Does the concept improve or maintain peak period trip time? [estimated existing travel time in minutes] Clinton to Seattle (downtown)  Ferry/SOV: 60 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/HOV: 55 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/bus: 76 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/rail: 73 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing.  Ferry/SOV: 60 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/HOV: 55 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/bus: 76 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/rail: 73 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing.  Ferry/SOV: 60 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/HOV: 55 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/bus: 76 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/rail: 73 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing.  Ferry/SOV: 60 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/HOV: 55 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/bus: 76 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/rail: 73 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Clinton to Seattle (University of Washington)  Ferry/SOV: 55 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/HOV: 51 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/bus: 92 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/rail: trip not possible for this destination.  Ferry/SOV: 55 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/HOV: 51 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/bus: 92 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/rail: trip not possible for this destination.  Ferry/SOV: 55 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/HOV: 51 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/bus: 92 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/rail: trip not possible for this destination.  Ferry/SOV: 55 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/HOV: 51 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/bus: 92 minutes estimated travel time, same as existing. Ferry/rail: trip not possible for this destination. 2(D2) Does the concept improve or maintain service frequency on the ferry route?  37 sailings would be provided. Frequency of ferry service would not change.  37 sailings would be provided. Frequency of ferry service would not change.  37 sailings would be provided. Frequency of ferry service would not change.  37 sailings would be provided. Frequency of ferry service would not change. Packet Page 205 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 2 Screening Results – September 2010 12 Elliot Point Concepts (continued) CRITERION ELLIOT POINT - OPTION 1 ELLIOT POINT - OPTION 2 ELLIOT POINT - OPTION 3 MOUNT BAKER TERMINAL RATING REASONING RATING REASONING RATING REASONING RATING REASONING (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? 3(A) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on stream habitat and species?  Would daylight a portion of Japanese Creek and provide a 50-ft. buffer. No potential adverse stream habitat effects have been identified.  No potential stream habitat effects have been identified.  No potential stream habitat effects have been identified.  Would daylight a portion of Japanese Creek and provide a 50-ft. buffer. No potential adverse stream habitat effects have been identified. 3(B) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on marine and near-shore habitat and species?  Overwater footprint would be approximately 119,000 square feet less than existing. Existing Mukilteo overwater ferry facility structures would be removed, along with existing Tank Farm pier. Several small, isolated patches of eelgrass known to exist in vicinity of proposed structure. Shellfish and Dungeness crab habitat also known to exist in this area.  Overwater footprint would be approximately 137,000 square feet less than existing. Existing Mukilteo overwater ferry facility structures would be removed, along with existing Tank Farm pier. Several small, isolated patches of eelgrass known to exist in vicinity of proposed structure. Shellfish and Dungeness crab habitat also known to exist in this area.  Overwater footprint would be approximately 132,000 square feet less than existing. Existing Mukilteo overwater ferry facility structures would be removed, along with existing Tank Farm pier. Several small, isolated patches of eelgrass known to exist in vicinity of proposed structure. Shellfish and Dungeness crab habitat also known to exist in this area.  Overwater footprint would be approximately 142,000 square feet less than existing. Existing Mukilteo overwater ferry facility structures would be removed, along with existing Tank Farm pier. Eelgrass meadows known to exist on both sides of existing pier. Shellfish and Dungeness crab habitat also known to exist in this area. 3(C) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on wetland habitat and species?  No potential wetland habitat effects have been identified.  No potential wetland habitat effects have been identified.  No potential wetland habitat effects have been identified.  No potential wetland habitat effects have been identified. 3(D) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on upland habitat valuable to migratory birds?  Area previously developed, but not actively used. Low to moderate quality habitat currently exists on some of the site.  Area previously developed, but not actively used. Low to moderate quality habitat currently exists on some of the site.  Area previously developed, but not actively used. Low to moderate quality habitat currently exists on some of the site.  Part of area developed, with limited vegetation. Part of area previously developed, but not actively used. Low to moderate quality habitat currently exists on some of the site. 3(E) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on historic properties?  Historic properties known to be at the site, overlap not avoidable.  Historic properties known to be at the site, overlap not avoidable.  Historic properties known to be at the site, overlap not avoidable.  Historic properties known to be at the site, overlap not avoidable. 3(F) What is the potential for avoiding the use of parklands (publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges)?  Would relocate parking for Port of Everett Mt. Baker Terminal public shoreline access.  Would not use parklands.  Would not use parklands.  Would relocate parking for Port of Everett Mt. Baker Terminal public shoreline access. 3(G) What is the potential for avoiding conflicts with land use plans and zoning?  City comprehensive plans and PSRC regional transportation plan include relocating the terminal to this location. Mukilteo: Zoning designation is Waterfront Mixed Use. Ferry terminal is an allowed use. Everett: Zoning designation is Waterfront Commercial. Ferry terminal (as a facility of statewide significance) is an allowed use.  City comprehensive plans and PSRC regional transportation plan include relocating the terminal to this location. Mukilteo: Zoning designation is Waterfront Mixed Use. Ferry terminal is an allowed use. Everett: Not affected.  City comprehensive plans and PSRC regional transportation plan include relocating the terminal to this location. Mukilteo: Zoning designation is Waterfront Mixed Use. Ferry terminal is an allowed use. Everett: Not affected.  City comprehensive plans and PSRC regional transportation plan include relocating the terminal to this location. Mukilteo: Zoning designation is Waterfront Mixed Use. Ferry terminal is an allowed use. Everett: Zoning designation is Waterfront Commercial. Ferry terminal (as a facility of statewide significance) is an allowed use. 3(H) What is the potential for avoiding conflicts with shoreline plans?  Mukilteo: Designation – Urban Waterfront I. Everett: Designation - Urban Multi-Use. Ferry terminal is consistent with shoreline plans.  Mukilteo: Designation – Urban Waterfront I. Everett: Not affected. Ferry terminal is consistent with shoreline plans.  Mukilteo: Designation – Urban Waterfront I. Everett: Not affected. Ferry terminal is consistent with shoreline plans.  Mukilteo: Designation – Urban Waterfront I. Everett: Designation - Urban Multi-Use. Ferry terminal is consistent with shoreline plans. 3(I) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on neighborhoods from ferry traffic?  The extent of vehicles queued in adjacent neighborhoods during peak periods would be reduced because SR 525 would be extended approximately 3,800 feet to the new terminal.  The extent of vehicles queued in adjacent neighborhoods during peak periods would be reduced because SR 525 would be extended approximately 690 feet to the new terminal.  The extent of vehicles queued in adjacent neighborhoods during peak periods would be reduced because SR 525 would be extended approximately 2,075 feet to the new terminal.  The extent of vehicles queued in adjacent neighborhoods during peak periods would be reduced because SR 525 would be extended approximately 3,015 feet to the new terminal. 3(J) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on navigable waterways from the placement of new structures?  New in-water structures would be placed outside of navigation channels.  New in-water structures would be placed outside of navigation channels.  New in-water structures would be placed outside of navigation channels.  New in-water structures would be placed outside of navigation channels. Packet Page 206 of 235 13 Edmonds Concepts CRITERION EDMONDS - EXISTING EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS POINT EDWARDS RATING REASONING RATING REASONING RATING REASONING (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 1(A) Does the concept reduce conflicts between local and ferry vehicle traffic compared to existing conditions?  Local and ferry vehicle traffic conflicts in Mukilteo would be eliminated. Increases conflicts in Edmonds because of additional traffic there. Adds a rail/vehicle conflict that does not currently exist in Mukilteo.  Adds a rail/vehicle conflict that does not currently exist for Clinton route. Increases conflict at Railroad Avenue in Edmonds because of additional traffic from Clinton route. Local and ferry vehicle traffic conflicts in Mukilteo would be eliminated. Closure of Main Street in Edmonds between Sunset Avenue and Railroad Avenue would reduce conflicts there.  Local and ferry vehicle traffic conflicts in Mukilteo would be eliminated. No conflicts between local traffic and ferry traffic at the new terminal. Eliminates a rail/vehicle conflict that currently exists for Kingston route. 1(B) Does the concept reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists during ferry loading and unloading?  Would have conflicts between ferry vehicle traffic and local pedestrian/bicyclist traffic during loading and unloading. Would also have conflicts with rail traffic.  Would have fewer conflicts between ferry vehicle traffic and local pedestrian/bicyclist traffic during loading and unloading because of grade-separated pedestrian walkway. Conflicts with rail traffic would also be reduced by grade separation.  No conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists at the new terminal. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 2(A) Does the concept improve the reliability of ferry loading/unloading operations compared to the existing Mukilteo terminal?  Reliability of ferry loading/unloading operations adversely affected because of additional traffic and presence of at- grade crossing of railroad. Concurrent loading/unloading of passengers and vehicles would be an improvement compared to existing Mukilteo terminal.  Reliability of ferry loading/unloading operations adversely affected because of presence of at-grade crossing of railroad. Concurrent loading/unloading of passengers and vehicles would be an improvement compared to existing Mukilteo terminal.  New terminal would have fewer conflicts that could affect reliability. Concurrent loading/unloading of passengers and vehicles would be an improvement compared to existing Mukilteo terminal. 2(B) Would the location of the terminal avoid ferry conflicts with maritime traffic that would adversely affect ferry schedule reliability?  Longer route would require additional travel within established navigation routes, increasing potential for conflicts that could adversely affect ferry schedule reliability.  Longer route would require additional travel within established navigation routes, increasing potential for conflicts that could adversely affect ferry schedule reliability.  Longer route would require additional travel within established navigation routes, increasing potential for conflicts that could adversely affect ferry schedule reliability. 2(C) Does the concept provide effective connections between modes (ferry, bus, and rail)?  Bus/ferry: 0.19 mile apart Rail/ferry: 0.30 mile apart Rail/bus: 0.12 mile apart  Bus/ferry: 0.26 mile apart Rail/ferry: 0.30 mile apart Rail/bus: 0.08 mile apart  Bus/ferry: 0.39 mile apart Rail/ferry: 0.82 mile apart Rail/bus: 0.49 mile apart 2(D) Does the concept improve or maintain the connection between Whidbey Island and Seattle-Everett metropolitan area for the majority of users? 2(D1) Does the concept improve or maintain peak period trip time? [estimated existing travel time in minutes] Clinton to Seattle (downtown)  Ferry/SOV: 81 minutes estimated travel time, 21 minutes (35%) longer than existing. Ferry/HOV: 78 minutes estimated travel time, 23 minutes (42%) longer than existing. Ferry/bus: 119 minutes estimated travel time, 43 minutes (57%) longer than existing. Ferry/rail: 99 minutes estimated travel time, 26 minutes (36%) longer than existing.  Ferry/SOV: 81 minutes estimated travel time, 21 minutes (35%) longer than existing. Ferry/HOV: 78 minutes estimated travel time, 23 minutes (42%) longer than existing. Ferry/bus: 119 minutes estimated travel time, 43 minutes (57%) longer than existing. Ferry/rail: 99 minutes estimated travel time, 26 minutes (36%) longer than existing.  Ferry/SOV: 81 minutes estimated travel time, 21 minutes (35%) longer than existing. Ferry/HOV: 78 minutes estimated travel time, 23 minutes (42%) longer than existing. Ferry/bus: 119 minutes estimated travel time, 43 minutes (57%) longer than existing. Ferry/rail: 99 minutes estimated travel time, 26 minutes (36%) longer than existing. Clinton to Seattle (University of Washington)  Ferry/SOV: 76 minutes estimated travel time, 21 minutes (38%) longer than existing. Ferry/HOV: 73 minutes estimated travel time, 22 minutes (43%) longer than existing. Ferry/bus: 130 minutes estimated travel time, 38 minutes (41%) longer than existing. Ferry/rail: trip not possible for this destination.  Ferry/SOV: 76 minutes estimated travel time, 21 minutes (38%) longer than existing. Ferry/HOV: 73 minutes estimated travel time, 22 minutes (43%) longer than existing. Ferry/bus: 130 minutes estimated travel time, 38 minutes (41%) longer than existing. Ferry/rail: trip not possible for this destination.  Ferry/SOV: 76 minutes estimated travel time, 21 minutes (38%) longer than existing. Ferry/HOV: 73 minutes estimated travel time, 22 minutes (43%) longer than existing. Ferry/bus: 130 minutes estimated travel time, 38 minutes (41%) longer than existing. Ferry/rail: trip not possible for this destination. 2(D2) Does the concept improve or maintain service frequency on the ferry route?  17 sailings provided. Frequency of ferry service reduced by 54%.  17 sailings provided. Frequency of ferry service reduced by 54%.  18 sailings provided. Frequency of ferry service reduced by 51%. Packet Page 207 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 2 Screening Results – September 2010 14 Edmonds Concepts (continued) CRITERION EDMONDS - EXISTING EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS POINT EDWARDS RATING REASONING RATING REASONING RATING REASONING (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? 3(A) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on stream habitat and species?  No potential stream habitat effects identified.  No potential stream habitat effects identified.  Structure with holding lanes, exit lanes and overhead passenger loading would cross above Willow Creek, but the creek is currently in a culvert there. An additional pedestrian bridge would also cross the creek. Would daylight a portion of Willow Creek. 3(B) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on marine and near-shore habitat and species?  Existing overwater footprint of structures at Edmonds would not change. Existing overwater structures at Mukilteo would be removed, resulting in a net decrease of overwater footprint of approximately 11,800 square feet. Eelgrass beds known to exist on both sides of the existing structure in Edmonds. Shellfish and Dungeness crab habitat also known to exist in this area. No important habitat features identified at Mukilteo site.  Overwater footprint would be approximately 49,000 square feet larger than existing, including removal of existing overwater structures at Mukilteo. Eelgrass beds known to exist on both sides of the existing structure in Edmonds. Shellfish and Dungeness crab habitat also known to exist in this area. No important habitat features identified at Mukilteo site.  Overwater footprint would be approximately 61,000 square feet larger than existing, including removal of existing overwater structures at Mukilteo and Edmonds. Small, sparse eelgrass beds documented in vicinity of proposed site. Some shellfish and Dungeness crab habitat also known to exist in this area. Eelgrass beds known to exist on both sides of the existing structure in Edmonds. Shellfish and Dungeness crab habitat also known to exist in this area. No important habitat features identified at Mukilteo site. 3(C) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on wetland habitat and species?  No potential wetland habitat effects identified.  No potential wetland habitat effects identified.  No potential wetland habitat effects identified. 3(D) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on upland habitat valuable to migratory birds?  Affected area developed, with minimal vegetation.  Affected area developed, with minimal vegetation.  Area previously developed, but not actively used. Much vegetation is established on the site. Adjacent to Edmonds Marsh, known for high bird use. 3(E) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on historic properties?  Not within ¼ mile of a known archaeological site. No known NRHP-eligible properties identified within or adjacent to site.  Not within ¼ mile of a known archaeological site. No known NRHP-eligible properties identified within or adjacent to site.  Within ¼ mile of at least one known or recorded archaeological site (not NRHP-eligible). 3(F) What is the potential for avoiding the use of parklands (publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges)?  Would not use parklands.  Would use a portion of Brackett's Landing North (Edmonds Underwater Park) to north of ferry terminal.  Would use a portion of Marina Beach Park, but would improve Brackett’s Landing parks by removing existing terminal and connecting the two parks. 3(G) What is the potential for avoiding conflicts with land use plans and zoning?  Continued use of existing terminal not consistent with local and regional plans. Zoning designations: Public Use along the waterfront to the north of existing terminal, Commercial Waterfont along the waterfront to the south of existing terminal, and Community Business east of the railroad tracks where the existing holding lanes are located. Ferry terminal is an allowed use.  Continued use of existing terminal not consistent with local and regional plans. Zoning designations: Public Use along the waterfront to the north of existing terminal, Commercial Waterfont along the waterfront to the south of existing terminal, and Community Business east of the railroad tracks where the existing holding lanes are located. Ferry terminal is an allowed use.  Use of site for a ferry terminal consistent with local and regional plans. Zoning designations: Commercial Waterfont along the waterfront and Master Plan Hillside Mixed Use to the east of the railroad tracks. Ferry terminal is an allowed use. 3(H) What is the potential for avoiding conflicts with shoreline plans?  Site classified as Urban Mixed Use II. Immediately adjacent areas classified as Conservancy I Saltwater Environment. Ferry terminal allowed as a conditional use in Urban Mixed Use II area.  Site classified as Urban Mixed Use II. Immediately adjacent areas classified as Conservancy I Saltwater Environment. Ferry terminal allowed as a conditional use in Urban Mixed Use II area. Not permitted in Conservancy I Saltwater Environment. Expansion of the terminal into Conservancy Saltwater Environment area would not be consistent with shoreline plans.  Site on border of areas classified as Urban Mixed Use I and Urban Mixed Use II. Ferry terminal permitted as a conditional use in Urban Mixed Use I and Urban Mixed Use II areas. 3(I) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on neighborhoods from ferry traffic?  Would continue to have vehicles queued in adjacent neighborhoods during peak periods. Would likely be longer with a second route.  Would continue to have vehicles queued in adjacent neighborhoods during peak periods. Could be longer with a second route.  Would continue to have vehicles queued in adjacent neighborhoods during peak periods. Could be longer with a second route. 3(J) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on navigable waterways from the placement of new structures?  No new in-water structures.  Would expand existing in-water structures outside of navigation channels.  New in-water structures would be placed outside of navigation channels. Packet Page 208 of 235 15 Everett Concept CRITERION PORT OF EVERETT SOUTH TERMINAL RATING REASONING (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 1(A) Does the concept reduce conflicts between local and ferry vehicle traffic compared to existing conditions?  Conflicts in Mukilteo would be eliminated. No conflicts between local traffic and ferry vehicle traffic at the new terminal. 1(B) Does the concept reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists during ferry loading and unloading?  No conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists at the new terminal. (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 2(A) Does the concept improve the reliability of ferry loading/unloading operations compared to the existing Mukilteo terminal?  New terminal would have no conflicts that could affect reliability. Concurrent loading of vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists would improve reliability ferry schedules. 2(B) Would the location of the terminal avoid ferry conflicts with maritime traffic that would adversely affect ferry schedule reliability?  Ferry vessels would have conflicts with US Navy and Port of Everett maritime traffic that could adversely affect ferry schedule reliability. 2(C) Does the concept provide effective connections between modes (ferry, bus, and rail)?  Bus/ferry: 0.14 mile apart Rail/ferry: 1.75 miles apart Rail/bus: 1.75 miles apart 2(D) Does the concept improve or maintain the connection between Whidbey Island and Seattle- Everett metropolitan area for the majority of users? 2(D1) Does the concept improve or maintain peak period trip time? [estimated existing travel time in minutes] Clinton to Seattle (downtown)  Ferry/SOV: 85 minutes estimated travel time, 25 minutes (42%) longer than existing. Ferry/HOV: 77 minutes estimated travel time, 22 minutes (40%) longer than existing. Ferry/bus: 111 minutes estimated travel time, 35 minutes (46%) longer than existing. Ferry/rail: 104 minutes estimated travel time, 31 minutes (43%) longer than existing. Clinton to Seattle (University of Washington)  Ferry/SOV: 79 minutes estimated travel time, 24 minutes (44%) longer than existing. Ferry/HOV: 72 minutes estimated travel time, 21 minutes (41%) longer than existing. Ferry/bus: 121 minutes estimated travel time, 29 minutes (32%) longer than existing. Ferry/rail: trip not possible for this destination. 2(D2) Does the concept improve or maintain service frequency on the ferry route?  21 sailings provided. Frequency of ferry service reduced by 43%. Packet Page 209 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 2 Screening Results – September 2010 16 Everett Concept (continued) CRITERION PORT OF EVERETT SOUTH TERMINAL RATING REASONING (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? 3(A) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on stream habitat and species?  No potential stream habitat affects have been identified. 3(B) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on marine and near-shore habitat and species?  Would expand pier at South Terminal over the water. Overwater footprint would be approximately 13,000 square feet larger than existing, including removal of existing overwater structures at Mukilteo. Marine and near-shore habitat has not been surveyed at Everett. No important habitat features identified at Mukilteo site. 3(C) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on wetland habitat and species?  No potential wetland habitat effects have been identified. 3(D) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on upland habitat valuable to migratory birds?  Affected area developed, with minimal vegetation. 3(E) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on historic properties?  Not within ¼ mile of a known archaeological site. No known NRHP- eligible properties identified within or adjacent to site. 3(F) What is the potential for avoiding the use of parklands (publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges)?  Would be adjacent to a recreational trail and public beach access. New terminal could avoid using these parklands. 3(G) What is the potential for avoiding conflicts with land use plans and zoning?  Zoning designation is M-2 Heavy Manufacturing. Ferry terminal (as a facility of statewide significance) is an allowed use. 3(H) What is the potential for avoiding conflicts with shoreline plans?  Site classified as Urban Deepwater Port. “Use of this land should be for port-related water-dependent uses, water-dependent and water-related industrial uses, water-dependent military use, and accessory supporting facilities and services.” Ferry terminal consistent with shoreline plans. 3(I) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on neighborhoods from ferry traffic?  Vehicle queues likely to expand into adjacent neighborhoods. 3(J) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on navigable waterways from the placement of new structures?  Likely to impinge on navigable waterways and also conflict with adjacent security zones. Packet Page 210 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 2 Screening Results – September 2010 17 Summary Table LEVEL 2 SCREENING RESULTS SUMMARY No B u i l d Ex i s t i n g S i t e I m p r o v e m e n t s El l i o t P o i n t – Op t i o n 1 El l i o t P o i n t – Op t i o n 2 El l i o t P o i n t – Op t i o n 3 Mo u n t B a k e r T e r m i n a l Ed m o n d s - Ex i s t i n g T e r m i n a l Ed m o n d s - Ex i s t i n g S i t e Im p r o v e m e n t s Ed m o n d s - Po i n t E d w a r d s Po r t o f E v e r e t t S o u t h Te r m i n a l (1) Does the concept improve safety and security at the terminal facility compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 1(A) Does the concept reduce conflicts between local and ferry vehicle traffic compared to existing conditions?           1(B) Does the concept reduce conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians/bicyclists during ferry loading and unloading?           (2) Does the concept improve transportation operations compared to existing conditions at the Mukilteo terminal? 2(A) Does the concept improve the reliability of ferry loading/unloading operations compared to the existing Mukilteo terminal?           2(B) Would the location of the terminal avoid ferry conflicts with maritime traffic that would adversely affect ferry schedule reliability?           2(C) Does the concept provide effective connections between modes (ferry, bus, and rail)?           2(D) Does the concept improve or maintain the connection between Whidbey Island and Seattle-Everett metropolitan area for the majority of users? 2(D1) Does the concept improve or maintain peak period trip time? [estimated existing travel time in minutes] Clinton to Seattle (downtown)           Clinton to Seattle (University of Washington)           2(D2) Does the concept improve or maintain service frequency on the ferry route?           Packet Page 211 of 235 Mukilteo Multimodal Project Level 2 Screening Results – September 2010 18 Summary Table (continued) LEVEL 2 SCREENING RESULTS SUMMARY No B u i l d Ex i s t i n g S i t e I m p r o v e m e n t s El l i o t P o i n t – Op t i o n 1 El l i o t P o i n t – Op t i o n 2 El l i o t P o i n t – Op ti o n 3 Mo u n t B a k e r T e r m i n a l Ed m o n d s - Ex i s t i n g T e r m i n a l Ed m o n d s - Ex i s t i n g S i t e Im p r o v e m e n t s Ed m o n d s - Po i n t E d w a r d s Po r t o f E v e r e t t S o u t h Te r m i n a l (3) How well does the concept avoid environmental effects? 3(A) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on stream habitat and species?           3(B) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on marine and near-shore habitat and species?           3(C) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on wetland habitat and species?           3(D) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on upland habitat valuable to migratory birds?           3(E) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on historic properties?           3(F) What is the potential for avoiding the use of parklands (publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges)?           3(G) What is the potential for avoiding conflicts with land use plans and zoning?           3(H) What is the potential for avoiding conflicts with shoreline plans?           3(I) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on neighborhoods from ferry traffic?           3(J) What is the potential for avoiding adverse effects on navigable waterways from the placement of new structures?           Packet Page 212 of 235 AM-3470 Item #: 5. City Council Meeting Date: 10/26/2010 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Councilmember Strom Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion of bond payment for Edmonds Public Facilities District/Edmonds Center for the Arts. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action In May of 2010, the City Council sent a letter of support (attached) to the Snohomish County Council requesting an allocation of lodging tax funds to help with capital needs. Those funds have not been allocated yet. Attachment: Letter of support to Snohomish County Council Narrative Due to the bad economy, the Edmonds Public Facilities District(EPFD)/Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA) has not received expected tax revenues from Snohomish County used to pay the capital bond obligations. Through an inter-jurisdictional agreement between EPFD and the City of Edmonds, the City is required to cover these obligations through a loan or some other means. ECA Executive Director Joe McIalwain will make a presentation explaining the situation. Attachments Edmonds City Council Letter of Support for ECA 5-25-2010 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/21/2010 09:38 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 10/22/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/22/2010 09:12 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 10/21/2010 07:28 AM Final Approval Date: 10/22/2010 Packet Page 213 of 235 Packet Page 214 of 235 AM-3481 Item #: 7. City Council Meeting Date: 10/26/2010 Time:2 Hours Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Budget Discussion Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative City Council discussion of the proposed 2011 Budget. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 10/22/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/22/2010 09:12 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 10/21/2010 04:53 PM Final Approval Date: 10/22/2010 Packet Page 215 of 235 AM-3472 Item #: 8. City Council Meeting Date: 10/26/2010 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Councilmembers Wilson & Plunkett Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Discussion and possible action on City Council budget analyst. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff N/A Previous Council Action During the September 28, 2010 Edmonds City Council Meeting, the Council discussed the possibility of hiring a policy analyst for the following reasons: Due to the City Council recognizing and understanding the City of Edmonds Finance Department’s pressing work load and the City Council’s pressing needs for finance information for budget and potential levy, it is hereby proposed that the City Council direct Human Resources to immediately post for a Policy Analyst for up to 20 hours per week for the remainder of 2010. This posting shall be done in a matter and time-frame that is the most expeditious as possible. Policy Analyst would work under the direction of the Council President. The Policy Analyst’s primary objective would be to work with Council to interpret and develop reports based upon financial information provided by the City of Edmonds Finance Department for the budget and working toward a potential levy. The Council made the following decision: 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. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM VOTING NO. Attachment: A - RFQ Attachment: B - Sept. 28, 2010 Council Minutes Narrative The Edmonds City Council held a Special Meeting at 5:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010 to interview the Packet Page 216 of 235 The Edmonds City Council held a Special Meeting at 5:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010 to interview the three applicants. This item has been placed on the agenda for discussion and possible action. The applicants were: Mr. Harry M. Gatjens, Mr. Gary Morgan, and Ash Consulting - Erica Ash and Melanie Yunis(applications attached). Attach 1 & 1A: Gatjens Application Attach 2 & 2A: Morgan Application Attach 3: Ash Consulting Application Attachments Attach A - RFQ for Budget Analyst Attach B - Sept 28 2010 CM Attach 1 - Gatjens Ltr of Intro Attach 1A - Gatjens Resume Attach 2 - Morgan Statement of Qualifications Attach 2A - Morgan Resume Attach 3 - Ash Edmonds City RFQ - Budget Policy Analysis Servic Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 10/21/2010 11:17 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 10/22/2010 09:09 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 10/22/2010 09:12 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 10/21/2010 Final Approval Date: 10/22/2010 Packet Page 217 of 235 Request for Qualifications Budget and Policy Analysis Services September 29th, 2010 Prepared on behalf of the Edmonds City Council Packet Page 218 of 235 I. Introduction The City of Edmonds is initiating its budget process for 2011. State law requires the budget to be presented by the mayor at the first of October, with appropriations completed by December 31st. The City Council of the City of Edmonds is seeking a person or firm to provide budget and policy analysis services during the 2011 budget process. Services are anticipated to be concluded by December 31st, 2010. This contracted service provider would work closely with the City Council, under guidance from the Council President, and with city administrative staff, including the Mayor and Finance Director. Since Jan 1, 2010, two new Council members have been appointed to the seven member body. Of the seven Council members, five have yet to complete their first four year term. In July, the Edmonds mayor resigned his position, leaving a vacancy that was filled shortly thereafter. Of the seven director-level positions filled as of Jan 1, 2008, five have been vacated and/or replaced since that time. Within this context, a number of city personnel and elected officials are going through this budget process for the first time. The previous budget, a biennial budget, was completed in December, 2008. Additional staffing services are needed for a short duration to assist in supporting the Council budget process. II. Scope of Work The contractor will support the City Council in completing the 2011 budget process. The contractor will work under the direction of the Council President, with assistance from the Sr. Executive Assistant to the City Council, and with each member of the Council as needed to address the following: - Answer questions posed by the Council or Council members regarding the financial data as reported by the administration; - Support the effort to bridge a perceived communication gap between the Council and administration regarding financial data; - Review and analyze the financial projections and assumptions for the city finances for the years ahead; - Support the Council in understanding the budget implications of potential policy decisions; - Support any proposed amendment to and final adoption of the City of Edmonds 2011 budget. This is not an audit position, nor is this position intended to replace staff work in the City of Edmonds Finance Department. This RFQ expects a workload of between 10-20 hours per week. Work will begin as quickly as possible, with an expected duration of about 2 months. The City Council reserves the right to alter or extend this scope of work as necessary to exceed the hours, area of work or duration as warranted. Packet Page 219 of 235 Respondents are encouraged to discuss both an option of an hourly compensation package, or a retainer model of compensation. This is a contract for professional services. This is not an employed position. No benefits will be offered. Respondents are encouraged to read previous Council minutes where discussions of financial matters have taken place. This will provide some contextual information for the work environment during the course of this contract. No budgeted amount is offered as guidance in this RFQ. It is expected that the City of Edmonds will pay a competitive market rate for professional services contemplated in this RFQ. It is incumbent on respondents to identify a compensation package that reflects an adequate cost for provision of the services described herein. III. Qualifications Required qualifications of the respondent are as follows. If the respondent is a team of individuals, please note how each of the team members meets the criteria below. - Experience with development, amending and adopting a budget of a public agency, preferably a municipal agency; - Bachelors degree with a minimum five years experience dealing with public sector budgets; a Masters degree is preferable in a relevant area of study - Two years experience working directly with, and preferably reporting to, elected officials - A strong understanding of public sector financial reporting, of standard private sector financial reporting, and the differences between the two models - Strong interpersonal skills with a demonstrated ability to manage contentious relationship in a professional and high integrity manner - Strong understanding of financial practices and procedures as outlined by the Governmental Financial Officers Association (GFOA) Desired qualifications and experience includes: - Demonstrated experience working with and reporting to a legislative body to develop and complete a budget process - Previous experience with Eden accounting software is helpful Applicant must disclose all pre-existing relationships, both personal and professional, with the City of Edmonds and its officials, officers and employees. Given the abbreviated timeline and the need to initiate this process quickly, the City Council reserves the right to update this list of qualifications as needed. Respondents are encouraged to address additional qualifications in the response as may be considered applicable. Packet Page 220 of 235 IV. About the City of Edmonds A walkable waterfront town, celebrated as an arts community, Edmonds offers sandy beaches, stunning views, and a full calendar of year round arts events. Fanning out from the central fountain, enjoy sidewalk cafes, art galleries, shop at boutique clothing, hardware, garden supply, and houseware stores. Browse through travel specialty shops, unique jewelry, outstanding wine and food, book and antique stores. A rich blend of old and new makes Edmonds distinctive. Accented by art, colorful hanging baskets, and vintage street lamps, the pedestrian-friendly downtown reflects the scale and design elements of the past with the former Carnegie Library Historical Museum, a log cabin Visitor Center, and a 1920s Art Deco movie theater. Restaurants, cafes and bistros, offer a delicious dining experience and beachfront eateries with outdoor tables provide scenic views of Puget Sound, the Olympic Mountains, and magnificent sunsets. Shopping and dining opportunities are also found along Highway 99 and the neighborhood commercial districts of Westgate, Perrinville, Firdale Village, and Five Corners. The City of Edmonds has a strong mayor form of government, with a general fund budget of approximately $36 million. The total budget, including all city revenues and expenditures, is approximately $75 million. V. Non-discrimination policy The City of Edmonds does not discriminate on the basis of any protected by federal or state law, including race/color, creed (religion), national origin, sex, disability, use of a guide dog or service animal by a person with a disability, HIV/AIDS or hepatitis C status, sexual orientation/gender identity, or honorably discharged veteran and military status. The consultant shall agree not to discriminate against any client, employee, or applicant for employment or for services based on any of the aforementioned basis. Nothing in this RFQ creates an employment contract or a guarantee of employment between the City and the applicant. The City of Edmonds is an equal opportunity employer. Please note that by completing the RFQ, you certify that you and/or your firm can perform the essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation. Further, response to this RFQ authorizes the City of Edmonds to obtain background information on history relevant to this position to include contact with past employers and references. It is further understood that any finalist, prior to being selected, may be required to complete a criminal background investigatory process. The City of Edmonds reserves the right to reject all qualifications or to contract with different firms for different services. VI. Timeline The City Council reserves the right to alter this timeline at any time. This is provided for planning purposes to respondents. Sept 29th RFQ released Packet Page 221 of 235 Oct 4th Deadline for applicant submittal of questions no later than 10:00 am Oct 5th Edmonds’s responses to questions posted at City of Edmonds website by 4:00 pm Oct 8th Statement of Qualifications due no later than 10:00 am Oct 12th Interviews of select respondents Oct 14th Additional interviews as warranted Oct 18th Provision of services anticipated to begin VII. Response Questions regarding this RFQ will be accepted by Ms. Jana Spellman until Oct 4th at 10:00 am (Spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us). All questions must be submitted by email. No phone calls will be accepted. Please direct all application materials and correspondence to: Ms. Jana Spellman Edmonds City Council 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us All Statements of Qualifications and/or responses must be received by October 8th at 10:00 am. Submissions received after 10:00 am will be deemed non-responsive and not accepted. Submissions will only be accepted electronically, either by email, or copied to a disk/drive and delivered. Hard copy submissions will not be accepted. Statements of Qualifications and/or responses should address the scope of work and qualifications listed above. Please include a resume of any individual that will be participating in this contract, should the respondent be successful. Portfolio materials may be included. The maximum limit for the response shall be 5 pages, including resumes and all other materials submitted. Respondents are encouraged to prioritize information submitted according to that which is deemed most relevant to this RFQ. The city of Edmonds reserves the right to reject at its own discretion any or all Statements of Qualification and Responses to this RFQ, and to waive irregularities or informalities in the Statements and Responses. Packet Page 222 of 235 Edmonds City Council Approved 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 Council would post the RFQ. Councilmember Wilson responded the Human Resources staff has offered to provide whatever resources the Council needs. Packet Page 223 of 235 Edmonds City Council Approved 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 224 of 235 Harry M Gatjens 8306 186th SW Edmonds, WA 98026 harry@soeakeasy.net 206 406-4696 October 7, 2010 City of Edmonds Budget Analyst Request for Qualifications Introduction: I am a lifetime resident of the Edmonds area. I went to school at Meadowdale High School, and my family was quite involved in the Community. I have only recently become involved after watching City Council Meetings on Television for the past several years and now attending them regularly. I am particularly interested in the finances of the City and have volunteered for the Citizens Levy Committee and the Citizens Technology Advisory Committee. I have taken strides to explain and research financial issues for the City both for the Council and the Citizens as a whole. I have a reputation for being thorough and providing unbiased analysis. Qualifications: I have Masters Degree from the University of Washington with a Concentration in Accounting. I have over 34 years experience as the chief financial resource at a variety of firm from very large to small. I have been responsible for budgeting both revenue and expense at all of these firms. I have worked as Treasurer on the boards of several non- profits. My greatest skill is being able to take complex financial issues and present them in a manner that is clear to non-financial people. I have worked with the City's budget and feel I have a firm understanding of the important issues. Methodology: I would begin by writing a narrative of each of the City's funds with an explanation of what it is for, where it gets it revenue. I would come up with titling for the fund that is and consistent. I would then trace all of these funds back to the general fund and make clear how they impact each other/ A simple chart showing that the general fund contributes X to fund A and Y to fund b. Very clear and concise rather than a large to intergovernmental funds. I would work with the finance staff to answer questions that Council members may have. The job would not be to audit the work of the finance staff but rather to present the information in a more clear format. Packet Page 225 of 235 Compensation: I am open to either a retainer or an hourly rate. Given the suggested hourly requirements in the RFQ I would propose a retainer of $10,000 per month. Billed twice a month. If the scope of the assignment was to dramatically change I am open to alternative compensation ideas. Summary: I believe I am well qualified for this assignment I have the educational and work background to do the job. I already have a reputation in the community of being thorough and fair in my presentations. I am a resident of the area and truly care about the results of this work. I would enjoy the opportunity to work with both Council and staff to make the budget process flow smoothly. Sincerely, Harry M. Gatjens Packet Page 226 of 235 Harry M. Gatjens 8306 186th SW Edmonds, Washington 98026 (206) 406-4696 Email: Harry@speakeasy.net Experience Controller, Metafos.com 2007 - 2009 Metafos is a startup developing a secure on-line payment system. Responsible for all accounting and finance functions as well as a member of the Long Term planning team. Work with Founder, CEO and COO to develop accurate presentations for investors, banks and internal use. Determine pricing strategy and analyze overall strategy options. Controller, Conversational Computing 2002 – 2006 Conversational Computing is a leader in the voice recognition field for wireless and handheld devices. Formed in 1995 the company is developing state-of-the-art products for making these devices more usable in consumer and industrial settings. Responsible for all accounting functions, including budgeting, financial statement preparation, tax preparation, accounts receivable and payable, insurance review. Develop presentations for investors and lenders, preparing “what if” scenarios and evaluations. Work with CEO and CFO to evaluate revenue recognition on software projects and manage cash flow. Prepared documentation and analysis for reverse merger into a publicly traded company. Controller, Speakeasy Network 2001-2002 Speakeasy Network is the largest privately held provider of high-speed Internet access. Founded in 1995, the company is a leader in the DSL market in the last two years. Hired to fix a problem situation, in which my predecessor had been fired for embezzlement and the accounting department was in disarray. Responsible for all accounting functions. Converted the accounting system from Quickbooks to an advanced Great Plains system. Led company through first-ever audit. Coordinated with development group to ensure smooth implementation of a new custom-built customer payment and service web interface. Received and accounted for multi-million dollar series “B” investor financing. Worked with banks and major vendors to gain advantageous terms. Straightened up accounting systems. Reduced accounting staff from 14 to 6. Controller, MyFavoriteShoe.com 2000 MyFavoriteShoe.com developed the ultimate shoe store on the web but fell victim to the dot-com investing dropout. Fast-paced, entrepreneurial atmosphere. Responsible for all financial matters, including budgeting, forecasting, reporting, purchasing, contract negotiations and strategic planning. Set up accounting systems, maintained relationships with vendors and managed web marketing affiliation programs. Negotiated and helped integrate company into a merger with a publicly traded company, preserving initial investor’s capital. Negotiated alternative payment programs with vendors when cash flow became tight. Independent Financial/Management Consultant 1995-2000 Worked with clients to resolve financial and management problems. Performed research on embezzlements, set up computerized accounting systems, analyzed business plans, did long range strategic planning. Harry M. Gatjens Packet Page 227 of 235 Resume Page 2 Assistant Vice-President, Finance and Administration, Marsh & McLennan 1986-1995 Marsh & McLennan Companies is one of the largest risk and insurance firms in the world. The Seattle office was a regional headquarters overseeing operations in Washington, Idaho and Alaska. Responsible for all non-insurance issues within the office, including all financial reporting and analysis functions, data and word processing departments, telecommunications, physical plant and purchasing, liaison to corporate personnel, legal, compliance and financial departments. Supervised a staff of 30 people. Also responsible for administrative functions at branch offices in Anchorage, Alaska and Boise, Idaho. Controller, Kawaguchi Travel Service 1979-1986 Kawaguchi Travel Service was the leading corporate travel agency in the Seattle area, with multiple offices in Seattle and Bellevue. Company was sold to Washington Mutual in 1986. Responsible for financial and administrative functions and member of management committee for long term strategic planning. Advised other company management on policy and procedural matters. Controller, Hal Griffith and Associates 1972-1979 Hal Griffith and Associates ran Pirates’ Plunder Import Stores and numerous restaurants. Responsible for all financial and administrative functions, including bank negotiation; cash control policies; implementing data processing systems; and product costing and system design for retail and restaurant operations. Accomplishments Accounting • Installed state-of-the-art accounting and information systems. • Assisted CFO in merging company stock for stock in a publicly traded company. Merged privately held company with publicly traded one. Facilitated stock transfer and exchange. • Maintained relationships with suppliers and affiliate web marketers. Developed innovative strategies for financing and credit arrangements with strategic partners and suppliers. • Installed interaction between web-based sales engine, fulfillment center shipping system and internal accounting system. • Took accounting department, considered poor, to superior performer in multinational company. • Improved department performance (accuracy, timeliness) while reducing headcount 30%. • Instituted monthly budget controls and reporting system . • Developed cash management system to improve return on over $35 million of trust funds. • Installed cash controls that eliminated opportunities for misappropriation of funds. • Researched and documented embezzlement data that led to conviction. Administration • Oversaw 35,000 square foot, $1.5 million renovation. 10% below budget. • Renegotiated lease, midterm, resulting in monthly savings of 30%. • Reduced administrative staff by 25% with no impact on revenue departments. • Developed purchasing programs to reduce costs by 20%. • Achieved preferred customer status with all vendors. • Made presentation to government agencies that allowed more diversified investment opportunities of on-hand cash, allowing for 25% increased returns. Education University of Washington 1978 MBA, Concentration in accounting Packet Page 228 of 235 Budget and Policy Analysis Services STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS GARY MORGAN Sent via e-mail to Spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us I appreciate the opportunity to submit my statement of qualifications. I hope you will agree with me that I am uniquely suited to provide a supportive role to the City of Edmonds in completing their 2011 budget. With my 20+ years of experience in accounting, combined with my 6+ years as a Brier City Council member, I am confident I can provide invaluable assistance and insight. LISTED QUALIFICATIONS : Prior experience with a municipal agency budget process I worked on the City of Brier budgets, negotiated contracts with other Municipal Fire Departments, and participated in union negotiations. I have also prepared budgets for low-income and transitional housing projects while working for the Archdiocesan Housing Authority. : These development budgets typically run between $6million and $12 million. Education I have a BA in Accounting, and over 7 years of experience within the municipal budget process. : Working with Elected Officials I have worked with other council members in my capacity as the same, and reported to the elected Mayors during their terms. : Understanding of Financial Reporting I have many years of experience in preparing private sector budgets, and several years experience in the public sector. Since I have an accounting background, I made the budgets and other financial reporting my specialty. I served many times as the liaison between the council and the finance department. : Interpersonal Skills Whenever a group of individuals from varying backgrounds come together to accomplish a task, there are bound to be differences in past experiences, styles of communicating, personalities, etc. This is to be expected. My belief is that professionals can, and should, be able to work together when they have a shared goal. : Attachment 2 Packet Page 229 of 235 Individuals want to be heard, and their ideas acknowledged. Examples of times I have managed contentious relationships are during contract negotiations. I often work with clients and their landlords to negotiate lease agreements. In particular, I have successfully renegotiated in-force leases to respond to the current financial downturn in a professional and respectful manner. GARY MORGAN Page 2 STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS PRIOR RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN CITY OF EDMONDS PERSONNEL Jeff Jones – Police Sergeant, City of Edmonds (Cousin) Rob Van Tassell – Historic Preservation Commissioner (Contract Supervisor at Catholic Housing Services) CONTRACT FOR SERVICES One of the benefits of having my own company is the flexibility I enjoy. For this reason, I would be available as soon as needed, and for as long as needed. As for compensation, I would request an hourly package payable to my company, Metroserv Corp. The consulting rate is $110/hour. I believe this to be a fair and reasonable rate for both the City of Edmonds and myself. CONCLUSION In summary, it would be an honor to be involved with the City of Edmonds budget process for 2011. As I tell my clients, the challenge in preparing a realistic and thoughtful budget is in gathering input from all affected parties and compromising when necessary for the benefit of all. Since I am not a resident of the City of Edmonds, I will be a neutral party in the process. I have experience, knowledge and the temperament necessary to delve into the supportive role. Packet Page 230 of 235 Thank you for the opportunity. Gary L Morgan Metroserv Corp Packet Page 231 of 235 GARY MORGAN 2930 216TH St SW Brier, WA 98036 Phone: (425)775-8058 Cell : (206)915-4006 Email: gm424242@aol.com OBJECTIVE I look forward to becoming involved again within a city financial administrative group. My professional enjoyment comes in helping craft sustainable budgets, working with my clients to ensure they understand their finalized product, and striving to match desires with realities. QUALIFICATIONS I am fortunate in that I have worked for many types of employers, from small family owned businesses, to large non profits, to a municipality as an elected official. Due to my background, I have a strong understanding of the differences between the private sector and the public sector. I have worked with many different personality types over the years, and have learned the art of negotiating and how to keep people focused on a common goal. Having served on the City of Brier Council for 2 terms, I have experience in forecasting municipal budgets, and the knowledge of how they differ from a private for profit budget and a private not for profit budget. EMPLOYMENT 1992 - Current METROSERV CORP (dba Data Chef) Accounting & Consulting for Restaurants Principle 2002-2006 CITY OF BRIER, WA City Councilman 1997-2000 CITY OF BRIER, WA City Councilman 1995-2005 ARCHDIOCESAN HOUSING AUTHORITY Treasury Manager Packet Page 232 of 235 EDUCATION 1986 Bachelor of Arts, Accounting - Central Washington University Packet Page 233 of 235 Edmonds City Council Request for Qualifications – Budget and Policy Analysis Services Purpose Ash Consulting is providing the following information about its associates in response to the September 29th RFQ that was posted by the City of Edmonds on behalf of the Edmonds City Council. Ash Consulting would like to be considered for the Budget and Policy Analysis engagement which is expected to be completed for the Edmonds City Council between October and December of 2010. We believe that our associates have the necessary skills and experience to perform the work outlined in the RFQ at an exceptional level of quality and professionalism. We would like to propose that Melanie Yunis provide the day-to-day analysis services with support and guidance from Erica Ash. As you will see in the qualification descriptions below, Erica is the President and Principal of Ash Consulting, and as such, it is her responsibility to ensure that the City Council’s deliverables are being completed on-time and within budget expectations. Melanie has the skills and qualifications to complete the project independently, so any guidance or oversight from Erica will be minimal. Background of Ash Consulting, LLC The firm was formed in June 2009 after the dissolution of our former employer, Red Cedar Partners. Since we worked with many clients that required ongoing financial assistance, we decided to form our own company to continue providing these services. Today, Ash Consulting is solely owned by Erica Ash and employs five individuals who have all contributed to the firm’s success. Ash Consulting is focused on Accounting and Finance Consulting and filling Interim Management roles at small to medium-sized organizations. As a firm, we have extensive experience in financial budgeting & planning, forecasting and analysis, management and executive reporting, data manipulation, financial system implementations and project management. In addition, we have experience in several industries including: Governmental, Not-for-Profit, Healthcare, Manufacturing, High-Tech and Aerospace. Qualifications - Erica Ash, President and Principal Erica is a leader with 15 years of hands-on experience in a variety of finance, accounting, project management and information systems roles. Relevant project work and qualifications include: • Serves as the Treasurer for a mid-sized public district hospital in Snohomish County. Reports directly to the Interim Superintendent and the elected Board of Commissioners. • Served as both the Interim Director of Finance and Controller at a mid-sized public district hospital in King County. o Managed the day-to-day operations of the accounting department including the month-end close process, development of the annual budget, overseeing the state & financial audits, assisting with the financial system upgrade as well as presenting financial data to the leadership team and to the elected Board of Commissioners. • Served as the Interim Controller at a mid-sized, not-for-profit overseeing all aspects of accounting and financial systems. o Worked closely with departments outside of accounting to help them understand the financial statements, federal grant compliance, financial audit regulations, indirect rate development and the existing financial systems/reports. • Managed a large hospital system’s post-merger accounting consolidation which impacted A/P, G/L and Payroll. • Served as the CFO for a local not-for-profit company. o Developed a budgeting process and streamlined several internal business processes including invoicing, cash management, procurement, fixed assets and monthly reporting. • Ability to quickly understand, utilize and improve accounting systems and reporting tools as a result of her in-depth knowledge of PeopleSoft, SAP, JD Edwards, Great Plains and QuickBooks. Erica has a Technology Management MBA from the University of Washington and a Bachelor’s degree in Management from the University of Michigan. She is also a licensed CPA in Washington. Packet Page 234 of 235 Qualifications - Melanie Yunis, Principal Melanie has over nine years of finance and accounting experience. Relevant project work and qualifications include: • Serves part-time as the Controller/Director of Finance for a local not-for-profit company. o Manages all aspects of accounting and finance including budget development, financial statement reviews, daily accounting oversight and cash flow management. o Provides financial guidance to the executive team regarding the impact of their operational decisions on the financial statements and assists them in gaining a better understanding of the underlying data. o Supports the executive team in presenting the budget, financial results and any foreseen risks and opportunities to the Board of Directors and answers all related questions. • Budgeted, forecasted and analyzed revenue and costing data for various commercial airplane manufacturing programs. • Assisted a public district hospital in reviewing its cash reconciliation process. Identified process improvements and helped increase the communication and cooperation between the various departments. • Reviewed and revised the grant policies and procedures for a local not-for-profit that receives nearly $5M in federal funding as a direct recipient and as a pass-through entity, including several ARRA awards. • Experienced in simplifying and communicating complex accounting, grant and audit issues to non-accounting individuals (e.g. Indefeasible Right to Use agreements (IRUs) and federal grant compliance regulations). Melanie has an MBA with an Accounting concentration from Seattle University and a Bachelor’s degree in Business Management from Brigham Young University. She is a licensed Washington CPA. Interim Management/Project Work conducted at the following organizations since 2006: Evergreen Hospital Puget Sound Blood Center Providence Health & Services UW Medical Center MultiCare Health System Valley Medical Center Harborview Medical Center Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Stevens Pacific Northwest Gigapop ResearchChannel Sound Transit Ash Consulting and its Principals do not have any pre-existing relationships, either personal or professional, with the City of Edmonds and its officials, officers or employees. Pre-Existing Relationships: Compensation for services performed would be at a rate of $140 per hour. However, a retainer model of compensation could be accommodated if this methodology is preferred by the City of Edmonds. Proposed Compensation: Available upon request References Erica Ash can be reached via e-mail at Contact Information erica@ash-consulting.net or via her cell phone at (425) 478-6166. Packet Page 235 of 235