The URL can be used to link to this page

2010.11.09 CC Committee Meetings Agenda Packet AGENDA EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds NOVEMBER 9, 2010 6:00 p.m. City Council Committee Meetings The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only. The meetings are open to the public but are not public hearings. The Committees will meet in separate meeting rooms as indicated below. 1.Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting Room: Council Chambers A. (10 Minutes)Review City of Edmonds Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda. B. (20 Minutes)Continued review of compostable food packaging Ordinance. C. (20 Minutes)Continued review of the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program. D. (15 Minutes)Discussion of Community Technology Advisory Committee organization and procedure. E. (10 Minutes)Interlocal Agreement with the Snohomish Conservation District. F. (5 Minutes)Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplement Agreement with Murray, Smith and Associates, Inc. for updating the City's Water System Comprehensive Plan. G. (5 Minutes)Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the 2010 Waterline Replacement Project. H. (5 Minutes)Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Upgrade Project. I. (5 Minutes)Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the Interurban Trail Improvements. J. (5 Minutes)Quarterly Public Works Project Report. 2.Finance Committee Meeting Room: Jury Meeting Room A. (10 Minutes)Edmonds Public Facilities District/Edmonds Center for the Arts request for City grant. B. (15 Minutes)Approve Contract for Professional Services - City of Edmonds Prosecutor. Packet Page 1 of 364 C. (15 Minutes)Edmonds Historical Museum Repairs Project Costs. D. (10 Minutes)Monthly General Fund Update. E. (15 Minutes)2010 Third Quarter Budget Update. F. (10 Minutes)Review City of Edmonds Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda. G. (30 Minutes)Review remaining 2011 Budget questions. H. (5 Minutes)Interlocal Agreement for SNOCOM Internet Access. I. (10 Minutes)Final 2010 Budget Amendment. J. (10 Minutes)Discussion of Mayor discretionary pay increases for vacant positions. K. (10 Minutes)2011 Hourly Employee Wage Schedule. L. (10 Minutes)Discussion regarding a policy for a general fund reserve. M. (10 Minutes)2011 Contract for Edmonds City Council Sr. Executive Assistant. N. (10 Minutes)Public comments (3-minute limit per person) 3.Public Safety Committee Meeting Room: Police Training Room A. (10 Minutes)Review City of Edmonds Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda. Packet Page 2 of 364 AM-3509 Item #: 1. A. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Department:Community Services Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Review City of Edmonds Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action On November 1, 2010, the Edmonds City Council referred the attached Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda to the Community Services/Development Services, Finance and Public Safety Committees in order to give each committee an opportunity to review and discuss agenda items related to each committee. Narrative The attached proposed Draft 2011 legislative agenda outlines prioritized items which, if approved by the City Council, will serve as a scope of work for Mike Doubleday and staff during the 2011 Washington State legislative session/year. Mr. Doubleday attended the November 1, 2010 City Council meeting to present an overview of the legislative agenda. During the meeting, City Council members expressed the following: Council member Wilson: • Asked for clarification on Tax Increment Financing • Asked about legislative priorities related to transportation • Expressed removing Secondary Priority Agenda Item 6 "Red Light Cameras" from the agenda • Discussed the possibility of proposing a Lake Ballinger funding request agenda item Council member Bernheim: • Asked about the City’s past support to add lobbying for making marijuana criminal offenses into an infraction. Council member Peterson • Asked about Phase 2 Storm water funding and toxics tax and whether this is coming back before the legislature. Council member Buckshnis: • Asked about WRIA 8 and Cap and Trade • Asked about "Product Stewardship Program" which is the return/disposal of unused prescription drugs (2009 HB1165) • Asked about the Puget Sound Partnership. During the November 2, 2010 City Council meeting, I provided Sandy Chase with a copy of a Legislative Priorities for Puget Sound Watershed Health and Salmon Habitat Recovery which was an attachment to an e-mail sent to me by Council member Buchshnis. I asked Sandy Chase to provide each City Council member with a copy. Council member Petso: • Asked about Top Priority Agenda Item 1 and whether the heading Edmonds Crossing reflects language of the agenda item. Additionally, Council member Petso asked whether supporting this item would encourage Washington State Ferries (WSF) to keep or expand service at the Main Street Terminal. Related to this, Mayor Cooper requested inserting language about the existing Washington State Ferry Terminal located in Edmonds, and language about the City's opposition to reassignment of the Mukilteo/Clinton Ferry route to Edmonds. In response, Top Priority Agenda Item 1 has been modified for your review and consideration. Packet Page 3 of 364 NEW ITEM: Extension of Public Facilities District sales and use tax credit - This item relates to the City of Spokane Public Facilities District (PFD) requesting the legislature to extend the PFD sales tax credit (.033) from 2027 to 2037. The Spokane PFD wants to "do new things" with the extension. Having heard about this request, other PFD's want to use the extension, if authorized, to refinance debt and lower annual debt payments. If the legislature authorizes an extension, a PFD and/or City would have the choice to utilize this provision. As such, the City may want to add this to the 2011 legislative agenda and express support the Spokane PFD request as this could give the Edmonds PFD and City an opportunity to refinance existing debt and lower monthly/annual debt payments. Attachments Attachment 1 - City of Edmonds Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/04/2010 09:57 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:29 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 11/04/2010 07:08 AM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 4 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 1 DRAFT Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda (Includes revisions based on comments from Council members during November 2, 1010 City Council meeting) 11.3.2010 TOP PRIORITY 1. Washington State Ferries • Existing Edmonds Main Street WSF Terminal Public Private Partnership and Safety Support a continued partnership with the DOT Public Private Partnership Office to develop a workable safety solution at the Edmonds waterfront for pedestrian ferry riders. No Expansion – Request legislative assistance in preventing Washington State Ferries from expanding the existing Edmonds Main Street WSF Terminal. • Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal Project – Request legislative assistance in preventing the reassignment of the Mukilteo/Clinton Ferry route to Edmonds. 2. Protect State-Shared and State-Committed Revenues Protect state-shared and committed revenues such as: • Liquor profits and taxes, • The municipal criminal justice account, • The Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF), • The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP). Packet Page 5 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 2 3. Local Fiscal Flexibility Support a package of local fiscal flexibility measures such as: • Unifying the uses of the first and second quarters of the local Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), including flexibility to use the local REET for parks maintenance and operations, • Additional flexibility with lodging taxes, • Reduce matching requirements for state grants, • Review statutory update schedules for land use and environmental planning updates, such as GMA, SMA, water systems and sewer plans, to determine if streamlining is possible or updates can be delayed. In addition, oppose temporary suspension of local impact fee authority. 4. Public Records Requests Support legislation to provide some relief for cities and other governmental agencies from overly burdensome public records requests. 5. Street Maintenance Utility Authority Support the Street Maintenance Utility Authority legislation as both a management tool and a funding source for local transportation systems. 6. Transportation Revenue Package Support the advancement of a statewide transportation revenue package to address infrastructure projects in Edmonds. • Edmonds’ highest transportation funding priority is the 228th/SR99 safety project. We recently were selected to receive grant funding for design and ROW acquisition for this project. Packet Page 6 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 3 • Seek support for an engineering pre-design, detailed traffic study, and ROW plan for a signature, five-legged round-a-bout at Five Corners. This project will address a significant but correctable congestion problem on the primary corridor leading into downtown Edmonds. 7. Edmonds Main Street Rebuilding Project Seek capital budget funding for the Edmonds Main Street Rebuilding Project (from 5th Avenue North to 6th Avenue North); this includes incorporating Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. 8. Phase II Storm Water Funding • Seek state funding for cities, including Edmonds, so they can continue to meet Phase II storm water requirements. • Seek a delay of further storm water requirements now scheduled for 2012. 9. LEOFF 1 Medical Costs - Oppose any further expansion of LEOFF 1 retiree medical benefits without an alternative funding source. Cities and towns are not in a position to take on any additional costs. Look for opportunities to fund ongoing LEOFF 1 retiree health care costs. SECONDARY PRIORITY 1. Airport Siting Monitor legislation that seeks to site a new commercial airport in the Puget Sound region. 2. Aerospace Industry Support the Washington Aerospace Partnership and other stakeholder groups in developing a unified strategy (e.g., Packet Page 7 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 4 training & education, research & development, Office of Aerospace and Defense, unemployment insurance tax, worker’s compensation, transportation infrastructure) to ensure that Washington State remains the leading location in the world for aerospace. Led by The Boeing Company, the aerospace industry within Snohomish County employs as many as 45,000 people, while one out of every three to six Washington State jobs is supported either directly or indirectly by the aerospace industry 3. Economic Development Support “tax-increment financing (TIF)”, a tool used by most other states to foster economic and community development to allow cities to proactively implement their comprehensive plans and to ensure local, regional and national competitiveness. 4. Driving While License Suspended Monitor legislation that reduces DWLS 3 to an infraction which will reduce the large number of DWLS 3 cases in municipal court. 5. Public Safety Authority Monitor discussion of a Public Safety Authority, a separate taxing district dedicated to police services in a city or region that could be governed by the Mayor and City Council. 6. Red Light Cameras Preserve the authority for cities to implement red light camera technology. 7. Gang Activity Packet Page 8 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 5 Support additional tools for combating gang activity including intervention and prevention activities. • Support local tools and innovation for gang prevention and intervention; seek sustainable, ongoing funding for gang prevention and intervention, graffiti removal programs, and law enforcement suppression activities. • Support the creation of new offenses for criminal gang intimidation and school criminal gang intimidation and sentence enhancements for gang-related offenses. • Support new tools for nuisance abatement and protection orders related to criminal street gang activity. 8. Vehicle Prowling Support additional penalties for vehicle prowling. 9. Business License Streamlining Monitor the discussion around local government business license streamlining. 10. Additional Revenue Authority for Transit Agencies Monitor transit agencies (including Community Transit) legislation, which likely will request additional revenue authority in order to avoid large cuts in service. 11. Preserve local government’s current ability to purchase health care insurance. Oppose any requirement to mandate participation in state-wide health insurance pools. Advocate for maintaining current authority for selecting health insurance programs. 12. Pensions Support level/stable contribution rates for cities that do not fluctuate with economic “boom/bust” cycles. In addition, Packet Page 9 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 6 consider pursuing a deferral of any increase in employer contributions from July 2011 to January 2012. 13. Lake Ballinger capital funding request ? Packet Page 10 of 364 AM-3506 Item #: 1. B. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:20 Minutes Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Community/Development Services Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Continued review of compostable food packaging Ordinance. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Provide direction for next steps toward adopting a final ordinance. Previous Council Action The City Council previously discussed this issue at the February 5 and May 18, 2010 Council Meetings and the March 9, 2010 Public Safety Committee Meeting. (minutes attached). Attachment 8: 2/5/2010 Council Retreat Minutes Attachment 9: 3/9/2010 Public Safety Committee Minutes Attachment 10: 5/18/2010 Council Minutes During July 20, 2010 (Attachment 12) Council Meeting the Council held a public hearing on the attached draft ordinance prohibiting food businesses from selling food in noncompostable packaging, requiring compostable or recyclable carryout food packaging, and requiring compliance by City departments and tenants was discussed. Attachment 1, Section 6.90.020A, B, C; 6.90.030. The proposed ordinance would not affect bulk sales of Styrofoam food containers, Section 6.90.020D, or prepackaged foods. Section 6.90.020E. Food services businesses would be required to offer on-site waste recycling service for waste disposal, if feasible. Section 6.90.040. Violations are infractions. Section 6.90.050. The proposed effective date is March 2011, but could be later, and waivers and extensions are available; an effective date of March 2012 is proposed for hot food and meat and fish containers. Section 6.90.060. It is patterned after similar ordinances recently enacted in Issaquah. Attachment 2. Notes from a public hearing in Issaquah on the subject are available. Attachment 3. A summary of the Issaquah Council action is Attachment 4. A local editorial written after adoption of the ban is Attachment 5. “Facts” and Q&A concerning polystyrene from King County are attachments 6 and 7. Examples of related public information materials are in attachment 11. Narrative Council President Bernheim has placed this on the agenda for continued review. Attachments 1 draft packaging limits 2 City of Issaquah - Food Service Packaging 3 Summary of Issaquah styrofoam meetings 4 City Council votes to ban Styrofoam food packaging next year _ The Issaquah 5 Press Editorial _ The Issaquah Press - News, Sports, Classifieds in Issaquah 6 polystyrene_facts 7 Excerpts from Seattle Q & A. Attach 8: Feb 5 2010 Council Retreat Min Attach 9: March 9, 2010 CM Attach 10: May 18 2010 CM Attach 11: Information Materials Attach 12 - July 20 2010 CM Packet Page 11 of 364 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/03/2010 12:54 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:28 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/03/2010 Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 12 of 364 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 6.90 FOOD PACKAGING IN THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN USES OF POLYSTYRENE AND NON- RECYCLABLE FOR DISPOSABLE FOOD PACKAGING AND TO REQUIRE INSTEAD THE USE OF RECYCLABLE OR COMPOSTABLE FOOD PACKAGING; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds (the “City”) has a duty to protect the natural environment, the economy and the health of its citizens; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature in RCW 70.95.010(8)(a) established waste reduction as the first priority for the collection, handling, and management of solid waste; and WHEREAS, in addition to waste reduction, the Washington State Legislature in RCW 70.95.010(8) also identified the following as priorities: recycling, avoiding excessive and nonrecyclable packaging of products, education so that people are informed of the need to reduce, source separate, and recycle solid waste, and government entities setting an example by implementing aggressive waste reduction and recycling programs at their workplaces and by purchasing products that are made from recycled materials and are recyclable; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature in RCW 70.95.010(4) found that it is "necessary to change manufacturing and purchasing practices and waste generation behaviors to reduce the amount of waste that becomes a governmental responsibility"; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature in RCW 70.95.010(6)(c) found that it is the responsibility of city governments "to assume primary responsibility for solid waste management and to develop and implement aggressive and effective waste reduction and source {BFP791064.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 - Packet Page 13 of 364 separation strategies"; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council has continuously indentified sustainability as an important goal for the City; and WHEREAS, the use of polystyrene-based and non-recyclable or non-compostable food packaging and service ware serve a limited purpose that is disproportionately detrimental to the welfare of the environment; and WHEREAS, although polystyrene-based and non-recyclable or non-compostable food packaging and service ware are often used and disposed of in minutes or days, they take thousands of years to decompose, and lead to devastating effects such as pollution and harm to marine life, wildlife, and public health; and WHEREAS, there is no meaningful method of recycling polystyrene-based food packaging and service ware, however, there are alternative recyclable and compostable products that can serve the same purpose as polystyrene-based food packaging; and WHEREAS, polystyrene-based and non-recyclable or non-compostable food packaging and service ware represent an unnecessary use of a nonrenewable resource, especially when recyclable and compostable products represent a sustainable alternative; and WHEREAS, recyclable and compostable food packaging and service ware are considerably less damaging to the environment than polystyrene-based and non-recyclable or non-compostable food packaging and service ware; and WHEREAS, replacing the use of polystyrene-based and non-recyclable or non- compostable food packaging and service ware with those that are recyclable and compostable is recognized as a sustainable option to protect the environment and to conserve resources; and {BFP791064.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 - Packet Page 14 of 364 WHEREAS, recyclable and compostable food packaging and service ware are readily available for use by local businesses; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes the present economic difficulties faced by local businesses in making a transition to recyclable or compostable food packaging and service ware, and finds that an extended timeline for implementation of this Chapter is in the best interest of assisting with local efforts at financial recovery; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Edmonds City Council to reduce the negative impacts noted above through the implementation of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council finds that reduction in use of polystyrene-based and non-recyclable or non-compostable food packaging and service ware is in the best interest of public health, safety, and welfare, for the citizens of Edmonds and the environment; and WHEREAS, the Act below is in accordance with the following goals of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan: Community Sustainability Element Climate Change Goal E, Community Health Goal E, and Environmental Quality Goal A; and the Utilities Element Goal; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. A new Chapter 6.90 entitled Food Packaging is hereby added to the ECC to read as follows: Chapter 6.90 6.90.010 Definitions. 6.90.020 Prohibition on use of polystyrene, nonrecyclable, and noncompostable disposable food service packaging and disposable food service ware. {BFP791064.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 - Packet Page 15 of 364 6.90.030 Recyclable or compostable disposable food service packaging and disposable food service ware required. 6.90.040 Requirement to enroll in a commercial food waste recycling service or keep containers for recyclable or compostable food packaging on premises for consumer use. 6.90.050 Enforcement and penalties. 6.90.060 Effective dates of this chapter. 6.90.070 Severability. 6.90.080 No conflict with federal or state law. 6.90.010 Definitions. A. “Mayor” means the Mayor of the City of Edmonds or designee. B. “City facility” means any building, structure, or vehicle owned or operated by the City of Edmonds. C. “Compostable” means made solely of organic substances where all the materials in the product or package will break down into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil- conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner. D. “Disposable food service packaging” means all containers, clamshells, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, lids, straws, utensils, napkins, and other items that are designed for use with food either on or off the food service business premises, including but not limited to packages for takeout foods and/or leftovers from food prepared by food service businesses. The term “disposable food service packaging” does not include items composed entirely of aluminum or polystyrene foam coolers and ice chests that are intended for reuse. E. “Disposable food service ware” means nonrecyclable or noncompostable: containers, plates, “clamshells,” trays, cups, and utensils that are made of plastic or plastic-coated paper and other nonrecyclable or noncompostable materials, and intended only for limited use (including so-called “biodegradable” products where any portion is not compostable). F. “Food” means food or beverages, which are served, packaged, cooked or uncooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed, or otherwise prepared within the City of Edmonds for any persons, such as customers or consumers. {BFP791064.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 4 - Packet Page 16 of 364 G. “Food service business” means any restaurant, retail food seller, coffee shop, grocery store, vending truck or cart, business or institutional cafeteria, sales outlet, or other business, entity, or person selling or providing food to a consumer, whether the food is consumed on or off the premises, that is located or operating within the City of Edmonds, whether on a permanent or temporary basis. “Food service business” also includes any person who is the owner, manager, president or director of such business. H. “Person” means any individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, corporation, partnership, business, or association, including a government entity. I. “Polystyrene” means blown polystyrene and expanded and/or extruded foams (sometimes referred to as “Styrofoam,” a Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation) which are thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of techniques, including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion-blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene). J. “Recyclable” means made solely of materials that are capable of being separated from a waste stream by a food service business and made available for collection and delivery to a processor for reuse or remanufacture into the same or other products. 6.90.020 Prohibition on use of polystyrene, nonrecyclable, and noncompostable disposable food service packaging and disposable food service ware. A. Upon the effective date for mandatory compliance with this chapter set forth in ECC 6.90.060, food service businesses shall be prohibited from selling or providing, in connection with food service, polystyrene, nonrecyclable, or noncompostable food service packaging or disposable food service ware, except as hereinafter provided in subsections D and E of this section. B. Upon the effective date for mandatory compliance with this chapter set forth in ECC 6.90.060, City departments shall not purchase, acquire, or use polystyrene, nonrecyclable, or noncompostable disposable food service packaging or disposable food service ware in City facilities. {BFP791064.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 5 - Packet Page 17 of 364 C. Upon the effective date for mandatory compliance with this chapter set forth in ECC 6.90.060, any renter or lessee of a City- owned facility or City-owned property shall not use polystyrene, non-recyclable, or noncompostable disposable food service packaging or disposable food service ware on the premises of the rented or leased facility or property. D. While businesses are encouraged to refrain from the sale of polystyrene, nonrecyclable, or noncompostable disposable food service packaging or disposable food service ware, nothing in this chapter shall prohibit businesses or individuals from engaging in the direct sale, purchase, or possession of such items in prepackaged multiple quantities from a retail or wholesale merchant. E. Prepackaged soups and other foods that food service businesses sell or otherwise provide to their customers in polystyrene, nonrecyclable, or noncompostable disposable food service packaging or disposable food service ware that have been filled and sealed prior to receipt by the food service business shall be exempt from the requirements of this chapter. 6.90.030 Recyclable or compostable disposable food service packaging and disposable food service ware required. All food service businesses and City departments that are prohibited under this chapter from using or providing polystyrene, nonrecyclable or noncompostable food service packaging or disposable food service ware shall use a recyclable or compostable product. 6.90.040 Requirement to enroll in a commercial food waste recycling service or keep containers for recyclable or compostable food packaging on premises for consumer use. A. All food service businesses are required to utilize either a commercial food waste recycling service for compostable products and recyclable materials (such as the City’s solid waste management program) or, at a minimum, to provide at least 1 container for recycling or composting on site for consumers to dispose of food packaging that conforms to the requirements of this chapter. {BFP791064.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 6 - Packet Page 18 of 364 B. All food service businesses are prohibited from emptying or disposing of items in recycling or compost containers into trash bins, containers, or dumpsters not intended for recycling or compost. C. Existing food service businesses that do not have adequate storage space for compliance with either indoor or outdoor containers for recycling and/or composting may be exempt from the requirements of subsection A of this section if so determined by the Mayor or designee upon written request for an exemption. The Mayor or designee, in cases where space constraints are determined to exist, may require the evaluation of the feasibility of shared recycling or composting containers by contiguous businesses and/or structures. 6.90.050 Enforcement and penalties. A. Any person who violates the provisions of this chapter shall be cited and liable for a civil infraction; provided, however, that a written warning shall instead be issued to any person determined to be violating this chapter when such violation is the first instance of noncompliance known to the Mayor or designee. If, after issuing a written warning, the Mayor or designee becomes aware of subsequent noncompliance, he shall apply for or impose the sanctions described in this section. B. Any person who receives a citation for a violation of this chapter shall respond within 15 days from the date that notice of the infraction is signed and served upon the violator by the City Code Enforcement Officer. The issuance of an infraction by the City for a violation represents a determination that an infraction has been committed. A committed finding will be final if the violator does not respond as stated in this subsection. C. Any person who receives a citation for a violation of this chapter may respond either by paying the fine amount to the City as established by this section, or requesting a hearing with the Edmonds Municipal Court. D. If the infraction is found committed, either due to no response by the person cited, or a judicial determination that a violation has occurred by a preponderance of the evidence, then a person shall be punished with a fine of $150.00 for a first violation, and $300.00 for each subsequent violation committed within a calendar year. The existence of a prior written warning by the {BFP791064.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 7 - Packet Page 19 of 364 Mayor or designee shall not be considered a first violation for purposes of this section. 6.90.060 Effective dates of this chapter. A. All provisions of this chapter, except for ECC 6.90.020 through ECC 6.90.050, shall be effective upon adoption of this chapter. B. The provisions of ECC 6.90.020 through ECC 6.90.050 will be effective March 1, 2011, except as hereinafter provided for in subsections C through E of this section. C. A food service business may request a waiver from any part or all of the requirements in this chapter by filing a written request with the Mayor or designee. The food service business seeking the waiver must show that the application of this chapter would create an undue hardship or practical difficulty based on the factors set forth in subsection E of this section. The Mayor or designee may waive any specific requirement of this chapter for a period of time extending no later than March 1, 2012. The Mayor or designee’s decision to grant or deny a waiver, in whole or in part, shall be mailed to the applicant in writing, with a statement of the permitted waiver length, and shall be a final nonappealable decision. D. Prior to March 1, 2012, only the following items are exempt from the requirements of ECC 6.90.020 through ECC 6.90.050: containers and lids specifically designed and used for hot liquid-based food and beverages, utensils (knives, forks and spoons), and the sale of raw meat or raw seafood in any container by any food service business. Prior to March 1, 2012, public educational institutions are also exempt from the requirements of ECC 6.90.020 through ECC 6.90.050. E. The following factors should be considered by the Mayor or designee in granting or denying a waiver, in whole or in part, from the requirements of this chapter, as described in subsection C of this section: (1) the food service business seeking a waiver lacks the financial or other means to be in compliance with this chapter within a reasonable period of time; (2) the food service business seeking the waiver demonstrates, through due diligence, that particular products conforming to the requirements of this chapter are unavailable, pose recognized safety hazards, or will result in substantial financial harm; (3) the food service business seeking the waiver has maintained a business in Edmonds for less than one year. The factors listed herein are significant, but not intended to {BFP791064.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 8 - Packet Page 20 of 364 be the only considerations for the grant or denial of a waiver. The Mayor or designee should make a decision concerning a request for waiver based on the preference of assisting a food service business to achieve compliance with this chapter while balancing the economic vitality of the business and striving to reduce any financially detrimental impacts on the applicant. F. On March 1, 2012, all waivers and exemptions from the requirements of this chapter will terminate and become invalid; and all provisions of this chapter will be subject to implementation and enforcement. 6.90.070 Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid, or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. 6.90.080 No conflict with federal or state law. Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any requirement, power, or duty in conflict with any federal or state law. Section 2. This ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5) days after publication. APPROVED: MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: {BFP791064.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 9 - Packet Page 21 of 364 {BFP791064.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 10 - BY W. SCOTT SNYDER FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 22 of 364 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, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 6.90 FOOD PACKAGING IN THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN USES OF POLYSTYRENE AND NON- RECYCLABLE FOR DISPOSABLE FOOD PACKAGING AND TO REQUIRE INSTEAD THE USE OF RECYCLABLE OR COMPOSTABLE FOOD PACKAGING; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________,2010. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE {BFP791064.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 11 - Packet Page 23 of 364 City of Issaquah - Food Service Packaging http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/Page.asp?NavID=2215[2/26/2010 2:57:19 PM] Back to Resource Conservation Office For the Home - Sustainable Living For The Business - Sustainable Business Food Service Packaging Garbage, Recycling, Yard & Food Waste Collection Hazardous Waste Landscape and Garden Salmon Friendly Commuting Sustainable Building Water Conservation Water Quality Pickering Garden Protecting Issaquah's Waterways Sustainable City Indicators Volunteer Opportunities zHome Bids/RFPs Staff Directory P.O. Box 1307 City Hall NW, 1775 - 12th Ave NW Issaquah, WA 98027 Phone: (425) 837-3400 Email: rco@ci.issaquah... [sitemap] [advanced search] CALENDAR OF: MEETINGS & EVENTS Today is: February 26, 2010 DAY WEEK MONTH Printer friendly version / Resource Conservation Office / For The Business - Sustainable Business / Food Service Packaging Food Service Packaging Requirements On Nov. 16, 2009, the Issaquah City Council adopted a new law to reduce landfill waste, litter and pollution by avoiding the use of disposable polystyrene and non- recyclable food service packaging. The law requires – through a phased approach – food service businesses (including restaurants, grocers, coffee shops and other food sellers) to only use recyclable or compostable food service containers and service ware. In addition, the law provides resources to support local businesses and an 18-month period to help businesses make the transition. Foods that are pre-packaged before they are received by a business are not included in this law. When does the new law take effect? The City is following a phased approach: January-October 2010 (Voluntary Phase): There are no mandatory requirements. The City will be assisting businesses with education, communications, customer awareness and incentives. October 2010-May 2011 (Phase 1): Polystyrene containers (sometimes called “Styrofoam”) are not allowed. Recyclable or compostable food service containers and service ware must be used. There will be exemptions, however, for hot containers/lids, utensils and raw meat trays. Business must also participate in a commercial composting program or provide compost containers onsite for consumer use. Businesses can request exemptions through a waiver process. Starting May 2011 (Phase 2): Polystyrene containers are not allowed. Recyclable or compostable food service containers and service ware must be used. Waivers will expire. To see the full timeline, click here or to download flyer click here . Why is the law phased? A phased approach: Provides time to support local businesses with technical assistance and resources to help defray costs and evaluate options. Allows the City Council’s Sustainability Committee to monitor the initial implementation, evaluate the process and, if needed, make adjustments. Packet Page 24 of 364 City of Issaquah - Food Service Packaging http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/Page.asp?NavID=2215[2/26/2010 2:57:19 PM] Feb 2010 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 98027 Conditions and Forecast Provides time to evaluate a possible purchasing cooperative among local businesses. Why require recyclable or compostable food service packaging? Non-recyclable and non-compostable food service packaging is often used and disposed of within minutes or days. It can take thousands of years to decompose, however, which has a negative impact on the environment. In addition, Issaquah aims to reduce landfill waste by composting as much food waste as possible. Using compostable packaging allows users to easily dispose of their food waste – and containers – all in one place. What else is the City doing to encourage recycling and composting? Issaquah has adopted aggressive waste prevention and recycling goals to divert up to 65 percent of waste sent to landfills. So far, the City’s efforts include: Offering a free “Sustainable Business Partnership” program – including technical assistance, employee training and incentives – to support Issaquah businesses that recycle food waste (and subsequently reduce their garbage disposal costs). Successfully reducing the environmental footprint of Salmon Days, in partnership with the Chamber Festivals Office, by helping to facilitate a polystyrene ban for the past two years. Hosting, in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, a forum last July to help local businesses learn more about the options available for compostable food packaging. Additional compostable/recyclable packaging forums will be held in 2010. Recycling is available for Issaquah businesses at no charge. As part of their basic garbage service, businesses are provided with a recycling capacity of up to 200 percent of their garbage collection container size. Educating residents about composting and recycling options. Providing compost and recycling services to all Issaquah residents since 2005 and all Issaquah businesses since 2006. Where do I find more information on recyclable or compostable food service packaging? Contact the City’s Resource Conservation Office (RCO) at 425-837-3400 or by e-mail. Cedar Grove Organics Recycling services Aerial city photograph credit - Tim Heneghan HOME | TOP | WEBSITE HELP | ABOUT THIS SITE Printer friendly version If you have questions regarding the site, please contact the webmaster. Terms of Use | Built using Project A's Site-in-a-Box ©2010 Packet Page 25 of 364 City of Issaquah - Agendas & Minutes http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=2175[2/26/2010 3:19:32 PM] Back [sitemap] [advanced search] CALENDAR OF: MEETINGS & EVENTS Today is: February 26, 2010 DAY WEEK MONTH Feb 2010 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 98027 Conditions and Forecast Printer friendly version ARCHIVED - Council Sustainability Committee - Agenda Tuesday, August 18, 2009 Council Sustainability Committee Meeting Notes Committee Members: David Kappler, Chair (present) Maureen McCarry (present) Josh Schaer (present) August 18, 2009 5:30 – 6:45 PM Pickering Room, City Hall NW 1775 12th Avenue NW Staff Liaison: David Fujimoto, Resource Conservation Office Manager Others in Attendance: Larry McIntyre, American Chemistry Council Barry Brandt, Dart Container Dick Lilly, Seattle Public Utilities Heather Trim, People for Puget Sound Stan Phillips, Stan’s BBQ Tom Sessions, Chamber Government Affairs Committee Matthew Bott, Issaquah Chamber of Commerce Susan Boling, Reel Thing Productions Jeb Berrier Reel Thing Productions Susan Robinson, Waste Management Staff Support: David Fujimoto, Manager-Resource Conservation Office Micah Bonkowski, Resource Conservation Coordinator Meeting Notes (D)Polystyrene Food Packaging Agenda Bill Update Joshua Schaer, Council Member Staff provided an update on the Business Information Forum which was co- sponsored by the City and Chamber of Commerce and held on July 28. Staff reviewed the agenda as well as outreach to the business community through a direct mailing, web postings on both the City and Chamber sites, email distribution to Chamber members, hand distribution of flyers and personal phone calls. In addition, materials were collected and made available after the event with information posted online and samples and contact information available at Chamber offices. Council member Schaer provided an updated draft of the ordinance and reviewed changes. The Committee discussed modifications to the effective date, incorporation of recycling provisions, waiver processes and timelines for different types of packaging. Packet Page 26 of 364 City of Issaquah - Agendas & Minutes http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/Agendas.asp?AMID=2175[2/26/2010 3:19:32 PM] (I)City of Seattle Implementation Presentation by Seattle Public Utilities Dick Lilly, Business Area Manager with Seattle Public Utilities gave a presentation reviewing the City of Seattle’s polystyrene ordinance and its implementation. The Seattle ordinance is being implemented in two phases, with the initial polystyrene ban having gone into effect January 1. A major goal is to keep food waste, compostable paper and containers from going to the landfill. In addition, he discussed background and approach, business acceptance, costs, environmental benefits and other issues. The committee discussed impacts to local businesses, education of customers, ordinance implementation and phasing, work with schools, products, environmental benefits, waivers and other issues. (D) Public Discussion and Input on Polystyrene Food Packaging Agenda Bill Attendees provided comments and the committee discussed a number of issues related to the draft ordinance, including costs for products and impacts to per unit prices for menu items as well as signage and menus, phasing of the ordinance, impacts of plastics on the aquatic environment and other environmental impacts, enforcement approaches, education of customers, acceptance by businesses, bulk purchasing, recycling program offerings and incentives, institutional polystyrene recycling efforts and other related issues and discussion. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:20 pm. Aerial city photograph credit - Tim Heneghan HOME | TOP | WEBSITE HELP | ABOUT THIS SITE Printer friendly version If you have questions regarding the site, please contact the webmaster. Terms of Use | Built using Project A's Site-in-a-Box ©2010 Packet Page 27 of 364 City Council votes to ban Styrofoam food packaging next year : The Issaquah Press – News, Sports, Classifieds in Issaquah, WA http://www.issaquahpress.com/2009/11/16/city-council-votes-to-ban-styrofoam-food-packaging-next-year/[2/26/2010 3:22:59 PM] RSSHOME/NEWS CLASSIFIEDS TRAFFIC CAMS ARCHIVES/HISTORY ADVERTISE ABOUT SUBMIT NEWS SUBSCRIBE CONTACT Local News Opinion Sports Schools Community A&E Calendar Obituaries Business Photo/Video Special Sections Browse > Home / Local News / City Council votes to ban Styrofoam food packaging next year November 16, 2009 By Warren Kagarise Got something to say? Before you comment, please note: These comments are moderated. Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion. Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved. This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic. Name Email Address Website City Council votes to ban Styrofoam foodpackaging next year UPDATED — 1:20 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009 Issaquah joined Seattle, Portland and other eco-conscious cities Monday night when the City Council banned polystyrene takeout containers and other food packaging made from the material. The ban will go into effect in October 2010; restaurants, grocers, public schools and other food sellers will be required to comply by May 2011. Polystyrene — also known under the trademark Styrofoam — is a popular option at restaurants and grocers because the material is cheaper and hardier than compostable alternatives. Critics said the polystyrene lingers in landfills long after Styrofoam trays and cups are tossed into the trash. The material is expensive to recycle as well. City Council members voted 6-1 to approve the ban. Councilman Joshua Schaer proposed the legislation in June. Officials huddled with restaurateurs, industry representatives, business owners and environmentalists to reach the final bill. Schaer said the legislation offered the city the opportunity to lead on environmental issues. Issaquah will be the first Eastside city to ban polystyrene. Councilwoman Eileen Barber cast the vote against the bill. Barber said the ban was ill timed for restaurateurs struggling amid the economic downturn. The legislation includes $56,450 to help city officials reach out to business owners and implement the ban. How the city will pay for the project will be discussed as city officials refine the 2010 budget. The bill will be enforced by “passive compliance” and, essentially, driven by consumer complaints. Violators will be cited by the city code compliance officer and required to pay a fine. Written by Warren Kagarise · Filed Under Local News Comments FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2010 SEARCH: Packet Page 28 of 364 City Council votes to ban Styrofoam food packaging next year : The Issaquah Press – News, Sports, Classifieds in Issaquah, WA http://www.issaquahpress.com/2009/11/16/city-council-votes-to-ban-styrofoam-food-packaging-next-year/[2/26/2010 3:22:59 PM] Speak your mind Community Links ArtEAST Chamber of Commerce & Visitor Center City of Issaquah Cougar Mt. Zoo Downtown Issaquah Assoc. Eagles Club Eastside FC Friends of the Iss. Hatchery (FISH) Iss. Alps Trails Club Iss. Amateur Radio Club Iss. Garden Club Iss. Soccer Club Iss. Swim Team Iss. Valley Food & Clothing Bank Issaquah Gliders Issaquah History Museums Issaquah Library Issaquah Quilters Issaquah School District Issaquah Schools Foundation Issaquah Singers Packet Page 29 of 364 City Council votes to ban Styrofoam food packaging next year : The Issaquah Press – News, Sports, Classifieds in Issaquah, WA http://www.issaquahpress.com/2009/11/16/city-council-votes-to-ban-styrofoam-food-packaging-next-year/[2/26/2010 3:22:59 PM] Copyright © 2008 Issaquah Press - www.issaquahpress.com · Log in · MOSSO Cloud Hosted Issaquah Women’s Club Issaquah Youth Football Issaquah Youth Lacrosse Kiwanis Club of Issaquah Master Chorus Eastside Mountains to Sound Greenway Partnership for Rural King County Rotary Club of Issaquah Salmon Days Festival Sammamish Rowing Assoc. Sammamish Symphony Orchestra Village Theatre WA State Parks & Recreation Commission WA Trails Assoc. Affiliate Links Newcastle News Sammamish Review Seattle Times SnoValley Star Walla Walla Union Bulletin Yakima Herald Republic Packet Page 30 of 364 Press Editorial : The Issaquah Press – News, Sports, Classifieds in Issaquah, WA http://www.issaquahpress.com/2009/09/08/press-editorial-44/#more-13680[2/26/2010 3:25:15 PM] RSSHOME/NEWS CLASSIFIEDS TRAFFIC CAMS ARCHIVES/HISTORY ADVERTISE ABOUT SUBMIT NEWS SUBSCRIBE CONTACT Local News Opinion Sports Schools Community A&E Calendar Obituaries Business Photo/Video Special Sections Browse > Home / Editorial, Opinion / Press Editorial September 8, 2009 By Staff Got something to say? Before you comment, please note: These comments are moderated. Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion. Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved. This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic. Name Email Address Website Speak your mind Press Editorial Baby steps called for in Styrofoam ban By now you’ve probably read about the city’s initial proposal to ban the use of polystyrene — better known as Styrofoam — food containers in Issaquah. This could include everything from takeout food containers to the little tray that holds tonight’s steak.The idea was first proposed by the City Council’s Sustainability Committee. The city of Issaquah has long been regarded as being a leader in resource conservation and recycling, and we’re ready to see more. If the proposed ban is implemented Jan. 1, businesses would be required to use recyclable or compostable food containers. While some business owners are concerned about being forced to change to a more expensive container, they are not all opposed. Matt Bott, executive director of the Chamber of Commerce, has surveyed businesses and heard back from about 20 so far. While we like the idea of reducing plastic trash, we caution the city to take it slow. The economy is tough enough on businesses that are operating on reduced sales and reduced staff — all while worrying about a possible flu epidemic. We hope the city will create baby steps that get us to the polystyrene ban, but maybe not until Jan. 1, 2011. Meanwhile, the Sustainability Committee should also be looking at those darn plastic bags and what can be done about them — without getting into a bag tax! For a step in the right direction, they should mandate attendance of business owners and staff at a workshop that discusses ways to cut down on the use of the bags. Is there some reason soda pop in a 2-liter plastic bottle needs to be wrapped in plastic a second time? Written by Staff · Filed Under Editorial , Opinion Comments FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2010 SEARCH: Packet Page 31 of 364 Press Editorial : The Issaquah Press – News, Sports, Classifieds in Issaquah, WA http://www.issaquahpress.com/2009/09/08/press-editorial-44/#more-13680[2/26/2010 3:25:15 PM] Community Links ArtEAST Chamber of Commerce & Visitor Center City of Issaquah Cougar Mt. Zoo Downtown Issaquah Assoc. Eagles Club Eastside FC Friends of the Iss. Hatchery (FISH) Iss. Alps Trails Club Iss. Amateur Radio Club Iss. Garden Club Iss. Soccer Club Iss. Swim Team Iss. Valley Food & Clothing Bank Issaquah Gliders Issaquah History Museums Issaquah Library Issaquah Quilters Issaquah School District Issaquah Schools Foundation Issaquah Singers Issaquah Women’s Club Issaquah Youth Packet Page 32 of 364 Press Editorial : The Issaquah Press – News, Sports, Classifieds in Issaquah, WA http://www.issaquahpress.com/2009/09/08/press-editorial-44/#more-13680[2/26/2010 3:25:15 PM] Copyright © 2008 Issaquah Press - www.issaquahpress.com · Log in · MOSSO Cloud Hosted Football Issaquah Youth Lacrosse Kiwanis Club of Issaquah Master Chorus Eastside Mountains to Sound Greenway Partnership for Rural King County Rotary Club of Issaquah Salmon Days Festival Sammamish Rowing Assoc. Sammamish Symphony Orchestra Village Theatre WA State Parks & Recreation Commission WA Trails Assoc. Affiliate Links Newcastle News Sammamish Review Seattle Times SnoValley Star Walla Walla Union Bulletin Yakima Herald Republic Packet Page 33 of 364 May 2008 King County Green Schools Program Polystyrene Facts What is polystyrene? Polystyrene is a thermoplastic material made from petroleum-derived styrene. Polystyrene is made into both foam and rigid products. Foam or expanded polystyrene (EPS) is either expanded or extruded to manufacture products such as cups, plates, trays and packaging.1 EPS is often mistakenly referred to as Styrofoam, which is a Dow Chemical Company trademarked form of polystyrene foam insulation introduced to the U.S. in 1954. How is polystyrene made? Styrene is the primary chemical component of polystyrene. It is a clear, colorless liquid derived from petroleum and natural gas by-products and formed by a reaction between ethylene and benzene (a hazardous substance). Styrene is used in everything from food containers and packaging materials to cars, boats and computers. It is polymerized by heat or by an initiator, such as benzyl peroxide, and then is suspended in water to form droplets, using a suspension agent. The beads of polystyrene produced by suspension are tiny and hard. To make them expand, special blowing agents (primarily pentane) are used. How much waste does polystyrene create? ﬁ In 2006, the US disposed of 870,000 tons of polystyrene plastic plates and cups (plus 590,000 tons on other polystyrene products), according to the EPA’s report on Municipal Solid Waste.2 ﬁ Although EPS represents only one percent of the waste stream by weight in King County, it makes up a significant volume. Approximately 7.9 million cubic feet of EPS is disposed in King County each year, enough to fill 2½ buildings the size of Seattle’s 38-story Smith Tower. Ultimately, this volume accounts for about 248,000 cubic yards of King County landfill space annually.3 ﬁ Polystyrene takes decades to hundreds of years to dissolve because it does not biodegrade. Instead, it “photo- degrades”, meaning that sunlight breaks it into progressively smaller pieces. However, sunlight does not penetrate modern municipal landfills, therefore making it extremely unlikely that polystyrene will photo- degrade in our landfills.4 Can polystyrene be recycled? ﬁ In some areas of the country, EPS is recycled and used to manufacture new products. Since food residue is a contaminant in the polystyrene recycling process, EPS food trays are rarely recycled. The extra step and cost of washing the trays more often proves prohibitive to recyclers. ﬁ King County has identified EPS as a priority waste and is working to support the establishment of recycling facilities, with a focus on molded packaging. Molded packaging often provides a clean source of EPS that is untainted with food residue or other contaminants. How does polystyrene affect health? ﬁ Most health problems associated with polystyrene are due to exposure during manufacture of styrene or products using styrene (the primary component of polystyrene) and include depression, concentration problems, muscle weakness, tiredness, nausea and eye, ear and throat irritation.5 The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that styrene is a possible carcinogen.6 ﬁ Most exposure cases are associated with industry workers. However, styrene also can be transferred to food from polystyrene cups, plates and trays, and can enter the human body through air (released from industries that make and use styrene). 6 What can you do? ﬁ Purchase and use reusable or compostable products. (Some cities have banned polystyrene. The City of Seattle has proposed a ban on the use of EPS cups and containers in restaurants. 7 Some school districts, such as Issaquah School District in King County, have discontinued use of polystyrene trays -- see example on page 2 -- and instead have selected either reusable or compostable trays.) ﬁ Recycle as options become available. Packet Page 34 of 364 Alternatives to Polystyrene (EPS) Lunch Trays Alternative #1: Durable Lunch Trays Replacing all or some disposable trays with durable, reusable trays is a great option. Reusable products can be more cost effective over time than disposable products, but costs should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Schools with dishwashers and storage space are the best candidates. Examples: ﬁ Starting in March 2008, nine Portland Public Schools have eliminated EPS lunch trays as part of a pilot program. The schools will gather information throughout the school year on cost-effectiveness, volunteer time and the effects on garbage, water and energy use.8 ﬁ In 2006 Henry David Thoreau Elementary School in the Lake Washington School District switched from EPS to durable lunch trays. As a result, the school reduced its solid waste by 82 percent, or 230 cubic yards per year. The switch reduced lunch waste from 6.5 cubic yards of garbage per week (which had included 1,100 disposable EPS trays) to less than 1.2 cubic yards per week. 9 Resources: ﬁ Durable Reusable Lunch Trays and Baskets, prepared by King County Green Schools Alternative #2: Paper/Cardboard (Compostable) Lunch Trays Several schools purchase uncoated cardboard/paper lunch trays, which can be composted along with food scraps. Composting collection is less expensive than garbage collection, and therefore schools can realize cost savings by making this switch and contracting for composting collection. Examples: ﬁ The Davis Joint Unified School District (California) composts cardboard lunch trays at three elementary schools. Set up costs included sorting stations and outreach materials. The schools reduced solid waste by about 40 percent, resulting in an estimated gross savings of $6,230. The district plans to expand the program.10 ﬁ The Issaquah School District, a King County Green Schools Program participant, switched from EPS to compostable paper lunch trays. The trays (purchased from Food Services of America, http://www.fsafood.com) cost twice as much as EPS trays, but the district made the switch as part of an effort to use nontoxic and more environmentally responsible products. In the future, the district would like the trays, along with food scraps, to be collected for composting. Paper options (from KCDA catalog)*: Product Description KCDA No. Mfg No. U/M 1-23 24+ 5 compartment;8”x10”; Chinet 49690 VALLEY 500/Cs $49.27 $47.28 6 compartment; 9”x12”; Chinet 49685 VALISE 500/Cs $61.99 $59.49 3 compartment; 8”x9”; Chinet 49680 VAGRANT 500/Cs $54.67 $52.47 Non-paper biodegradable options*: ﬁ http://www.sinlessbuying.com/tep/catalog/catalog/index.php - Tree Free Biodegradable Trays ﬁ http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/RCP/ProdByType.asp?ProductTypeID=76 - California’s Recycled Content Product Directory *Before buying compostable products, contact your local composting collection company to make sure the product is acceptable. Sources: 1. http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/sec_pfpg.asp?CID=1432&DID=5224 2. http://www.epa.gov/garbage/pubs/06data.pdf Page 7 3. http://www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd/linkup/eNewslink/current.asp 4. Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California: A Report to the California Legislature Dec 2004 5. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/styrene.html; http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/dwh/t-voc/styrene.html; 6. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaq.html; http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs53.html 7. http://www.seattle.gov/util/Services/Garbage/Reduce_Garbage_&_Litter/GreenFeeFoamBanProposals/SPU01_003525.asp 8. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/portland_news/120536070512750.xml&coll=7 Packet Page 35 of 364 9. http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/dnrp/newsroom/newsreleases/2007/november/1102GreenSchoolsLWSD.aspx 10. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/FoodWaste/CaseStudies/Contracts/2000/Davis2.pdf Packet Page 36 of 364 City of Seattle Disposable Shopping Bags Green Fee and Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Foam Food Container Ban FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) Revised June 18, 2008 Packet Page 37 of 364 Green Fees/Foam Ban Frequently Asked Questions June 18, 2008 Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Foam Food Container Ban FAQ Contents Why ban so-called “Styrofoam” containers and cups? Aren’t other plastics just as bad? See Page 9. Why not also ban EPS foam packaging? Don’t those “Styrofoam peanuts” end up as litter, too? See Page 9. Have any other jurisdictions banned EPS foam food containers. How is it working? See Page 9. Aren’t the alternatives to EPS foam containers just as bad for the environment? See Page 10. Why does the City want to force this change? See Page 10. What about compostable and recyclable alternatives to EPS foam and the other disposable plastics used in food service? See Page 10. How will the City enforce the EPS ban and the green fee on bags? See Page 10. Your study shows that banning EPS food containers and cups is actually worse for the environment than doing nothing so why do it? See Page 11. Disposable Shopping Bags and Green Fee FAQs What are Mayor Greg Nickels and City Council President Richard Conlin proposing? Mayor Greg Nickels and City Council President Richard Conlin are proposing a 20 cent green fee on all disposable shopping bags provided to customers at grocery, drug and convenience stores. The purpose of the green fee is to discourage the use of disposable bags of any type and encourage shoppers to use reusable bags. Nickels and Conlin are also proposing a ban on the use of expanded polystyrene (EPS) containers in restaurants, fast food outlets, coffee shops and all other food service establishments. This includes some of the packaging used at grocery stores such as meat trays and egg cartons. In addition, because there are a number of different kinds of plastics and plastic-coated paper products used for disposable food service ware — “clamshells,” plates, cups, utensils and so forth — they are proposing a deadline two years away by which all such —3— Packet Page 38 of 364 Green Fees/Foam Ban Frequently Asked Questions June 18, 2008 These are not either-or issues. There are lots of ways to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the green fee on disposable shopping bags is one of them. Each alternative, such as carbon taxes on fuel consumption, for example, need to be examined on its merits by government at the appropriate level. Seattle regulates and handles solid waste and can set an example in that area. How much will the green fee cost a typical Seattle resident? Possibly nothing if all the family members regularly take reusable bags with them when they go shopping. In reality, some of the time people will forget and they’ll pay a small amount. If a family’s bag use drops from several hundred now to a few dozen next year when the green fee is in effect, it might be $10. Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Foam Food Container Ban FAQs Why ban so-called “Styrofoam” containers and cups? Aren’t other plastics just as bad? Along with expanded polystyrene (EPS), all the other disposable plastic and plastic- coated paper products in fast food and take-out use have various negative impacts on the environment. None stand out as particularly better or worse than others, except that EPS has proven to be an exceptional problem in litter and particularly marine litter. That’s why a ban is the right way to deal with EPS now. The superiority of compostable and truly recyclable plastic products to the disposable plastic and plastic-coated paper products currently in use is why Nickels and Conlin have set a date two years from now for all food service outlets to switch to compostable and recyclable containers, plates, hot and cold beverage cups and utensils. Why not also ban EPS foam packaging? Don’t those “Styrofoam peanuts” end up as litter, too? The Mayor and City Council in Resolution 30990 asked Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) to look first at disposable shopping bags and EPS food service items. Now that that’s done, SPU is studying EPS packaging and a number of other un-recycled, under-recycled and hard-to-recycle materials to see what kinds of policies might decrease their use and/or increase recycling. Have any other jurisdictions banned EPS foam food containers. How is it working? —9— Packet Page 39 of 364 Green Fees/Foam Ban Frequently Asked Questions June 18, 2008 Portland, Oregon, was among the first to ban EPS foam food containers a decade ago. McDonald’s sued the city and lost and that in part that led to the burger chain’s switch to a cardboard container (though sometimes plastic coated), a pretty impressive result for municipal government action. More recently, a number of California cities and counties including San Francisco and Santa Monica have banned EPS in food service and are promoting compostable or recyclable alternatives. Aren’t the alternatives to EPS foam containers just as bad for the environment? Switching from EPS to other disposable plastics can be just as bad and sometimes worse in environmental impact. That’s why Nickels’ and Conlin’s plan takes a second step and mandates that restaurants find compostable and recyclable alternatives to food service disposable plastic and plastic-coated paper products by July 1, 2010. Why does the City want to force this change? There is a long-term environmental goal underlying this policy. Plastic — all kinds of plastics — are persistent in the environment. All the plastic ever made is still around — in landfills, in ocean debris, on beaches, scattered across the land, and in the case of plastic bags, stuck in the trees and against fences. Natural forces such as ultraviolet light may break down plastics into smaller and smaller — but still plastic — particles. As this happens and particularly in the ocean, plastic objects and particles are consumed by animals up and down the food chain. Most notably, this kills birds. In some areas of the ocean, floating plastic outnumbers plankton six to one. Because of plastic’s long term persistence in the environment and its effects, we should minimize the production of plastic and maximize recycling of what is produced. And, of course, that also cuts down greenhouse gas production and the amount of material that has to be landfilled. Are there compostable and recyclable alternatives to EPS foam and the other disposable plastics used in food service? Because more and more jurisdictions here on the West Coast and worldwide are adopting policies to discourage throwaway plastic and plastic-coated paper products in the food service industry, manufacturers and suppliers are responding with new products including compostable plastics made from vegetable sources such as corn starch and sugar cane and, increasingly, from non-food fiber crops and byproducts. These products are currently being developed and tested by the market for how well they do their job in the restaurant and for compostability after use. Change is coming fast so over the next two years there will be a variety of new products for restaurants and coffee shops, delis and so forth to choose from. How will the City enforce the EPS ban and the green fee on bags? —10— Packet Page 40 of 364 Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes February 5-6, 2010 Page 14 contact their representatives and recommend they support the bill. A brief discussion followed regarding other ways to fund stormwater improvements such as a stormwater surcharge on utility bills and the creation of zones with increased stormwater mitigation and the ability to reduce the mitigation via green methods such as pervious surfaces, rain gardens, etc. B. Implement Sustainable Purchasing Practices (i.e., best value vs. best price contract language); Green Power Purchase by City Councilmember Peterson explained sustainable purchasing practice means buying local to reduce transit costs and supporting local businesses and businesses that are environmentally friendly. He expressed support for formalizing this practice in the City. Mr. Clifton offered to determine whether the City had a sustainable purchasing practice. Council President Bernheim referred to information in the packet regarding Bellingham’s green power challenge, a government initiated program that encourages the use of less power. Sustainable Edmonds is pursuing that program. He planned to introduce a proposal for the City to dedicate a token amount to green power purchase. A brief discussion ensued regarding the Climate Action Plan prepared by the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee that will be reviewed by the Planning Board and forwarded to the Council. C. Green Buildings – Implement LEED Standards for New Construction, Incentivize Green Remodels, Other code Rewrites Councilmember Peterson suggested during the current slower building period, the City devote time to revising its building codes to address this effort. Council President Bernheim referred to draft LEED standards provided in the packet. Council comments included the perception that LEED standards and green practices imposed costs on new construction, intangible benefits of LEED and green buildings, and opportunity for the City to attract developers. D. Education and Communication; Website, Edmonds Green Logo, Speakers’ Series, Local/Regional Partners Councilmember Peterson recommended the City utilize its website and Sustainable Edmonds to educate the public that green buildings are not prohibitively expensive. He advised the Plastic Bag Subcommittee of the Mayor’s Climate Protection Committee is working on an Edmonds Green Logo. E. Car Free Day, Parking Space Decommissioning, Electric Car Rally, Unlicense Day Council President Bernheim remarked parking spaces were more economically valuable as pedestrian spaces versus parking spaces. He provided examples of assigning individual or multiple parking spaces downtown to different groups for a day/weekend and allowing them to transform the spaces into pedestrian amenities. Councilmembers commented on Parking Day on Friday, September 17, lack of bike racks downtown, and working with the Cascade Bicycle Club and/or Edmonds Bike Club to site an artistic bike rack downtown. F. Styrofoam Ban Councilmember Peterson advised Seattle passed a Styrofoam ban last year. He suggested Edmonds institute a similar ban with enforcement similar to the plastic bag ban. He suggested this be adopted as one of five action items. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas advised Seattle restaurants found the cost of biodegradable containers was similar and they worked well. Councilmember Peterson commented restaurants also now have the ability to compost food waste. Packet Page 41 of 364 Public Safety Committee Meeting March 9, 2010 Page 1 of 3 Minutes Public Safety Committee Meeting March 9, 2010 Elected Officials Present: Council Member D. J. Wilson, Committee Chair Council Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas Council Member Steve Bernheim Council Member Diane Buckshnis Staff Present: Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon Public Present: Mike McGinnis, Police Foundation Don Eager, Police Foundation Bruce Witenberg, Police Foundation Barry Brandt The meeting was called to order by Chair Wilson at 6:55 p.m. A. Styrofoam Ban The Committee discussed the proposed ordinance for banning Styrofoam from the City of Edmonds. At the February 5-6, 2010 Council Retreat, the Council had expressed interest in moving forward with a Styrofoam ban. Ms. Fraley-Monillas was interested in a grandfather clause in the ordinance that would allow businesses that have Styrofoam products to exhaust their current supply. Mr. Wilson stated that a one year run-out of Styrofoam products is what he would like to see in the ordinance. That is similar to what is in the Issaquah and Seattle ordinances, and in the proposed ordinance written by Mr. Bernheim. Mr. Wilson suggested that the ordinance be moved directly to the Council for discussion of the effective date of the ordinance. One suggestion was to have the effective date at signing, but not enforce the ordinance until May 1, 2011, giving businesses time to deplete their inventory of Styrofoam products. Ms. Fraley-Monillas discussed the effective date and thought it best to follow the proposed draft ordinance by Mr. Bernheim. Both Council members felt that businesses needed time to reduce their supply of Styrofoam products, and one year after signing of the ordinance was sufficient before enforcement started. Ms. Fraley-Monillas also felt that having a waiver process in the ordinance was important. Packet Page 42 of 364 Public Safety Committee Meeting March 9, 2010 Page 2 of 3 The discussion then moved to the penalty portion of the ordinance. Ms. Fraley- Monillas felt the fine language in the proposed ordinance was satisfactory at $100 for a first offense and $300 for any further offenses. Ms. Fraley-Monillas made the point if you have fines in the ordinance and don’t enforce them, then why have the fines. Action: Move to full Council for discussion. B. Contract with Orchid Cellmark for Touch DNA Testing. ACOP Gannon discussed the reason for the request and how the Police Department will use Orchid Cellmark to help identify suspects in property crimes. The testing process used by Orchid Cellmark is sensitive enough to detect DNA left at a crime scene on items touched by a suspect. The Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory has approved the scientific testing process that Orchid Cellmark uses to enter DNA data into the national data base (CODIS). The cost of the testing is based on the number of samples submitted by the Department. There is no charge if samples are not submitted to Orchid Cellmark. ACOP Gannon was asked what the State Crime Laboratory charges for DNA testing. He responded there is no cost for samples submitted to the State Crime Lab, but because of its backlog of cases, the State Crime Lab will process few DNA samples for property crimes and the turnaround time can be lengthy. With no other discussion on the subject, ACOP Gannon asked that the contract be approved for the next consent agenda. He also advised that the contract had been reviewed and approved as to form by the city attorney. Mr. Wilson and Ms. Fraley-Monillas approved the request to go to the consent agenda. Action: Forward to City Council Consent Agenda with a recommendation to approve. C. Amendment of EMC 5.05, Animal Control ACOP Gannon explained the proposed changes to EMC 5.05.121 and 5.05.123 (Potentially Dangerous Dog) to provide for an appeal process should a dog be declared potentially dangerous. While this declaration is tantamount to a warning, recent court decisions support a provision for appeal in the interest of due process. This action is consistent with those taken in and by neighboring jurisdictions. The amended ordinance was prepared by the City Attorney. Mr. Wilson and Ms. Fraley-Monillas were further advised that the amended ordinance had been reviewed and approved as to form by the city attorney. Packet Page 43 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 11 photograph Ms. Petso and Mr. Clugston displayed was an example of what the code rewrite would achieve or overcome. Mr. Clugston answered the development in the photograph was illustrative of the way a multi family development could look today. The intent was to improve on that type of development via additional design standards that would allow better access, better onsite parking, better open space provisions, etc. Council President Bernheim asked where the direction for improvement was provided, noting he wanted to ensure the effort was proceeding in the direction the Council chose. Mr. Chave answered that was the reason the Council was kept informed via discussion at Council Committee and why it was scheduled on tonight’s agenda. He agreed staff did not want to make any revisions to the code that the Council would not ultimately support. He explained the intent of the subdivision rewrite was to address provisions no one liked, to improve organization of the code and to incorporate low impact development, affordable housing and sustainability. The Planning Board will explore how to encourage or to require some of those concepts as part of the subdivision update. With regard to cottage housing, Mr. Chave did not envision the development of a cottage housing ordinance as cottage housing was typically higher density, required more rigorous design standards, etc. Currently cottage housing was a housing type that was allowed but there was no density bonus. The Planning Board will discuss whether to clarify in the subdivision code that cottage housing is an allowed type of housing but he did not envision the Planning Board would recommend density bonuses, etc. for cottage housing. If the Council wanted the Planning Board to consider that, he urged the Council to make that clear. He advised the interim PRD ordinance essentially combined the PRD and subdivision process; therefore, it was appropriate to integrate the best features of PRDs into standard subdivisions. Council President Bernheim observed the PRD section was a standalone code due to its unique features. Mr. Chave answered Edmonds’ PRD ordinance was different than most jurisdictions; many jurisdictions allowed density bonuses. Edmonds’ PRD process was an alternate form of subdivision and did not allow density bonuses. Instead, it allowed more flexibility in standards and in exchange the developer must provide compatibility, achieve certain purposes, etc. The intent is to review those purposes to ensure they were still appropriate as there was some question as to whether they were effectively promoting sustainability. Mr. Snyder advised flexibility via a PRD is so limited that there is little distinction between a PRD and a standard subdivision. He summarized the typical attributes of a PRD allowed by most jurisdictions were not present in the City’s PRD ordinance. Mr. Chave explained a developer currently must apply for a PRD and a subdivision and they are processed on parallel but different tracks. In the rewrite, a PRD would be a combined PRD/subdivision application for which one approval was provided. He assured the public process would not be diminished but it would provide a consistent application process. He explained the PRD was essentially the only tool the City had to address different housing choices. For example, cottage housing is a type of housing, small houses arranged in a mini-neighborhood setting, and that type of housing may be in more demand in the future. If the code does not specifically state cottage housing is a potential option within a subdivision, it would not happen. He noted there has been come concern that as people age they are unable to finding affordable housing in Edmonds. The intent is to ensure there are housing choices that allow people to remain in the community. 9. DISCUSSION OF STYROFOAM BAN. Council President Bernheim explained at the 2010 Council retreat it was agreed the Council would proceed with a ban on Styrofoam food containers in the City. He referred to the draft ordinance he prepared, explaining the purpose of the ordinance would be that by a certain date food service businesses including tenants on City-owned property would be prohibited from selling or providing, in connection with food service, polystyrene, non-recyclable, or non-compostable food service packaging or disposable Packet Page 44 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes May 18, 2010 Page 12 food service ware. Food service businesses would be required to provide takeaway food in recyclable or compostable product and to have recycling or composting bins on site. The ordinance also includes a penalty for use of the products. The effective date of the ordinance would be at least a year from adoption to allow an education period and time for merchants to deplete existing inventory of polystyrene products. COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM, FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE. City Attorney Scott Snyder observed the proposal was not in ordinance form and suggested staff draft an ordinance for approval on a future agenda. Council President Bernheim suggested the City Attorney draft an ordinance and a public hearing be scheduled within the next 30-45 days. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out Seattle and other cities have successfully banned on Styrofoam and she felt it was achievable in Edmonds. Councilmember Wilson referred to Section 3 that required businesses to use a recyclable or compostable product and asked if that was the same language used by Seattle and Issaquah. He was concerned with the term recyclable, noting an array of plastics could be considered recyclable. Council President Bernheim referred to the definition of recyclable, made solely of materials that are capable of being separated from a waste stream by a food service business and made available for collection and delivery to a processor for reuse or remanufacture into the same or other products. He recalled that language was from Issaquah’s ordinance. Councilmember Wilson feared a plastic container could be recyclable but not meet the intent of the ordinance. Council President Bernheim advised that issue was addressed in Section 8.07.030 of the Issaquah ordinance. He suggested consulting with Issaquah and Seattle regarding their experience. Mr. Snyder suggested including in the record the scientific information that describes the problems with polystyrene and why they are not recyclable. He noted it was not only the polystyrene waste but also the environmental impacts of polystyrene production. Councilmember Peterson recalled a SEPA review was conducted on the plastic bag ordinance and asked whether a SEPA review would be appropriate for the ban on polystyrene. Mr. Snyder agreed it would be. Councilmember Wilson observed ten years ago when Portland adopted a similar ban, McDonald’s sued and lost and as a result changed all their packaging. He asked the legal basis for the City’s authority to ban polystyrene. Mr. Snyder answered the legal principles regarding cities’ police powers to regulate materials that come into the environment of a community are well established. He offered to provide that information along with the scientific data and the ordinance. Councilmember Wilson asked whether there had been any other legal actions with regard to banning polystyrene. Mr. Snyder reiterated cities’ police powers are well established, the primary limitations are commerce clause limitations for goods that travel between states and products packaged for local consumption. He referred to an exemption in the proposal for materials that arrive sealed to a business owner. The basis for that exemption is the commerce clause. Councilmember Wilson inquired about enforcement. Mayor Haakenson answered he would address enforcement at the time of the public hearing, assuring staff would not be in the Styrofoam enforcement business. Mayor Haakenson restated the motion as follows: DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Packet Page 45 of 364 GO NEWS ROOM Issues In-Depth Local Headlines News Releases Public Hearings and Forums Shows Videos Videos: City Council Only Videos: Mayor Only New compostable food tray debuts today at Seattle’s Metropolitan Market Specially developed in response to Seattle ordinance which requires all single-use, throw-away food packaging to be compostable or recyclable by July 1 SEATTLE -- A new product, first of its kind in the world, makes its debut in Seattle today when local chain Metropolitan Market rolls out a fully compostable tan tray for meat, fish and poultry sales. The new type of tray, a “bioplastic” made entirely from corn and not petroleum, was developed by the packaging industry in response to Seattle’s ordinance that requires all single-use food service packaging at quick-serve restaurants and grocery stores to be either compostable or recyclable. The ordinance takes effect July 1. The new food service packaging requirements mean Seattle will stop sending 6,000 tons of plastic and plastic-coated paper single-use food service ware and leftover food to the landfill in Oregon every year. That’s the equivalent of eliminating 225 shipping containers of waste, or a garbage train more than 100 cars long. “This is a revolutionary step to cut down on landfill waste, and we’re delighted to be the first supermarket we know of worldwide to adopt the system,” said Brad Halverson, vice president of marketing at Metropolitan Market. “Our Seattle customers will now be able to redirect an estimated one million meat trays per year--about five 53-foot trailers full-- into compost.” “The brown-toned tray clearly looks different from the old white and black plastic foam containers now prohibited in Seattle. The tan color will help residents know that they can put this tray in their food and yard waste carts,” said Dick Lilly, waste prevention manager for Seattle Public Utilities. The new bioplastic foam trays were developed by food service packaging suppliers and distributors Kenco and BunzlR3 working with the manufacturer, Pactiv. They are being marketed under the name EarthChoice. “Switching from petroleum-based plastic foam to bioplastic reduces green house gas generation at the same time composting the new trays means less waste,” said Lilly. Seattle banned “Styrofoam” products from restaurant use on January 1, 2009. The city’s ordinance gave the grocery industry 18 months more to develop a compostable alternative for meat trays. None existed when the city’s law was passed. “The packaging industry has stepped up and created new products that make it possible to really reduce waste in the food service business,” Lilly said. In addition to the new meat trays at Metropolitan Market, in the next week customers can expect to see similar brown-toned meat and fish trays at QFC and Fred Meyer stores. A variety of new, compostable food service ware is also already appearing in many Seattle quick-serve restaurants, he said. “Making it easy for consumers to recognize compostable food packaging by its tan color will help prevent contamination in the waste stream,” said Susan Thoman, director of sales and marketing for Cedar Grove Composting. All approved compostable products, along with food and yard waste, are delivered to Cedar Grove Composting. The compost is later used as soil amendment in local parks and gardens. City of Seattle Mike McGinn, Mayor NEWS ADVISORY SUBJECT: New compostable food tray debuts today at Seattle’s Metropolitan Market FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 6/22/2010 10:00:00 AM FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: SPU Customer Service (206) 684-3000 Seattle Channel -- News Room -- City News Releases 1http://www.seattlechannel.org/news/detail.asp?ID=10842&Dept=20 Packet Page 46 of 364 Seattle, closely followed by Issaquah later this year, is the first market area in the U.S. to require that single-use food service packaging be either compostable or recyclable. Similar but less comprehensive regulations for single-use food service packaging are being tried in San Francisco and Toronto. The up-front cost of compostable meat trays is less than twice what “Styrofoam” trays cost, but the difference per item is just pennies, according to Kenco spokesman Howard Knopf. It’s about 2 cents per tray for small trays, 8 cents for large “family pack” trays. The cost difference between compostable products and the plastic or plastic-coated paper food service products they replace is dropping steadily, he said. Learn more about Seattle Public Utilities, at: www.seattle.gov/util. Follow SPU on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SeattleSPU. In addition to providing more than 1.3 million customers in the metropolitan area with a reliable water supply, SPU provides solid waste services in Seattle and essential sewer, drainage and engineering services that safeguard public health, maintain the city’s infrastructure and protect, conserve and enhance the region's environmental resources. Back to News Release Home Page and News Release Search Seattle Channel, City of Seattle 600 4th Avenue FL L1 -- P.O. Box 94727 -- Seattle, WA 98124-4727 Viewer Comment Line: 206-684-8821 Email: contact@seattlechannel.org Seattlechannel.org: News | Community | Arts | Shows | TV Schedule | Videos | Watch Live | About Us | Contact Us The Seattle Channel is a service of the City of Seattle. Visit Seattle.gov Copyright © 1995-2009 City of Seattle Questions/Complaints Privacy & Security Policy Seattle Channel -- News Room -- City News Releases 2http://www.seattlechannel.org/news/detail.asp?ID=10842&Dept=20 Packet Page 47 of 364 Packet Page 48 of 364 Packet Page 49 of 364 Packet Page 50 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2010 Page 4 outgrew Sand Point, Idaho, a town of 6,500 and were looking for another venue. Mr. Clifton had assisted him several years ago when they visited the area to shoot a film and found shooting in Seattle and Everett prohibitive. Mr. Clifton was very hospitable at that time and has assisted them greatly with the film festival. Mr. Greenfield explained their film festival was similar to the Seattle International Film Festival, a celebration of independent films. They bring high quality, high entertainment, PG and G rated films. He announced they are officially moving the Lake Dance Film Festival to Edmonds, the Edmonds International Film Festival. The vision of the late Jack Mayo, who owned the Edmonds Theater, was to connect the waterfront, downtown and Highway 99. They share his vision and want to have events spread throughout the area. The goal will be to bring large film festival tourism and economic impact to the City. Mr. Greenfield relayed research done by Movie Maker Magazine and Film Maker Magazine in the 1990s on money spent by people attending film festivals from outside the area found the average was $150-$250 per person per day in addition to film festival tickets. Their goal is 1,000 attendees this year, 500 locally and 500 from outside the area. They hoped to grow the film festival in future years and to use the Edmonds Center for the Arts as well as other venues. He summarized this was a prototype year, the growth curve for an event such as this was 3-5 years. He announced their first sponsor and partner, the Best Western Edmonds Harbor Inn, has joined as their lodging partner and will provide rooms for VIPs as well as visiting film makers, tourists, etc. He advised further information was available via EdmondsFilmFestival.com. The Film Festival will take place October 21 – 23. Mr. Clifton commented October is a shoulder season and will bring people into the City in October rather than during the summer months. He thanked Cultural Services Manager Frances Chapin and Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Jan Vance for their assistance. Councilmember Wilson expressed the community and the Council’s desire for the film festival to be a big success. He expressed appreciation for their investment in the community and urged them to approach the Council, Mr. Clifton and the merchants with any requests. Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was acquainted with numerous volunteer groups and invited him to contact her with any requests for volunteers. 4. PUBLIC HEARING TO SEEK PUBLIC COMMENT ON A PROPOSED CHANGE TO A CITY MANAGER-COUNCIL FORM OF GOVERNMENT This item was removed from the agenda under Agenda Item 1. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING CERTAIN USES OF POLYSTYRENE AND NON-RECYCLABLE MATERIALS AS DISPOSABLE FOOD PACKAGING AND REQUIRING INSTEAD THE USE OF RECYCLABLE OR COMPOSTABLE MATERIALS. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim explained this was a proposal to ban throw-away, non-recyclable food service containers. The proposed effective date is March 2011. As the author of this proposal, he assured it was not his intent to have that as a fixed date nor was it necessarily intended that the Council would take action tonight. In order to reduce waste, trash and conserve energy and minimize the adverse impacts of one-time, throw-away containers, the proposal would prohibit food services from selling food in non- compostable or non-recyclable packaging. The proposal would require either compostable or recyclable packaging. Packet Page 51 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2010 Page 5 Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim acknowledged issues have arisen in discussions such as what to do with drinking straws, insulated wrap, and insulated cups. These issues and others will be addressed before the Council passes an ordinance. Council President Pro Tem Peterson explained Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim and he met with representatives from the restaurant industry as well as discussed the issue with representatives of the City of Seattle who passed a similar measure a year ago. They are taking proactive measures to ensure this is a positive step for the environment as well as for businesses and the community. He assured the intent was not draconian tactics that hurt small businesses; the intent was to work as closely as possible with small businesses to make sure the City was doing the right thing. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Josh McDonald, Washington Restaurant Association, explained he was speaking on behalf of the Association members in the greater Edmonds area as well as other small businesses impacted by the proposal. He worked on a similar ordinance in Seattle and Issaquah for the past 3 years; it took approximately 2½ years in Seattle to develop the ordinance. He explained the proposed ban has a tremendous impact on restaurants who often purchase large quantities of polystyrene packages. As one of Edmonds’ largest employers, the restaurant community prides itself in being as sustainable as possible and observes many best practices such as energy and water conservation. He referred to a written statement he provided to Councilmembers and invited their feedback. He posed several questions/concerns: • What is the City’s current recycling capacity and current ability to collect compost? Cedar Grove is the only composting facility in the region. The City must discuss the impacts of this ban with them. • Does the City have the resources to provide help to hundreds of businesses? They spent two years in Seattle assisting restaurants. • How will this impact small businesses? This is an increased financial burden; how will that be offset? How will businesses be helped through this transition? • What stakeholders have yet to be brought to the process? There are many that need to be included in discussions including grocers and Cedar Grove. • The proposed definition of compostable is not consistent with Seattle or Issaquah’s definition or national standards. • Section 6.90.040 regarding the requirement to enroll in commercial food waste or recycling service or have containers – 90% of restaurants are tenants and have no control over the services they are allowed. • The language in Section 6.90.040.B regarding all food service businesses are prohibited from emptying or disposing of items in recycling or compost containers is confusing. • The effective date of the chapter is too aggressive. Holly Chisa, Northwest Grocery Association, explained the grocery community is the single largest provider source for Cedar Grove; whatever grocers are unable to donate to a food bank is composted. She commented on the difference between items on the grocery store shelf versus the deli and appreciated Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim’s intent to work with them and interest in a flexible timeline. She agreed the timeline was very aggressive, noting they are still working to be compliant with Seattle. They are still learning a lot and the more time they have to get through the Seattle process, the more they can bring to Edmonds. She expressed appreciation for the temporary exemption for meat trays and requested the exemption be permanent until a long term solution was found. The most common recyclable meat trays are paper or corn and sugar based. The paper meat trays bleed and create a Health Department issue. Meat should not be placed on a food-based tray such as the corn or sugar based trays due to contamination and Packet Page 52 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 20, 2010 Page 6 bleeding. She offered to continue to work with the City and urged the City to talk with Cedar Grove to ensure there was not an expectation without a way to comply. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim closed the public participation portion of the public hearing. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked what type of meat trays were being used in Seattle. Ms. Chisa responded it depended on the retailer; some were using a cardboard hybrid. The reason the industry switched to Styrofoam was the bleeding issue. More layers must be used to keep the cardboard meat trays from bleeding which is counter to reducing waste. Some retailers have found compostable meat trays but the biohazard issues have yet to be resolved. Another issue is the stability of the bigger trays. They are also testing PET, another recyclable product. Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim reiterated he intended to look into the issues that have been raised as well as investigate the capacity of the Cedar Grove facility. He planned to return this issue to the Council in the future for further consideration. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas pointed out the ban on plastic bags would take effect soon. She recommended a year for implementation of a ban on polystyrene and other non-recyclable food containers, finding a year a reasonable period of time for businesses to use up existing supplies. Council President Pro Tem Peterson commented that living in the Northwest where cities like Seattle are taking the lead on issues such as a Styrofoam ban, he assumed other cities in the country were undertaking a similar effort. However, Mr. McDonald informed him there were few other cities involved. Because few communities are involved, the cost of alternative products is still high. He suggested as Councilmembers speak with Councilmembers in other cities, they encourage them to consider a similar ban. Involving more cities will alleviate the economic impacts as well as be beneficial to the environment. He thanked the Restaurant Association and the Grocery Association for being involved as engaged partners. Edmonds’ legislation could be better by avoiding the mistakes made by Seattle and Issaquah. Councilmember Wilson recalled when operating restaurants in the past it was very expensive to upgrade to compostable or recyclable materials. He requested information regarding the difference in price. Councilmember Buckshnis advised Jeannie Blair, Rich Senderoff and Rebecca Wolfe have developed an incentive-based program which includes not using Styrofoam. She suggested incorporating their program into the ban. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented while visiting a historic city on the East Coast recently, she found few garbage or recycle containers. Instead people throw trash in the street and a large street sweeper sweeps up the garbage at night. She preferred Edmonds’ model to that model. Council President Pro Tem Peterson commented staff conducted a SEPA review and the appeal period ended today. He thanked staff for ensuring the process was done correctly. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Norma Bruns, Edmonds, was disappointed the Council removed the public hearing regarding a proposed change to a City Manager-Council form of government from the agenda, remarking it would have been a good opportunity to take public comment regarding that topic. She commented other than Mayor Pro Tem Bernheim’s opinion tonight and articles in the Edmonds Beacon regarding the Chamber of Commerce’s position against a City Manager-Council form of government, there had been little opportunity for comment. She served on a committee over 20 years ago that studied that form of Packet Page 53 of 364 AM-3515 Item #: 1. C. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:20 Minutes Submitted By:Robert English Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Continued review of the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward item to the consent agenda for approval at the November 16, 2010 Council meeting. Previous Council Action On September 14, 2010, the CS/DS Council Committee reviewed the draft Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016) and Capital Improvement Program (2011-2016). On September 28, 2010, staff presented the Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016) and Capital Improvement Program (2011-2016) to the full Council. On October 5, 2010, a public hearing was held on the proposed Capital Facilities Plan (2011-2016) and Capital Improvement Program (2011-2016). Narrative The proposed Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) were presented to Council at the October 5, 2010 Council meeting. The Council approved the Stormwater section of the CFP and scheduled the General Project List and Transportation Section for further discussion at the November CS/DS committee meeting. Council requested staff to address the following three issues that were raised during the October 5th meeting. 1. Add $50,000 in 2011 to the CFP for traffic calming projects. 2. TBD revenue and projects shown in the CFP did not match the TBD list approved by the TBD Board. 3. Prioritize the CFP General Project List Response to Item#1 The CFP and CIP have been revised to show $50,000 in 2011 for traffic calming projects. Response to Item#2 The TBD budget shown in the previous CFP did not match the TBD list because several projects that were to be funded by TBD were maintenance and preservation projects. Maintenance and preservation projects are not included in the CFP and are only shown in the CIP. Response to Item#3 Staff is scheduled to meet with Councilmember Wilson prior to the CS/DS meeting and his recommendations will be provided to the committee for discussion. The reference to Transportation Benefit District (TBD) funding has been replaced as unsecured revenue in both the CFP and CIP since the TBD ballot measure failed. This approach will keep the existing project list intact for the upcoming six year planning period and allow staff to submit grant applications for those projects that qualify for future grant opportunities. The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is updated annually and identifies capital projects for at least the next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of either new projects or existing facilities that need to be expanded in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth in compliance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital projects that merely preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These Packet Page 54 of 364 Management Act. Thus, capital projects that merely preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation projects are identified within the six-year capital improvement program (CIP) and along with CFP projects encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects. CIP vs. CFP The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance/preservation projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) tied to the City's levels of service standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with all other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP. The revised 2011-2016 CFP and CIP are attached as Exhibit 1. Attachments Exhibit 1 - CFP-CIP (2011-2016) Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 11/04/2010 04:34 PM Public Works Phil Williams 11/05/2010 08:29 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 08:55 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/05/2010 09:12 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 09:14 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 11/04/2010 12:22 PM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 55 of 364 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT 2011 - 2016 1Packet Page 56 of 364 2Packet Page 57 of 364 CFP GENERAL 3Packet Page 58 of 364 City of EdmondsCapital Facilities Plan (CFP)Parks, General, and Regional Projects (2011-2016)Public VoteUnknown Conceptual G.O. BondsTotal$5-$23 MCommunity Unknown Conceptual PartnershipsTotal$5 MCapital CampaignUnknown ConceptualG.O. BondsTotal$5 MPublic VoteUnknown ConceptualREET 1 / GrantsTotalUnknownLibrary / Unknown ConceptualCity G.O. BondsTotalUnknownCapital CampaignUnknown ConceptualGrants / REET 2Total$10 - 12MPublic VoteUnknown ConceptualG.O. BondsTotal$3 - $4MPublic Vote / GrantsUnknown ConceptualG.O. BondsPrivate PartnershipTotal$4 - 10MFederal / US DOTEIS State FundsCompleted$11.8 MTotal$2.2 M $2.0M $2.1M $1.9M $2.1M $1.5MUnknownTotal CFP$11.8 MAnnual CFP Totals$2.2M $2.0 M$2.1M $1.9M $2.1M $1.5M`Edmonds / Sno-Isle LibraryExpand building for additional programs (Sno-Isle Capital Facilities Plan).2014Art Center / Art MuseumEstablish a new center for the Art's Community.Replace / Renovate (Currently subleased on Civic Playfield until 2021).Boys & Girls Club Building2017-2025Project Name2011 2012Revenue Source20162013(2011-2016) Total Cost2015Edmonds Crossing WSDOT Ferry / Mutimodal FacilityRelocate ferry terminal to Marina Beach.Replace / Renovate deteriorating building in City Park.Senior Center BuildingReplace and expand deteriorating building on the waterfront.Community Park / Athletic Complex - Old Woodway High SchoolParks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations BuildingIn cooperation with ESD#15 develop a community park and athletic complex.Current Project PhaseGrant Opportunity PurposeAquatic CenterMeet citizen needs for an Aquatics Center (Feasibility study complete August 2009).Civic Playfield AcquisitionEdmonds School District (City has lease until 2021).Current_draft Six-Year CFP (2011-2016)_General_091610: General_CFP9/16/20104Packet Page 59 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center at Yost Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 – $23,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the current pool. SCHEDULE: 2011-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $5m - $23m * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 5Packet Page 60 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Art Center / Art Museum ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A new Art Center/Museum facility will provide and promote Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008 update process. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority creates the need to determine feasibility for and potentially construct new visual arts related facilities. SCHEDULE: 2011-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 6Packet Page 61 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Boys & Girls Club Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build new Boys & Girls Club facility to accommodate the growing and changing needs of this important club. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Boys & Girls Club was constructed as a field house by the Edmonds School District decades ago and is in need of major renovation or replacement. It is inadequate in terms of ADA accessibility and does not meet the needs of a modern club. SCHEDULE: 2011-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 7Packet Page 62 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: unknown 6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire this 8.1 acre property for continued use as an important community park and site of some of Edmonds largest and most popular special events in downtown Edmonds. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Gain tenure and control in perpetuity over this important park site for the citizens of Edmonds. SCHEDULE: 2011-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 8Packet Page 63 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Edmonds/Sno-Isle Library ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand building/parking to accommodate additional library needs and programs. Library improvements identified in Sno-Isle Libraries Capital Facility Plan: 2007-2025 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements will better serve citizens needs requiring additional space and more sophisticated technology. SCHEDULE: 2011-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL unknown * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 9Packet Page 64 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic Complex at the Former Woodway High School ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000,000- $12,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop regional community park and fully lighted multi-field athletic complex. Development contingent upon successful partnerships, grants, and regional capital campaign. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Currently underutilized and under maintained facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2011-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $10m - $12m * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 10Packet Page 65 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities Maintenance Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The 40 year old maintenance building in City Park is reaching the end of its useful life and is in need of major renovation or replacement. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Parks and Facilities Divisions have long outgrown this existing facility and need additional work areas and fixed equipment in order to maintain City parks and Capital facilities for the long term. SCHEDULE: Contingent on finding additional sources of revenue from general and real estate taxes. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $3m - $4m * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 11Packet Page 66 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4 – 10 mil. * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replace and enlarge deteriorating Senior Center building complex on the City waterfront. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This facility is at the end of it’s useful life. The floors are continuing to settle which poses significant renovation costs. In addition, the facility requires structural reinforcement to withstand a major earthquake. SCHEDULE: Contingent on procuring the necessary funding from grants and other sources. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $4m -$10m 12Packet Page 67 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Edmonds Crossing is multimodal transportation center that will provide the capacity to respond to growth while providing improved opportunities for connecting various forms of travel including rail, ferry, bus, walking and ridesharing. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide an efficient point of connection between existing and planned transportation modes. SCHEDULE: 2011-2025 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017- 2025 Engineering & Administration $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,500,000 Right of Way $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $2,200,000 $2,000,000 $2,100,000 $1,900,000 $2,100,000 $1,500,000 Unknown * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 13Packet Page 68 of 364 14Packet Page 69 of 364 CFP TRANSPORTATION 15Packet Page 70 of 364 City of EdmondsCapital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2011-2016)Safety / Capacity Analysis$0(Federal or State secured)Possible Grant Conceptual $2,193,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$247,000 $216,000 $1,730,000$343,000(Local Funds)$39,000 $34,000 $270,000$2,536,000Total$286,000 $250,000 $2,000,000$0(Federal or State secured)Possible Grant Conceptual $439,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$50,000 $81,500 $308,000$439,500(Local Funds)$50,000 $81,500 $308,000$879,000Total$100,000 $163,000 $616,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$10,000(unsecured)$10,000$10,000Total$10,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$2,890,000(unsecured)$250,000 $600,000 $2,040,000$2,890,000Total$250,000 $600,000 $2,040,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$10,000(unsecured)$10,000$10,000Total$10,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$173,000(unsecured)$173,000$173,000Total$173,000$536,000(Federal or State secured)$232,000 $75,000 $229,000Design $2,986,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$2,986,000$125,000(Local Funds)$78,000 $11,000 $36,000$466,000(unsecured)$466,000$4,113,000Total$310,000 $86,000 $265,000 $3,452,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(unsecured)$1,431,000$0Total$1,431,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(unsecured)$1,022,000$0Total$1,022,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(unsecured)$10,211,000$0Total$10,211,0002017-2025Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection ImprovementsInstallation of a traffic signal to improve the intersection delay.Caspers St. @ 9th Ave. W Intersection ImprovementsInstallation of a traffic signal to improve the intersection delay.212th @ 84th (5 Coners) Intersection ImprovementsIntersection improvement to decrease intersection delay and improve Level of Service.Reduce intersection delay by converting 9th Ave. to (2) lanes for both the southbound and northbound movements.76thAv. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection ImprovementsReduce intersection delay by converting 9th Ave. to (2) lanes for both the southbound and northbound movements.Iintersectionre-design to improve LOS and reduce intersection delay.SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Ave. W Intersection Improvements2015 2016Improve safety at the intersection by stop controller intersection for NB and SB to a signalized intersection. Grant Opportunity(2011-2016) Total CostPurpose20132011 201284th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW)Install two-way left turn lanes to improve capacity and install sidewalk along this stretch to increase pedestrian safety (50 / 50 split with Snohomish County; total cost: ~20 Million).2014220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W Intersection ImprovementsReconfigure EB lane and add protected/permissive for the NB and SB LT to improve the intersection delay.Main St. @ 9th Av. S (Interim Solution)Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. (Interim Solution)Funding SourceProject PhaseRealign highly skewed intersection to address safety and improve operations; create new east-west corridor between SR-99 and I-5. Project Name228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements S:\ENGR\CIP_CFP BOOKS\2011-2016\Transportation\Transportation_CFP\Current_draft Six-Year CFP (2011-2016) 11-04-10.xls11/4/201016Packet Page 71 of 364 City of EdmondsCapital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2011-2016)2017-20252015 2016Grant Opportunity(2011-2016) Total CostPurpose20132011 20122014Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(unsecured)$3,932,000$0Total$3,932,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(unsecured)$4,079,000$0Total$4,079,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(unsecured)$906,000$0Total$906,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(unsecured)$1,093,000$0Total$1,093,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(unsecured)$1,093,000$0Total$1,093,000Non-motorized Pedestrian / Bicycle Projects$1,327,000 (Federal or State secured)$1,327,000Design$0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(Local Funds)$1,327,000Total$1,327,000$0(Federal or State secured)Possible Grant/2011 Conceptual $725,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$115,000 $610,000$0(Local Funds)$725,000Total$115,000 $610,000$0(Federal or State secured)Possible Grant/2011 Conceptual $777,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$30,000$100,000$647,000$0(Local Funds)$777,000Total$30,000 $100,000 $647,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$2,115,000(unsecured)$440,000 $1,675,000$2,115,000Total$440,000 $1,675,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$32,000(unsecured)$32,000$32,000Total$32,000Inteurban Trail- 244th to 228th Pave, sign, and connect regional segment from Shoreline to Mountlake TerraceHwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW Intersection ImprovementHwy 99 @ 212th St SW Intersection ImprovementsWiden 220th St. SW to add a 2nd WB LT lane/ widen SR-99 to add a 2nd LT lane. 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. WalkwayProvide safe sidewalk along short missing link.Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection ImprovementsConvert all-way controlled intersection into signalized Iintersection. Olympic View Dr. @ 174th Ave. W Intersection ImprovementsInstall traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce intersection delay. Main St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection ImprovementsImprove street lighting for pedestrian safety on Main St. between 5th and 6th along w/ sidewalk improvements along that stretchMadrona Elementary School Walkway Improve pedestrian safety along 236th St. SW, creating a safe pedestrian connection between SR-104 and Madrona ElementaryProvide safe and desirable route to Seview Elementary and nearby parks. Main St. Pedestrian Lighting from 5th Ave. to 6th Ave.80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr WalkwayWiden 76th Ave. to add a LT lane and a through lane. Provide protected LT phase for NB and SB. Widen 212th St. SW to add a WB right turn lane. Convert all-way controlled intersection into signalized Iintersection. S:\ENGR\CIP_CFP BOOKS\2011-2016\Transportation\Transportation_CFP\Current_draft Six-Year CFP (2011-2016) 11-04-10.xls11/4/201017Packet Page 72 of 364 City of EdmondsCapital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2011-2016)2017-20252015 2016Grant Opportunity(2011-2016) Total CostPurpose20132011 20122014Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$63,000(unsecured)$63,000$63,000Total$63,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$79,000(unsecured)$79,000$79,000Total$79,000$250,000(Federal or State secured)$250,000Design$0(Federal or State unsecured)$243,500(Local Funds)$236,500 $7,000$493,500Total$486,500 $7,000$139,000(Federal or State secured)$139,000Design$0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(Local Funds)$139,000Total$139,000(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$675,000(unsecured)$125,000 $550,000$675,000Total$125,000 $550,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$190,000(unsecured)$190,000 $760,000$190,000Total$190,000 $760,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$220,000(unsecured)$220,000$220,000Total$220,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$110,000(unsecured)$110,000$110,000Total$110,000$0(Federal or State secured)Possible Grant Conceptual $1,125,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$25,000$100,000 $1,000,000$0(unsecured)$4,000,000$150,000(Local Funds)$50,000$100,000$1,275,000Total$75,000$200,000 $1,000,000$4,000,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(unsecured)$812,000$0Total$812,000Meadowdale Beach Rd. from 76th Ave. W to Olympic View Dr WalkwayProvide safe sidewalk along missing link. Walnut St from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S WalkwayMaple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S WalkwayProvide safe sidewalk along short missing link.Dayton St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S WalkwayProvide safe sidewalk along short missing link. Shell Valley Emergency Access Provide emergency vehicle access to Shell Valley with pedestrian and bicycle improvements. 226th St. SW WalkwayProvide safe pedestrian missing link between SR-104 and 105th Pl. W, creating safer access to Sherwood Elementary School. Maplewood from Main St. to 200th St. SW WalkwayProvide safe sidewalk, connecting to ex. sidewalk along 200th St. SW (Maplewood Elementary School).Provide short missing link.4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement Create more attractive and safer corridor along 4th Ave. Provide short missing link.Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Walkway238th St. SW from 104th Ave. W to 100th Ave. W WalkwayProvide safe walking route.S:\ENGR\CIP_CFP BOOKS\2011-2016\Transportation\Transportation_CFP\Current_draft Six-Year CFP (2011-2016) 11-04-10.xls11/4/201018Packet Page 73 of 364 City of EdmondsCapital Facilities Plan (CFP)Transportation Projects (2011-2016)2017-20252015 2016Grant Opportunity(2011-2016) Total CostPurpose20132011 20122014Funding SourceProject PhaseProject Name$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(unsecured)$1,249,000$0Total$1,249,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(unsecured)$175,000$0Total$175,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$0( unsecured)$175,000$0Total$175,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $0(Federal or State unsecured)$0(unsecured)$1,050,000$0Total$1,050,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual $50,000(Local Funds)$50,000$125,000(unsecured)$50,000 $50,000 $25,000$175,000Total$50,000$50,000 $50,000 $25,000Total CFP$19,006,500Annual CFP Totals$2,532,500 $803,000 912,000$ $4,720,000 $2,801,000 $7,238,000 $31,988,000TotalsSource2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2026$2,252,000Total Federal & State (Secured)$1,948,000 $75,000 $229,000$0$0$0$0$8,245,500Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$170,000 $710,000 $647,000 $3,383,000 $1,297,500 $2,038,000$0$7,158,000 Unsecured$0$0$0 $1,148,000 $1,388,000 $4,622,000 $31,988,000$1,351,000Local Funds$414,500 $18,000 $36,000 $189,000 $115,500 $578,000$0To assist residents and City staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut-through traffic and safety. Provide short missing link.Olympic Ave from Main St to SR-524 / 196th St. SW WalkwayReconstruct sidewalk (ex. conditions: rolled curb / unsafe conditions) along a stretch with high pedestrian activity and elementary school.Revenue Summary by Year84th Ave. W between 188th St. SW and 186th St. SW WalkwayProvide safe walking route between those (2) local streets.238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W WalkwayProvide safe walking route between principal arterial and minor arterial.189th Pl. SW from 80th Ave. W to 78th Ave. W WalkwayResidential Neighborhood Traffic CalmingS:\ENGR\CIP_CFP BOOKS\2011-2016\Transportation\Transportation_CFP\Current_draft Six-Year CFP (2011-2016) 11-04-10.xls11/4/201019Packet Page 74 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 212th St. SW / 84th Ave. W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,536,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The intersection of 84th Ave and 212th is 5 legged, which also includes Main Street and Bowdoin Way approaches. The intersection is controlled with stop signs. A roundabout would be constructed with 60-foot radius and yield signs at each approach. Installation may require the acquisition of right of way on the west side of the intersection. The center of the roundabout will be landscaped and the outer edge will have a special pavement treatment to accommodate trucks. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection currently functions at LOS F and delays during the PM peak hour will worsen over time. A roundabout will improve the LOS and reduce the need for vehicles to stop during low volume periods. A roundabout would improve the intersection LOS to B. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2014-2015 and construction for 2016 (pending grant unding for all phases). f COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $286,000 $250,000 Construction $2,000,000 1% for Art * TOTAL $286,000 $250,000 $2,000,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 20Packet Page 75 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: SR-524 (196th St. SW)/ 88th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $879,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of 196th St. SW @ 88th Ave. W. The modeling in the 2009 Transportation Plan indicated that restricting northbound and southbound traffic to right-turn-only (prohibiting left-turn and through movements) would also address the deficiency identified at this location through 2025. This is same alternative as one concluded by consultant in 2007 study but not recommended by City Council. This could be implemented as an alternate solution, or as an interim solution until traffic signal warrants are met. The ex. LOS is F (below City Standards: LOS D). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve traffic flow characteristics and safety at the intersection. The improvement would modify LOS to A, but increase the delay along 196th St. SW. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2014 and construction in 2016 (must meet an MUTCD traffic signal warrant and get WSDOT approval such 196th St. SW is a State Route. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $100,000 $163,000 Construction $616,000 1% for Art TOTAL $100,000 $163,000 $616,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 21Packet Page 76 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S – (Interim solution) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Removal of parking on both sides of 9th Avenue (ex. conditions: 1 lane in each direction) and restriping of 9th Ave. S (2 lanes in each direction). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches and the existing intersection LOS is E (below the City’s concurrency standards: LOS D). The improvement will reduce intersection delay and improve the LOS to D. SCHEDULE: 2014 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 22Packet Page 77 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,890,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 76th Ave. W to add a northbound left-turn lane for 250’ storage length and a southbound left turn lane for 125’ storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for northbound and southbound movements. Widen 212th to add a westbound right turn lane for 50’ storage length. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The existing intersection LOS is D and F (below City’s concurrency standards) by 2015. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2014, ROW acquisition in 2015, and construction in 2016 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $250.000 $600,000 Construction $2,040,000 1% for Art TOTAL $250,000 $600,000 $2,040,000 * All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts 23Packet Page 78 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Walnut St and 9th Ave. S. – (Interim solution) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Removal of parking on both sides of 9th Avenue (ex. conditions: 1 lane in each direction) and restriping of 9th Av. S (2 lanes in each direction). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The intersection is stop-controlled for all approaches and the existing intersection LOS is E (below the City’s concurrency standards: LOS D). The improvement will reduce intersection delay and improve the LOS to C. SCHEDULE: 2014 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 24Packet Page 79 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 220th St. SW @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $173,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reconfigure eastbound lanes to a left turn lane and through / right turn lane. Change eastbound and westbound phases to provide protected-permitted phase for eastbound and westbound left turns. Provide right turn overlap for westbound movement during southbound left turn phase. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The existing intersection LOS is D and E (below City’s concurrency standards) by 2015. The improvement would improve the LOS to C by 2015. SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction scheduled for 2015 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN * All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $20,000 Construction $153,000 1% for Art TOTAL $173,000 25Packet Page 80 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW Corridor Safety Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,354,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 1) Extend 228th St across the unopened right-of-way to 76th Avenue West 2) Signalize the intersection of 228th St SW @ SR99 and 228th St. SW @ 76th Ave. West 3) Construct a raised median in the vicinity of 76th Avenue West. 4) Add illumination between 224th St SW and 228th St SW on SR 99 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The construction of this missing transportation link will improve both access and safety to the I-5 / Mountlake Terrace Park & Ride lot from SR99. This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two existing east-west corridors (220th Street SW and SR104) that currently experience congestion for many hours a day. Roadway safety will also be significantly improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW will become a signalized intersection (already approved by WSDOT) with protected left turn phasing for both approaches on SR99. The accident-prone left turns from SR99 to 76th Ave. W. will be restricted with the addition of a raised center island on SR 99. The new traffic signal will also provide pedestrians and bicycles with a safe, signalized crossing across SR99, allowing easy access to the Interurban Trail, located ½ mile east of the intersection. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2011 - 2013, ROW acquisition for 2013, and construction for 2014 (pending grant funding). In 2010, federal grant was secured for the completion of design and ROW acquisition. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering, Administration, and ROW $310,000 $86,000 $265,000 Construction $3,452,000 1% for Art * TOTAL $310,000 $86,000 $265,000 $3,452,000 * All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts 26Packet Page 81 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,431,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for all movements). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. By 2015, the Level of Service will be F, which is below the City’s concurrency standards (LOS D). The improvement would modify the Level of Service to LOS B. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $286,000 Construction $1,145,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,431,000 27Packet Page 82 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Caspers St. @ 9th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,022,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop-controlled only for the northbound movement, on 9th Ave. N. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay as vehicles going northbound on 9th Ave. N are having difficulty accessing Caspers St. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $204,000 Construction $818,000 1% for Art TOTAL $,1022,000 28Packet Page 83 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW to 238th St. SW) ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $20,422,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 84th Ave. W to (3) lanes with curb, gutter, bike lanes, and sidewalk on each side of the street. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve overall safety of the transportation system along this collector street: 1) the sidewalk and bike lanes would provide pedestrians and cyclists with their own facilities and 2) vehicles making left turn will have their own lane, not causing any back-up to the through lane when insufficient gaps are provided. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project is in Esperance. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $2,042,000 Construction $8,169,000 1% for Art TOTAL $10,211,000 29Packet Page 84 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,932,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 220th St. SW to add Westbound right turn lane for 325’ storage length. Widen SR-99 to add 2nd Southbound left turn lane for 275’ storage length. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection delay from 72 seconds (w/o improvement) to 62 seconds (w/ improvement) in 2015. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017- 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $786,000 Construction $3,146,000 1% for Art TOTAL $3,932,000 30Packet Page 85 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW intersection improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,079,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 212th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane for 200’ storage length and an eastbound left turn lane for 300’ storage length. Provide protected left turn phase for eastbound and westbound movements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017- 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $815,000 Construction $3,264,000 1% for Art TOTAL $4,079,000 31Packet Page 86 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th Ave. W Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $906,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen Olympic View Dr. to add a northbound left turn lane for 50’ storage length. Shift the northbound lanes to the east to provide an acceleration lane for eastbound left turns. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers accessing either street. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $180,000 Construction $726,000 1% for Art TOTAL $906,000 32Packet Page 87 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Main St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for all approaches. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service, which is currently LOS E (below City’s Level of Service standards: LOS D), to LOS B (w/ improvement). SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 33Packet Page 88 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. @ 9th Ave. Intersection Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The intersection is currently stop controlled for all approaches. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve the Level of Service, which is currently LOS E (below City’s Level of Service standards: LOS D), to LOS A. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $220,000 Construction $873,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,093,000 34Packet Page 89 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Interurban Trail – 244th to 228th ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,985,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a missing link of the Interurban Trail between Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace. Pave a trail on the existing gravel road on the 74th Ave West right-of-way, between 74th Ave West and 228th St SW, as well from McAleer Way to 74th Ave. W. Work to include replacement of catch basin grates, corrections of safety hazards and bike route signage are also included. Bike lanes will be installed along 76th Ave. W and 228th St. SW from the County line until the connection with the Mountlake Terrace Interurban Trail as an alternate route. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Routes were rated and prioritized based on value and safety considerations in the 2000 Bikeway Comprehensive Plan. This bike trail will be part of the Interurban Regional Trail, which will ultimately extend from Seattle to Everett, to fill a missing link. Goals of the bikeway plan include promoting bicycle activity, providing safer routes, providing connections to neighboring jurisdictions, and providing better service to recreational facilities, schools, and businesses for those who bicycle. SCHEDULE: construction scheduled for 2011 through secured Federal and State grants COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,327,000 1% for Art * TOTAL $1,327,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts 35Packet Page 90 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Main St. Pedestrian Lighting from 5th Ave. to 6th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $725,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of installing (11) historic style decorative light poles along this block (6 on the south side and 5 on the north side), (4) decorative poles with artist made elements at the top of the pole (2 on both sides), and inlaid street names at the intersection corners. The visual character of this location will be further enhanced as each new pole will have a planter basket for summer flowers. New sidewalk and curb gutter will be installed along both sides of this stretch (total length: approximately 1,200'), to improve pedestrian safety and remove the sidewalk humps and cracks. New ADA curb ramps or truncated domes will be installed at all non-compliant curb ramps. The trees will remain but root barriers will be added to prevent tree roots from impacting the sidewalk in the future. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Increase pedestrian safety and activity along the Downtown Retail Core at all times of the day. SCHEDULE: The design is pending a grant through the 2010 Statewide Transportation Enhancement Program (response scheduled for January 2011). The application requested 100% grant funding for the design and construction. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $115,000 Construction $610,000 1% for Art TOTAL $115,000 $610,000 36Packet Page 91 of 364 TBD PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 80th Ave W from 188th St. SW to Olympic View Dr. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $777,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct Walkway on 80th Ave West between 188th St SW and 180th St SW and on 180th St SW between 80th Ave W and Olympic View Drive (ranked #6 in Long Walkway list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provides safe pedestrian access between Seaview Park, connecting to Olympic View Drive Walkway and Southwest County Park. Would create an additional safe walking route for kids attending Seaview Elementary School (188th St. SW). SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2011 (project is dependent on obtaining a grant, with response scheduled for Spring 2011). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $30,000 $100,000 Construction $647,000 1% for Art TOTAL $30,000 $100,000 $647,000 37Packet Page 92 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Madrona School Walkway (234th SW / 236th St. SW) Long Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,115,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on the south side of 236th St. SW from SR 104 to 94th Ave. W., extending northbound on 94th Ave. W to 234th St., westbound on 234th St. to 97th Ave. W, and finally connecting back to SR 104 on 97th Ave. W (ranked #1 in the list of Long Walkway projects in the 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. The current pedestrian conditions are unsafe near Madrona Elementary School and along 236th St. SW because of the limited sight distance issues (curvature of the roadway). SCHEDULE: Design scheduled for 2014, pending state funding (such as Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration & ROW $440,000 Construction $1,675,000 1% for Art TOTAL $440,000 $1,675,000 38Packet Page 93 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S from James St. to Main St. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $32,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 100’) on 2nd Ave. S between Main St. and James St. (ranked #1 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: 2016 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $32,000 1% for Art TOTAL $32,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 39Packet Page 94 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Maple St. from 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $63,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 250’) on Maple St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan) PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2014 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $10,000 Construction $53,000 1% for Art TOTAL $63,000 40Packet Page 95 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Dayton St between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $79,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 250’) on Dayton St. between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave. S (ranked #2 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2014 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $10,000 Construction $69,000 1% for Art TOTAL $79,000 41Packet Page 96 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Shell Valley Emergency Access ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $627,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: : Construct an emergency access road from the Shell Valley subdivision to Main Street which will serve as a bikeway and walkway as well. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Severe grade of the primary road into the Shell Valley subdivision, results in access problems during winter freezing events. The proposed access road will provide emergency access for these winter freezing events and serve as a bicycle pedestrian path the remainder of the year. SCHEDULE: Design was completed in 2010 and construction is scheduled to begin in 2011 because of a grant secured ($250,000) and the remaining construction costs are funded by Fund 112 and 412. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $14,500 Construction $472,000 $7,000 1% for Art * TOTAL $486,500 $7,000 42Packet Page 97 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 226th St SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $185,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 300’ of walkway) on 226th St. SW between SR-104 and 105th Pl. A Federal Grant was secured to fund both the engineering and construction phases of project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Design is close to completion and construction scheduled for 2011. COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $139,000 1% for Art TOTAL $139,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 43Packet Page 98 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway from Main St. to 200th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $675,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct Walkway on Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW (~ 2,700’). A sidewalk currently exists on 200th St. SW from Main St. to 76th Ave. W, adjacent to Maplewood Elementary School (rated #2 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Create pedestrian connection between Maplewood Elementary School on 200th St. SW and Main St., by encouraging kids to use non-motorized transportation to walk to / from school. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2015 (project is dependent on obtaining a grant, such as the “Safe Routes to School”). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $125,000 Construction $550,000 1% for Art TOTAL $125,000 $550,000 44Packet Page 99 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $950,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on Meadowdale Beach Dr. between 76th Ave. W and Olympic View Dr. (~3,800’). This is one of the last collectors in the City with no sidewalk on either side of the street (ranked #4 in Long Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route connecting a minor arterial w/ high pedestrian activity (Olympic View Dr.) to a collector with sidewalk on the east side of the street (76th Ave. W). Meadowdale Elementary School is directly north of the project on Olympic View Dr. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2016 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $190,000 Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $190,000 45Packet Page 100 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 3rd Ave. S to 4th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $220,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 350’) on Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4th Ave. S (ranked #5 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2014 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $20,000 Construction $200,000 1% for Art TOTAL $220,000 46Packet Page 101 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Walnut from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $110,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link (approximately 700’) on Walnut St. between 6th Ave. S and 7th Ave. S (ranked #4 in Short Walkway Project list in 2009 Transportation Plan). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route. SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2016 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $10,000 Construction $100,000 1% for Art TOTAL $110,000 47Packet Page 102 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 4th Ave. Corridor Enhancement ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,500,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Corridor improvements along 4th Avenue to build on concept plan developed in the Streetscape Plan update (2006). PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Timing for design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: Engineering scheduled for 2011-2015 (pending grant funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study $25,000 $200,000 Engineering & Administration Construction $50,000 $1,000,000 1% for Art TOTAL $75,000 $200,000 $1,000,000 48Packet Page 103 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from 104th Ave. W to 100th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $812,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #8 in Long Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install a 5’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW from 104th Ave. W to 100th Ave. W PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe pedestrian access to Hickman Park from 100th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $162,000 Construction $650,000 1% for Art TOTAL $812,000 49Packet Page 104 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Olympic Ave. from Main St. to SR-524 / 196th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,249,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #3 in Long Walkway project list in 2009 Transportation Plan. Install new sidewalk on the east side of the street. The ex. sidewalk is unsafe because of rolled curb. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and create safe pedestrian access to Yost Park and Edmonds Elementary. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $200,000 Construction $1,049,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,249,000 50Packet Page 105 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 189th Pl. W from 80th Ave. W to 78th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked # 7 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on either side of the street. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and create connection to ex. sidewalk on 189th Pl. W. This missing link will create a pedestrian connection from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (unsecured funding) COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $140,000 1% for Art TOTAL $175,000 51Packet Page 106 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W between 188th St. SW and 186th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Short Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on the east side of the street to connect to the existing sidewalk to the south. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch, such as school kids walking to Seaview Elementary. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017- 2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $35,000 Construction $140,000 1% for Art TOTAL $175,000 52Packet Page 107 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,050,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ranked #9 in Long Walkway list from 2009 Transportation Plan. Install 5’ sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating safe pedestrian connection between Hwy. 99 and 76th Ave. W. SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2017 and 2025 (unsecured funding). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017-2025 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $210,000 Construction $840,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,050,000 53Packet Page 108 of 364 CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000 (2011) * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The traffic calming program is designed to assist residents and City staff in responding to neighborhood traffic issues related to speeding, cut-through traffic and safety. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Allows traffic concerns to be addressed consistently and traffic calming measures to be efficiently developed and put into operations. SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction are scheduled for 2011($50,000). COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $3,000 Construction $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $22,000 1% for Art TOTAL $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $25,000 54Packet Page 109 of 364 CFP STORMWATER 55Packet Page 110 of 364 City of EdmondsCapital Facilities Plan (CFP)Stormwater Projects (2011-2016)$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual$0(Federal or State unsecured)$546,000 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$105,000 $441,000$546,000Total$105,000 $441,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual$0(Federal or State unsecured)$553,000 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$105,000 $448,000$553,000Total$105,000 $448,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual$0(Federal or State unsecured)$239,000 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$239,000$239,000Total$239,000$0(Federal or State secured)Design$0(Federal or State unsecured)$768,000 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$72,000 $696,000$768,000Total$72,000 $696,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual$0(Federal or State unsecured)$607,000 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$55,000$102,000$106,000$110,000$115,000$119,000$607,000Total$55,000 $102,000 $106,000 $110,000 $115,000 $119,000$0(Federal or State secured)Conceptual$0(Federal or State unsecured)$372,000 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$55,000 $317,000$372,000Total$55,000 $317,000$0(Federal or State secured)Possible Grant/TBD Conceptual $2,427,000 (Federal or State unsecured)$297,000 $831,750 $1,298,250$809,000 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$99,000 $277,250 $432,750$3,236,000Total$396,000 $1,109,000 $1,731,000$0(Federal or State secured)Possible Grant/TBD Conceptual $2,840,250 (Federal or State unsecured)$409,500 $954,000 $1,476,750$946,750 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$136,500 $318,000 $492,250$3,787,000Total$546,000 $1,272,000 $1,969,000$0(Federal or State secured)Possible Grant/TBD Conceptual $6,679,500 (Federal or State unsecured)$2,399,250 $2,151,000 $2,129,250$2,226,500 (Debt/Stormwater Fees)$799,750 $717,000 $709,750$8,906,000Total$3,199,000 $2,868,000 $2,839,000Total CFP$19,014,000 Annual CFP Totals $349,000 $596,000 $1,250,000 $4,251,000 $5,469,000 $7,099,0001 - Interurban Trial under Transporation CFP Project includes a 2011 expenditure of $45,000 for a stormwater vault from stomwater utility. Not included in this CFP.TotalsSource2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016$0Total Federal & State (Secured)$0$0$0$0$0$0$11,946,750Total Federal & State (Unsecured)$0$0$0 $3,105,750 $3,936,750 $4,904,250$7,067,250Total Debt/Local Stormwater Fee (Secured and Unsecured)$349,000 $596,000 $1,250,000 $1,145,250 $1,532,250 $2,194,750Stay in compliance with Western Washington Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit (NPDES)Edmonds Marsh RestorationDaylight Willow Creek in Marina Beach Park2012Revenue SourceCurrent Project PhasePerrinville Creek High Flow Diversion and Habitat RestorationConstruct a high flow diversion pipe that would divert high peak stream flows caused by excessive stormwater runoff.Daylight Willow Creek (originally as part of the Edmonds Crossing Project). A railroad trestle is currently planned to be constructed by Sound Transit / BNSF.Project NameLake Ballinger Associated Projects (See note 1)Work with Watershed Forum on reducing flooding and improving water qualityPublic Works Yard Water Quality Upgrade (Vehicle Wash Station & Cover for Material Piles)Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 - Connect Sumps near Robin Hood Lane Provide overflow to existing infiltration systems95th/93rd St. Drainage Improvement ProjectAdd system to reduce flood frequency.Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 - Connect Sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park Infiltration SystemAdd system to reduce flood frequency.Shellabarger/Willow Creek/ Edmonds Marsh 100-year floodplain delineation study Conduct an updated 100 yr floodplain delineation study to assist property owners with planning strategies for new development or redevelopment of the area.Revenue Summary by YearGrant Opportunity Grant/Date(2011-2016) Total CostPurpose2013 2014 2015 2016Conduct revegetation, replace the flap gate to allow better connectivity with the Puget Sound, and remove sediment.2011Current_draft Six-Year CIP_CFP (2011-2016)_090810: Storm_CFP9/23/201056Packet Page 111 of 364 Capital Improvement Program Project Summary Sheet 1BStormwater Project: Sumps along Friar Tuck Lane Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc. In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No 1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars. 2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%. 2013Total CostsExpenses Design Predesign Construction Permitting Construction Management (Incl. Insp.) City of Edmonds Project Management 23,000 48,000 322,000 5,000 48,000 16,000 462,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 26,000 55,000 0 6,000 0 18,000 105,000TOTAL EXPENSES Revenue Summary City Funded Stormwater Utility: Parks (unsecured): Percent of Project Total 100% 0% 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Funded Secured: Unsecured: 0% 0% TOTAL 2011 2016 0 0 384,000 0 57,000 0 441,000 100% 2012 Project Name:Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 2 ‐ Connect Sumps near Robin Hood Drive Problem Description:Several sumps (dry wells) in the vicinity of Robin Hood Drive in Southwest Edmonds overflow during large storm events. Over time, they have become clogged and may cause flooding. Project Solution:Connect the sumps to the City of Edmonds storm drain system with an overflow pipe that will function in large storm events to reduce the potential for flooding. Cost Estimate Assumptions: Install 1600 ft of new 12 inch dia pipe (600 ft in the public right of way and 1000 ft on private property). 4 new manholes. 9 connections to the existing storm drain system. Submitted By:Public Works Department 57Packet Page 112 of 364 Capital Improvement Program Project Summary Sheet 1CStormwater Project: Alignment of the proposed storm drain pipe along 238th Street SW. Existing catch basin sumps in the foreground. Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc. In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No 1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars. 2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%. 2013Total CostsExpenses Design Predesign Construction Permitting Construction Management (Incl. Insp.) City of Edmonds Project Management 25,000 55,000 368,000 5,000 55,000 18,000 526,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,000 56,000 0 5,000 0 18,000 105,000 0 0 390,000 0 58,000 0 448,000 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL EXPENSES Revenue Summary City Funded Stormwater Utility: Parks (unsecured): Percent of Project Total 100% 0% 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Funded Secured: Unsecured: 0% 0% TOTAL 2011 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 2012 Project Name:Southwest Edmonds Basin Study Project 3 ‐ Connect Sumps on 238th St SW to Hickman Park Infiltration Problem Description:Several sumps (dry wells) along 238th Street SW in Southwest Edmonds are not functioning properly. They have become clogged and are contributing to area flooding during large storm events. Project Solution:Connect the sumps to the City of Edmonds infiltration system in Hickman Park to the west. Cost Estimate Assumptions: Install 825 ft of new 12 inch dia pipe. Replace 950 ft of aging existing pipe. Reuse existing structures west of 102nd Place W. 3 new manholes. 12 connections to existing structures. Submitted By:Public Works Department 58Packet Page 113 of 364 Capital Improvement Program Project Summary Sheet 2AStormwater Project: Aerial View of Edmonds Marsh (background) and the Port of Edmonds (foreground) ‐ Department of Ecology Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc. In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No 1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars. 2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%. 2013Total CostsExpenses Design Predesign Construction Permitting Construction Management (Incl. Insp.) City of Edmonds Project Management 0 0 228,000 0 0 11,000 239,000 0 0 228,000 0 0 11,000 239,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL EXPENSES Revenue Summary City Funded Stormwater Utility: Parks (unsecured): Percent of Project Total 100% 0% 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Funded Secured: Unsecured: 0% 0% TOTAL 2011 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 2012 Project Name:Shellabarger Creek/Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh 100‐yr Flood Plain delineation Problem Description:Properties around Shellabarger Creek, Willow Creek, Edmonds Marsh, along State Route 104, and Dayton Street can become flooded during large storm events due to excessive upstream flows, high tide, and reduced storage capacity in the Marsh due to sedimentation. Project Solution:Study would update the 100‐yr floodplain delineation for the Edmonds Marsh area to assist the City and surrounding property owners with planning strategies to protect property from future flooding and enable stormwater services to be allocated more efficiently. Re‐delineation of the 100‐yr flood plain will allow the City to properly regulate development in flood prone lands and keep the City in compliance with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) obligations. By being a part of NFIP, FEMA makes flood insurance coverage available on buildings and their contents throughout the community (major public benefit). Cost Estimate Assumptions: Includes hydrologic modeling and hydraulic modeling. This project may involve participation from WSDOT and the Port of Edmonds. Submitted By:Public Works Department 59Packet Page 114 of 364 Capital Improvement Program Project Summary Sheet 5Stormwater Project: Project area along 93rd Place W, South of 224th Street SW Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc. In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No 1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars. 2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%. 2013Total CostsExpenses Design Predesign Construction Permitting Construction Management (Incl. Insp.) City of Edmonds Project Management 0 0 601,000 5,000 90,000 30,000 726,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,000 5,000 5,000 31,000 72,000 0 0 606,000 0 90,000 0 696,000 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL EXPENSES Revenue Summary City Funded Stormwater Utility: Parks (unsecured): Percent of Project Total 100% 0% 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Funded Secured: Unsecured: 0% 0% TOTAL 2011 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 2012 Project Name:95th/93rd Place project Problem Description:The drainage system in the vicinity of 95th PL W, 93rd PL W, and 224th Street SW is inadequate and is causing flooding problems. This area was annexed into the City from Snohomish County in October 1995. Project Solution:Construct approximately 4,000 linear feet of new storm drain pipe and new catch basins and connect to the existing storm drain system. Cost Estimate Assumptions: Construct 3,200 ft of storm drain pipe. 15 catch basins. 8 connections to the existing storm drain system. Submitted By:Public Works Department 60Packet Page 115 of 364 Capital Improvement Program Project Summary Sheet 7Stormwater Project: Lake Ballinger Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc. In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No 1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars. 2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%. 2013Total CostsExpenses Design Predesign Construction Permitting Construction Management (Incl. Insp.) City of Edmonds Project Management 0 0 0 0 0 600,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 102,000 102,000 0 0 0 0 0 106,000 106,000 2015 0 0 0 0 0 115,000 115,000TOTAL EXPENSES Revenue Summary City Funded Stormwater Utility: Parks (unsecured): Percent of Project Total 100% 0% 2014 0 0 0 0 0 110,000 110,000 Other Funded Secured: Unsecured: 0% 0% TOTAL 2011 2016 0 0 0 0 0 119,000 119,000 100% 2012 Project Name:Lake Ballinger Associated Projects Problem Description:Homes surrounding Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek have flooded during very large storm events. There are also significant water quality issues in the watershed. Project Solution:Work independently and with other members of the Greater Lake Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum to implement the Strategic Action Plan, which was finalized in July 2009. Cost Estimate Assumptions: Submitted By:Public Works Department 61Packet Page 116 of 364 Capital Improvement Program Project Summary Sheet 9Stormwater Project: Existing stockpiles Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc. In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No 1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars. 2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%. 2013Total CostsExpenses Design Predesign Construction Permitting Construction Management (Incl. Insp.) City of Edmonds Project Management 0 41,000 270,000 0 41,000 14,000 366,000 0 41,000 0 0 0 14,000 55,000 0 0 275,000 0 42,000 0 317,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0TOTAL EXPENSES Revenue Summary City Funded Stormwater Utility: Parks (unsecured): Percent of Project Total 100% 0% 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Funded Secured: Unsecured: 0% 0% TOTAL 2011 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100% 2012 Project Name:Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades Problem Description:The Public Works Yard on 210 St SW and the Parks Facility store stockpiles of sand and other aggregate material for use by the Crews. There is not enough room under the covered part of the yard to store all this material. Additional covered space is required to prevent this material form washing into the storm drainage system that ultimately flows to Halls Creek in Mountlake Terrace. Also, washing vehicles can cause undesired pollutants to enter the storm system. These projects are required under the Federal and state Clean Water Act. Project Solution:Provide additional covered space for the material/aggregate piles at both facilities and a vehicle wash station at the Public Works Yard. Cost Estimate Assumptions: 12,000 square feet of cover and a vehicle wash station at the Public Works Yard and 6,000 square feet of cover at the Parks Facility. Submitted By:Public Works Department 62Packet Page 117 of 364 Capital Improvement Program Project Summary Sheet 12Stormwater Project: Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc. In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No 1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars. 2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%. 2013Total CostsExpenses Design Predesign Construction Permitting Construction Management (Incl. Insp.) City of Edmonds Project Management 29,000 290,000 1,930,000 150,000 290,000 97,000 2,786,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 0 103,000 757,000 57,000 115,000 77,000 1,109,000TOTAL EXPENSES Revenue Summary City Funded Stormwater Utility: Parks (unsecured): Percent of Project Total 25% 0% 2014 32,000 221,000 0 110,000 0 33,000 396,000 Other Funded Secured: Unsecured: 0% 75% TOTAL 2011 2016 0 0 1,504,000 0 227,000 0 1,731,000 100% 2012 Project Name:Edmonds Marsh Restoration Problem Description:Development around the marsh and lack of connectivity with the Puget Sound has resulted in sedimentation of the marsh and a transition to freshwater species. Project Solution:Conduct revegetation, replace the flap gate to allow better connectivity with the Puget Sound, and remove sediment. Cost Estimate Assumptions: 23 acres of revegetation. Construct new tide gate. Remove sediment. Submitted By:Public Works Department 63Packet Page 118 of 364 Capital Improvement Program Project Summary Sheet 13Stormwater Project: Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source: http://www.unocaledmonds.info/clean‐up/gallery.php Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc. In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No 1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars. 2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%. 2013Total CostsExpenses Design Predesign Construction Permitting Construction Management (Incl. Insp.) City of Edmonds Project Management 115,000 338,000 2,250,000 100,000 338,000 113,000 3,254,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 0 67,000 935,000 57,000 141,000 72,000 1,272,000TOTAL EXPENSES Revenue Summary City Funded Stormwater Utility: Parks (unsecured): Percent of Project Total 25% 0% 2014 127,000 309,000 0 55,000 0 55,000 546,000 Other Funded Secured: Unsecured: 0% 75% TOTAL 2011 2016 0 0 1,712,000 0 257,000 0 1,969,000 100% 2012 Project Name:Daylight Willow Creek in Marina Beach Park Problem Description:Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh have been significantly impacted by past development and the piping of the Creek. Project Solution:Daylight Willow Creek (originally as part of the Edmonds Crossing Project). The new channel would be lined with an impermeable membrane for the entire length to prevent remnant contamination from the former fuel tank farm from coming in contact with streamflow. Channel will be overexcavated in order to protect membrane and provide soil for plant establishment. A railroad trestle is currently planned to be constructed by Sound Transit / BNSF (costs not included in this estimate). This will facilitate the future daylighting of the creek that would have its outlet to the Puget Sound near the historic location of the former Union Oil Company Pier. Cost Estimate Assumptions: 1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane. 6‐ft bottom width. 4‐ft depth. 3H:1V side slopes. Overexcavate to 3 ft depth below channel bottom. Assume moderate contamination below groundwater table. Submitted By:Public Works Department 64Packet Page 119 of 364 Capital Improvement Program Project Summary Sheet 15Stormwater Project: Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that will be addressed by restoration. Predesign includes survey, geotech, utility locates, feasibility, etc. In Capital Facilities Plan?Yes No 1. Total costs are in 2010 dollars. 2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2011 0%; 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%. 2013Total CostsExpenses Design Predesign Construction Permitting Construction Management (Incl. Insp.) City of Edmonds Project Management 105,000 836,000 5,573,000 150,000 836,000 279,000 7,779,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2015 0 0 2,524,000 0 344,000 0 2,868,000TOTAL EXPENSES Revenue Summary City Funded Stormwater Utility: Parks (unsecured): Percent of Project Total 25% 0% 2014 116,000 922,000 1,467,000 165,000 221,000 308,000 3,199,000 Other Funded Secured: Unsecured: 0% 75% TOTAL 2011 2016 0 0 2,438,000 0 401,000 0 2,839,000 100% 2012 Project Name:Perrinville Creek High Flow Diversion and Habitat Restoration Problem Description:Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek basin has led to increased flows in the creek, incision of the creek bed, and sedimentation in the low‐gradient downstream reaches of the creek. Project Solution:Construct a high flow diversion pipe that would divert high peak stream flows caused by excessive stormwater runoff at the intersection of 76th Ave W and Olympic View Drive. The diversion pipe alignment would extend north along Olympic View Drive, cross through the Snohomish County Park, cross several private properties, cross Frederick Place and Talbot Road, and the diversion pipe would discharge to the existing Perrinville Creek high flow bypass pipe that discharges directly into Puget Sound. The project also include habitat restoration in Perrinville Creek to enhance salmon spawning in the creek. Cost Estimate Assumptions: 4,560 ft of 42 inch diameter storm drain pipe (2,800 ft in the public right of way, 1,000 ft on private property, 700 ft through Snohomish County Park, 30 ft under Frederick Pl and 30 ft under Talbot Rd). 1,000 ft of streambank restoration. Submitted By:Public Works Department 65Packet Page 120 of 364 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2011 - 2016 1Packet Page 121 of 364 2Packet Page 122 of 364 CITY OF EDMONDS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2011-2016) Table of Contents FUND DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT PAGE GENERAL 112 Transportation Public Works 6 113 Multimodal Transportation Community Services 9 116 Building Maintenance Public Works 10 125 REET-2 Transportation Public Works 12 129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 13 412-100 Water Projects Public Works 14 412-200 Storm Projects Public Works 15 412-300 Sewer Projects Public Works 16 414 Waste Water Treatment Plant Public Works 18 PARKS 125 REET-2 Parks Improvement Parks & Recreation 20 126 Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation 50 132 Parks Construction (Grant Funding) Parks & Recreation 54 3Packet Page 123 of 364 4Packet Page 124 of 364 CIP GENERAL 5Packet Page 125 of 364 Capital Improvements ProgramFund 112 - Transportation ProjectsPROJECT NAMECFP 2010 Estimate 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Total (2011-2016)Preservation / Maintenance ProjectsOverlay-Citywide$206,000$500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $1,500,000Citywide - Signal Improvements$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $15,000Signal - Cabinet Improvements$5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $20,000Street Improvements - Citywide $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $22,500Signal Upgrades - 100th Ave @ 238th St. SW$500,000$500,000Dayton St. Overlay$110,000$110,000Admiral Way Study$6,600$0Safety / Capacity Analysis212th / 84th Ave (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements X$286,000 $250,000 $1,980,000 $2,516,000SR 524 (196th St. SW) / 88th Av. W Intersection ImprovementsX$100,000 $163,000 $616,000 $879,000Main St. @ 3rd Signal Upgrades$153,000$153,000Puget Dr. @ OVD Signal Upgrades$40,000 $218,000 $258,000Main St. @ 9th Av. S (Interim solution)X$10,000$10,00076th Av W @ 212th St. SW Intersection ImprovementsX$250,000 $600,000 $2,010,000 $2,860,000Walnut St @ 9th Av. S (Interim solution) X$10,000$10,000220th St. SW @ 76th Av. W Intersection ImprovementsX$173,000$173,000228th St. SW Corridor Safety ImprovementsX$300,000 $86,000 $245,000 $3,402,000$4,033,000Arterial Street Signal Coordination Improvements$50,000$50,000Non-motorized transportation projectsMain Street Pedestrian Lighting from 5th Av. to 6th Av.X$110,000 $590,000$700,000SR524 WalkwayX$91,000$080th Ave W from 188th St SW to Olympic View Dr. WalkwayX$25,000 $80,000 $617,000$722,000Madrona Elementary School WalkwayX$410,000 $1,675,000 $2,085,0002nd Av. S from James St. to Main St. WalkwayX$32,000 $32,000Maple St. from 7th Av. S to 8th Av. S WalkwayX$63,000$63,000Dayton St. from 7th Av. S to 8th Av. S WalkwayX$79,000$79,000Shell Valley Emergency Access RoadX$12,000 $463,000 $7,000$470,000226th St. SW WalkwayX$41,664 $129,000$129,000ADA Curb Ramps Improv. Citywide (Transition Plan)$150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $450,000Bicycle Route Signing$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000Maplewood Dr. from Main St. to 200th St. SW WalkwayX$125,000 $550,000 $675,000Meadowdale Beach Rd. WalkwayX$190,000 $190,000Walnut St. from 3rd Av. to 4th Av. WalkwayX$220,000$220,000Walnut St. from 6th Av. to 7th Av. WalkwayX$110,000 $110,000Pedestrian Countdown Signals - Citywide$10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $30,000Olympic View Dr Sidewalk Contribution $31,683$0Traffic Calming ProjectsResidential Neighborhood Traffic Calming$50,000$50,000 $50,000 $25,000 $175,000Traffic Planing ProjectsTransportation Plan Update $180,000$180,000Interfund Services$33,000 $63,500 $40,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $303,500Total Projects$421,947 $1,250,500 $803,000 $917,000 $5,910,500 $2,728,500 $8,143,500 $19,753,000Debt Service on Loan (1) 220th St Design $19,232$19,232$19,141$19,050$18,960$18,869$18,860Debt Service on Loan (2) 220th St Construction$22,659$22,659$22,553$22,447$22,341$22,235$22,229Debt Service on Loan (3) 100th Ave Road Stabilization$35,512$35,512$35,348$35,183$35,019$34,854$34,854Projects for 2011-2016Fund 11211/4/20106Packet Page 126 of 364 Total Debt $77,403$77,403$77,042$76,680$76,320$75,958$75,943Revenues and Cash Balances 2010-20162010 Estimate 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Beginning Cash Balance($184,393)$106,602 $181,215 $354,254 $557,596 $814,255 $879,140Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax$150,000 $160,000 $165,000 $165,000 $165,000 $165,000 $165,000Transfer in - General Fund - for Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming$50,000Transfer in - Fund 125-(REET 2 Trans.)$250,000 $250,000 $250,000Transfer in - Fund 412-100 for Shell Valley Improvements$55,000Transfer in - Fund 412-200 for Shell Valley Improvements$195,000Transfer in - Fund 412-100 for Dayton St. Overlay$20,000Transfer in - Fund 412-200 for Dayton St. Overlay$20,000Transfer in - Fund 412-300 for Dayton St. Overlay$50,000Transfer in - Fund 412 - 100 for SR-524 Walkway$62,400Investment Interest Fund 112$3,081 $6,022 $9,479 $13,842 $14,945Traffic Impact Fees$20,000 $20,000 $50,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000Transfer in- Fund 412-100 (WATER)$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Transfer in- Fund 412-200 (STORMWATER)$50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000Transfer in- Fund 412-300 (SEWER)$0$0$0$0$0$0$0Total Revenues$48,007$726,602$449,296$675,276$1,132,075$1,393,098$1,459,085Grants 2010-20162010 Estimate 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016(State-Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety) SR524 Walkway$108,478 (State-TIB) SR524 Walkway $63,771(State) for Shell Valley Improvements$13,500$236,500(State) for 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements (tentative)$262,500$75,000$229,000(Federal) 226th Walkway Project$43,169$138,5162009 ARRA Overlay Project$329,027Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Secured$557,945$637,516$75,000$229,000$0$0$0Fund 11211/4/20107Packet Page 127 of 364 Grants 2010-20162010 Estimate 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not Secured) Annual Street Overlays (not secured)$500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Signal Upgrade Main/3rd Ave (not secured)$153,000100th @ 238th Intersection Upgrades (not secured)$500,0009th & Main St. Intersection Improvements (interim solution / not secured)$10,000212th @ 76th intersection improvements (not secured)$250,000 $600,000 $2,040,0009th & Walnut St. Intersection Improvements (interim solution / not secured)$10,000220th @ 76th Intersection Improvements (not secured)$173,000228th Corridor Safety Improvements (not secured)$3,452,000 Madrona School Walkway (236th St./ 94th Ave) (not secured)$440,000 $1,675,0002nd Av. from Main St. to James St. (not secured)$32,000Maple St. from 7th to 8th Av. Walkway (not secured)$63,000Dayton St. from 7th to 8th Av. Walkway (not secured)$79,000ADA Curb Ramp upgrades (not secured)$75,000 $75,000 $75,000Bicycle Route Signing (not secured)$10,000 $10,000 $10,000Maplewood Dr. Walkway (not secured)$125,000 $550,000Meadowdale Beach Rd. Walkway (not secured)$190,000Walnut from 3rd to 4th Av. Walkway (not secured)$220,000Walnut St. from 6th to 7th Av. Walkway (not secured)$110,000Citywide Traffic Calming Program (not secured)$50,000 $50,000 $25,000Grant (State) for 212th & 84th Capacity Improvements$247,000 $216,000 $1,730,000Grant (State) for 88th @ 196th Intersection Improvements$50,000 $81,500 $308,000Grant (State) OVD @ Puget Dr. Signal Upgrades$20,000 $110,000Grant(State) for 80th Av / 188th St SW / Olympic View Dr Walkway$30,000 $100,000 $647,000Grant-(Federal) for Main St. Pedestrian Lighting $115,000 $610,000Yearly Sub Total Grants/ Loans Sought / Funding (not secured) $145,000 $710,000 $647,000 $5,669,000 $2,290,500 $7,355,000Grant / Not Secured Funding Subtotal$557,945 $782,516 $785,000 $876,000 $5,669,000 $2,290,500 $7,355,000Total Revenues & Grants$605,952 $1,509,118 $1,234,296 $1,551,276 $6,801,075 $3,683,598 $8,814,085Total Projects($421,947) ($1,250,500) ($803,000) ($917,000) ($5,910,500) ($2,728,500) ($8,143,500)Total Debt($77,403) ($77,403) ($77,042) ($76,680) ($76,320) ($75,958) ($75,943)Ending Cash Balance$106,602 $181,215 $354,254 $557,596 $814,255 $879,140 $594,642Fund 11211/4/20108Packet Page 128 of 364 9Packet Page 129 of 364 10Packet Page 130 of 364 11Packet Page 131 of 364 12Packet Page 132 of 364 13Packet Page 133 of 364 14Packet Page 134 of 364 15Packet Page 135 of 364 16Packet Page 136 of 364 17Packet Page 137 of 364 18Packet Page 138 of 364 CIP PARKS 19Packet Page 139 of 364 20Packet Page 140 of 364 21Packet Page 141 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Haines Wharf Park & Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,500,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on 76th Ave W / 75th Pl W between Meadowdale Beach Road and 162nd St. with additional improvements further north. Develop unique north Edmonds neighborhood park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: A significant sight distance issue and no road shoulder creates a pedestrian safety problem on 76th Ave West as it winds and turns to 75th Place West. Despite safety problems this route has significant pedestrian traffic. It will provide improved pedestrian access and safety to Meadowdale Beach County Park, link via North Meadowdale Road walkway to Elementary & Middle schools, and Meadowdale Playfields. Haines Wharf Park will provide unique neighborhood park amenities and a respite for walkers and cyclists with outstanding views of Puget Sound and the Olympics. SCHEDULE: 2010 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $1,500,000 1% for Art TOTAL $1,500,000 *all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 22Packet Page 142 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center Field/Court ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000 700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities and children’s play equipment. Replacement and renovation of amphitheater in 2012 with improved courtyard area and drainage. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $0 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $0 $0 $30,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 23Packet Page 143 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Brackett’s Landing Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $25,000 South: Main Street and Railraod Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park through Deed-of-Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom repairs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park, regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL 0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 24Packet Page 144 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: City Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $290,000 3rd Avenue South and Howell Way, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 14.5 acres; Community Park / Zoned public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upper lot and other parking improvements. Replacement of upper and lower playgrounds. Extend walkway paths and other miscellaneous improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Repair and improvements for one of the City’s most heavily used parks. Play structures in need of replacement. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $210,000 $20,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 1% for Art TOTAL $0 $210,000 $20,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 25Packet Page 145 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000 6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair and resurfacing, irrigation. Regrade and improve track. Upgrade portable restrooms. Landscape and site furnishing improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $10,000 $0 $75,000 $10,000 $0 $0 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000 $10,000 $0 $75,000 $10,000 $0 $0 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 26Packet Page 146 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Hatchery Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $85,000 South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL 23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible. Hatchery repairs as needed. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant funds available through various agencies and foundations. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engin. & Admin. Construction $0 $5,000 $5,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 1% for Art TOTAL $0 $5,000 $5,000$ $75,000 $0 $0 $0 27Packet Page 147 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $42,000 LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re-tile and renovate restroom facilities. Electrical upgrade, rail and shelter replacements / renovations. Work with WDFW on structural repairs of concrete spalling on pier subsurface. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $2,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 1% for Art TOTAL $2,000 $0 $20,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 28Packet Page 148 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Former Woodway HS Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges, user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital campaign. $10m - $12M project. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction 1% for Art TOTAL * all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 29Packet Page 149 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $40,000 89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and natural trail system to Maplewood Park. Replace play structure in 2010. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2014 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $40,000 1% for Art TOTAL $40,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 30Packet Page 150 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $75,000 South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County 4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with federal transportation funds. WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; Protected through Deed-of-Right RCW PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand parking area. Portable restroom upgrades. Repair and improvements to off-leash area. Replace play structure and install interpretive sign. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional waterfront park system. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $5,000 $0 $50,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 1% for Art TOTAL $5,000 $0 $50,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 31Packet Page 151 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $45,000 78th Place W. & 241st. St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install path from Interurban Trail spur terminal to parking lot. Replace play structure and improve picnic area. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the neighborhood park system. SCHEDULE: 2012 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $0 $0 $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 1% for Art TOTAL $0 $0 $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 32Packet Page 152 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse Grounds ESTIMATED COST: $60,000 6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County 1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site. Replace playground. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care, recreation classes and preschool activities. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $20,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 1% for Art TOTAL $20,000 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 33Packet Page 153 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Milltown Plaza Renovation ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $40,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate newly acquired Milltown Plaza with improved landscaping and streetscape improvements. Located on main pedestrian walking routes. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to Important downtown public gathering place. SCHEDULE: 2010 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $40,000 1% for Art TOTAL $40,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 34Packet Page 154 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $80,000 83rd Avenue West and 204th St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County 22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement forest study to continue with habitat and forest improvements, tree planting, wildlife habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street connecting to Yost Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional trail connections. SCHEDULE: 2014 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $80,000 1% for Art TOTAL $80,000 New additions meet the 1% for the Arts Ordinance requirements 35Packet Page 155 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park Improvements ESTIMATED COST: $21,000 80th Street West and 186th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed- Of-Right PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Re-surface tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area maintenance. Renovate restrooms. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court, parking and tennis courts. SCHEDULE: 2010, 2014 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $11,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 1% for Art TOTAL $11,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 36Packet Page 156 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $105,000 80th Street West and 191th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits 5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation to include field drainage for turf repair. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities, basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind. SCHEDULE: 2012-2013 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $30,000 $75,000 1% for Art TOTAL $30,000 $75,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 37Packet Page 157 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Yost Park/Pool Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 215,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and unanticipated repairs. Add in-pool play amenities. Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping, parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $45,000 $120,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 1% for Art TOTAL $45,000 $120,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 38Packet Page 158 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $230,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include library, Senior Center, outdoor plaza, city park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree plantings, streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $40,000 1% for Art TOTAL $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 $40,000 39Packet Page 159 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway improvements citywide. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 1% for Art TOTAL $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 * all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 40Packet Page 160 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park Improvements / Misc Small Projects ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $265,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway entrances into the city and 4th Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities and streetscape improvements in public areas. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering / Administration Construction $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 1% for Art TOTAL $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 41Packet Page 161 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION . PROJECT NAME: Sports Field / Playground Partnerships ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $100,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with locals school, organizations, or neighboring jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create neighborhood park facilities at non-City facilities. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create additional facilities. SCHEDULE: 2010 - 2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Engineering & Administration Construction $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 1% for Art TOTAL $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 42Packet Page 162 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center at Yost Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 – $23,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the current pool. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 43Packet Page 163 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Interurban Trail Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000 Matching Grant Funds WWRC/ IAC, additional funding from PSRC / CMAQ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Trail Improvements Major construction improvements to this abandoned interurban railway link including 1.37 miles of trail, upgraded shared roadway, trail spur to Mathay Ballinger Park, and the creation of Ballinger Station to house a shelter, kiosk, historical interpretation, water fountain and solar bollards. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Final trail system missing link to connect already completed sections in Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace through the Ballinger neighborhood of Edmonds. Increased safety and public enjoyment for recreationalists and bicycle commuters. SCHEDULE: 2011 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $200,000 Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 44Packet Page 164 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved Trail/Bike Path/Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 30,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with engineering funding. SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 1% for Art TOTAL $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 * all or part of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 45Packet Page 165 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility Needs Study ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008 update process. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related facilities. SCHEDULE: 2012 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study $15,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $15,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 46Packet Page 166 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 60,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of the plan is to identify the need for parks, open space, and recreation facilities in the Edmonds area and to establish policies and implement strategies to meet those needs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The plan identifies and evaluates existing park and recreation facilities and programs and develops an approach to ensure their continuation and expansion. SCHEDULE: 2014 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study $60,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $60,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 47Packet Page 167 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh Environmental Master Plan ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL 23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Produce comprehensive environmental master plan for the Edmonds Marsh. Final document will include an ecological assessment and environmental impact study with input from the public and local organizations. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird sanctuary. Protection is vital. Plan will directly correlate with goals and recommendations included in WRIA8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan. Co-fund the completion of master plan using Storm Water Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. SCHEDULE: 2012 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study $30,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $30,000 48Packet Page 168 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Forest Management Study ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hire consultant to develop a plan for best forest management practices in Pine Ridge Park. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This forest park is under stress from over-mature trees especially alder and others. This study will give the Parks Division necessary guidance to better manage this park to become a more healthy forest and open space. SCHEDULE: 2013 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study $30,000 Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $30,000 49Packet Page 169 of 364 50Packet Page 170 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved Capital Projects and Acquisitions ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,846,723 00 (2013-2014), debt retired end of 2014 5 Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,777 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on: City Hall: $417,000 (2010-2012), $312,0 Marina Beach / Library Roof: $182,428 PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $69,18 PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects SCHEDULE: 2010-2016 COST DOBREAKWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction Art 1% for TOTAL $700,597 $699,312 $697,717 $596,418 $592,564 $279,032 $281,083 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 51Packet Page 171 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open Space/Land ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $400,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens that fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open space. SCHEDULE: 2012, 2015 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 $200,000 52Packet Page 172 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Waterfront/Tidelands Acquisition ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $200,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcels and tidelands wherever feasible to secure access to Puget Sound for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open Space Comprehensive Plan PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget Sound SCHEDULE: 2013 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $200,000 53Packet Page 173 of 364 54Packet Page 174 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor: Planning ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $225,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4th Avenue site design phase 2 for public right of way to build on phase 1, 2009 design and implementation plan to minimum 30% engineering. Construction phase to start 2015. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Timing for 30% design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2011, 2014 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study $25,000 $200,000 Engineering & Administration Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $25,000 $200,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 55Packet Page 175 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4th Avenue site development with temporary and/or moveable surface elements and amenities to begin drawing attention and interest to the corridor and create stronger visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Possible projects may include surface art, signage and wayfinding, or low level lighting. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Timing for 30 & design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the project implementation phase. SCHEDULE: 2011 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $50,000 $1 M 1% for Art TOTAL $50,000 $1 M * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 56Packet Page 176 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Dayton Street Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $132,500 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to public gathering space and creation of additional art amenities and streetscape improvements in downtown on main walking route. Financial support from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Hubbard Foundation and Edmonds in Bloom. SCHEDULE: 2011 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $135,500 1% for Art TOTAL $135,500 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 57Packet Page 177 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Interurban Trail Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,327,000 Matching Grant Funds WWRC/ IAC, additional funding from PSRC / CMAQ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Trail Improvements Major construction improvements to this abandoned interurban railway link including 1.37 miles of trail, upgraded shared roadway, trail spur to Mathay Ballinger Park, and the creation of Ballinger Station to house a shelter, kiosk, historical interpretation, water fountain and solar bollards. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Final trail system missing link to connect already completed sections in Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace through the Ballinger neighborhood of Edmonds. Increased safety and public enjoyment for recreationalists and bicycle commuters. SCHEDULE: 2011 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration $1,327,000 Construction 1% for Art TOTAL $1,327,000 * all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 58Packet Page 178 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Parking Lot/Drainage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitate South County Senior Center parking lot including pavement re-surfacing, storm water/drainage management, effective illumination and landscaping. Seek grant opportunities and partnership opportunities. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety and better accessibility for Seniors. SCHEDULE: 2012 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Eng. & Admin. Construction $300,000 1% for Art TOTAL $300,000 * all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 59Packet Page 179 of 364 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT NAME: City Park Spray Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $150,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate the former site of the City Park wading pool by constructing a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. These structures have become very popular in many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer acceptable to increased health department regulations. These installations create no standing water and therefore require little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary donations for construction costs. PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: These amenities are very popular in all communities where they have been installed. Using the former wading pool site allows existing plumbing, drainage, pump house, connecting paths and fencing to be used. This will be a much valued attraction that will increase the popularity of this much loved park. SCHEDULE: 2011 COST BREAKDOWN PROJECT COST 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Planning/Study Engineering & Administration Construction $150,000 1% for Art TOTAL $150,000 *all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts 60Packet Page 180 of 364 AM-3518 Item #: 1. D. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:15 Minutes Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion of Community Technology Advisory Committee organization and procedure. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action During the November 23, 2004 Council Meeting the Council formed the Community Technology Advisory Board. This topic was discussed at the 10-12-10 Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting and was continued to the 11-09-10 Committee Meeting. A copy of the minutes is attached. Narrative The Community Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC) was established by Council action on November 23, 2004, but no specific structure or organizational guidance was provided. Since then, at least Bart Preecs, Rick Jenness, and Councilman Michael Plunkett have served as CTAC chair. Since the committee serves useful purposes and is likely to continue to do so, the council should decide whether to have formal procedures for appointing members to the committee and to select its chair. I propose the Council adopt simple rules of procedure pursuant to which each council member would appoint one person to the CTAC, and the members of the CTAC would select the annual chair. Attachments Attach 1: 11-23-04 Council Minutes Attach 2: 06-09-10 Email re CTAC from S Snyder Attach 3: 10-12-10 CSDS Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:29 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 11/04/2010 Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 181 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 13 Councilmember Marin provided his observations of the Hekinan delegation at the two events he attended, the dedication of the “Friendship Tree” and dinner and exchange of gifts. He pointed out not only does Hekinan have a friendly relationship with Edmonds, they also contributed approximately $6,000 to assist with the repair of Edmonds’ waterfront bulkhead. He presented a glass artwork to the Hekinan Council President and the Hekinan Council President presented a wall hanging that describes the friendship between Hekinan and Edmonds, created by Hekinan’s Council President. Ms. McLellan displayed and described a quilt presented by Hekinan to Edmonds. She also displayed a quilt presented to the Arts Festival Foundation by the Hekinan Cultural Association. Mr. McIntosh presented a wall hanging done by Hekinan’s Council President as a thank you to the Edmonds Senior Center for the reception they provided and for the use of their bus to transport the delegation. Cultural Resource Coordinator Frances Chapin displayed a wall hanging done by Hekinan’s Council President for the Arts Commission and a lithograph by a Hekinan artist presented by the Hekinan Mayor’s office to the Edmonds Mayor’s office. Mr. McIntosh thanked the Council and Mayor for their continued support of the Sister City relationship. Mayor Haakenson expressed his appreciation to Mr. McIntosh for his efforts with regard to the Sister City program. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Rowena Miller, 8711 182nd Avenue SW, Edmonds, expressed her thanks to the Council for what they did to protect the environment in Edmonds and making it a good place to live. She pointed out for Mr. Snyder and the Council that many of the people interested in the environment did attend Planning Board meetings, Architectural Design Board meetings and Council meetings in an effort to maintain the small town character of Edmonds and prevent a lot of high buildings in the downtown area. 8. PRESENTATION – USING TELECOMMUNICATIONS FOR ALL CITIZENS Councilmember Moore explained she asked that this topic be scheduled on the agenda as an outgrowth of the Community Outreach Committee. She explained when the Committee was established last year, they began by studying ways to use the public access channel, Channel 21, as a better communication device for citizens but discovered this was a much larger issue than just the public access channel. She noted the goal of this presentation was to have the Council establish a Community Technology Advisory Board that would bring together experts in the community to advise the Council on setting policy in the telecommunications field. Bart Preecs, 4 Park Place, Edmonds, a marketing professional in telecommunications and software, explained the term Community Technology was selected to cast as wide an umbrella over wireless broadband, fiber optic networks, public access cable, etc., noting the field was literally exploding with opportunities. He described national trends and local opportunities/issues, explaining the goals were to foster economic development, improve services, strengthen community involvement, and upgrade community self -concept. Mr. Preecs noted the incumbent providers prefer the status quo; the goal would be to review existing assets, assess the status quo, survey other initiatives, gain holistic view of possibilities, assess technology, gather experience from other cities, gauge interest and create a forum for community involvement. Councilmember Moore noted City Attorney Scott Snyder was somewhat of an expert in how governments can affect the future of telecommunication provisions for their citizens. She noted Tacoma considered itself the most wired city, and although they did not make a lot of money with their system, Community Technology Advisory Board Packet Page 182 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes November 23, 2004 Page 14 they lowered the consumer prices for citizens in Tacoma. She noted Seattle had also formed a Technology Advisory Board to assist the Council. She advised the consultan t who developed the Utopia project in Utah, a consortium of 17 cities who created their own utility to bring broadband to their cities, would be making a presentation to the Community Outreach Committee on December 2. COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON, TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY BOARD WITH MR. PREECS AS THE FIRST YEAR CHAIR, THE COUNCIL TO NOMINATE MEMBERS AND USE STAFF RESOURCES TO SOLICIT OTHER MEMBERS. Council President Plunkett asked how a Councilmember on the Technology Committee would be selected. Councilmember Moore noted there were a couple Councilmembers very qualified to participate on the Committee and suggested a Councilmember volunteer. Councilmember Orvis agreed to participate. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. REPORT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Planning Manager Rob Chave reported the Critical Areas Ordinance, which the Council approved tonight, was one of the main components of the update. He explained the Planning Board was taking longer than anticipated with their review of the Downtown Waterfront Plan; a hearing was held at the end of October and another draft will be available in early December with another hearing on December 15. He anticipated the Planning Board would complete the Downtown Waterfront Plan at one of their first meetings in January and the Council could expect to see that material at the fourth meeting in January. Mr. Chave advised the State had been notified of the delay. He noted as he told the Planning Board, it was better to take the time necessary to complete the update rather than rush to an arbitrary deadline. He noted the delay did not jeopardize any funding, grants, etc. Mr. Chave referred to graphs in the Council packet that would be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. He explained Edmonds was an urban area and the net density in the City was already over five units per acre. This represents an increase over the past ten years from 4.9 dwelling units per acre to approximately 5.4 dwelling units per acre. He noted this increase in density in a city that was already 96% built out illustrated successful infill development. For Councilmember Moore, Mr. Chave explained the Growth Hearings Board has found that jurisdictions could not preclude density that was not urban, defined as four dwelling units per acre or more, unless there were specific reasons such as critical areas. He noted the 5.4 dwelling units per acre was the average residential zoning citywide. 9. MAYOR’S COMMENTS Mayor Haakenson commented on the senseless tragedy that occurred in the Seaview area of Edmonds yesterday. He offered thoughts and prayers to the friends and family of yesterday’s victims. He offered his personal thanks to the Edmonds Police Officers who spent the day and night at the crime scene and particularly those Officers and Firefighters who had to actually enter the home upon their arrival, noting what they found had a profound impact on them particularly those who have children of their own. 10. INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS Council President Plunkett advised tonight on the Consent Agenda the Council added a seventh member to the Historic Preservation Commission. On December 7, the Council would be considering a church for Comp Plan Update Historic Preservation Commission Packet Page 183 of 364 1 Chase, Sandy From:W. Scott Snyder [ssnyder@omwlaw.com] Sent:Wednesday, June 09, 2010 11:13 AM To:Michael Plunkett Cc:Chase, Sandy Subject:RE: CTAC Plunkett As an advisory board, the meetings and actions of the CTAC are subject to the Open Public Meetings Act. It can take action only at an open public meeting. that meeting could be public (in a chat room format) but simply voting by email would be an invalid action. If this is going to be a standing council committee, I’d suggest that we draft an ordinance, set a regular meeting date and set this up through Sandy so that she publishes notices of special meetings. Regular meeting dates don’t require special notice but the agendas could be on the city web site. Scott From: Michael Plunkett [mailto:michaelppp98@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 1:29 PM To: W. Scott Snyder Subject: FW: CTAC Plunkett Scott, please see the bold in the email below. I’m chair of CTAC (Citizens Technology Advisory Committee), I encouraged CTAC to not vote by email; however, as you can see from a report on the last meeting (I was out of town) CTAC decided to vote via email. I don’t like the practice in general but my question to you is. Insofar as CTAC is a duly constitute committee of the City Council can CTAC vote by mail? I don’t like it but what do you say from a legal stand‐point. Michael Plunkett From: Nancy Haug [mailto:nghaug3@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 12:13 PM To: Michael Plunkett Subject: Re: CTAC Plunkett Hi Michael, I sent a draft to Lorenzo immediately after our meeting a month ago and no action. I read the letter to CTAC on tues and there were a couple of suggestions to incorporate. I am doing that today and will send to Cindi for distribution to the group. It was agreed that the group would react and vote by email to move the issue forward. The consensus it to approve and move it along to the council. I am also working on a "how did we get to this point" doc for broad band in Edmonds. Our 5 years of study and recommendation is somewhat maligned in the public eyes with comments about how we have wasted money. This history doc will also be circulated and tweaked by CTAC and then Lorenzo said he would have it posted in the finance area on the web site. We need to light a fire under Lorenzo for he is holding the keys to making the business plan effort work both for the sub group of the EDC and for CTAC. He committed last time to get public works involved in seeing about using the new technique of cutting the street and installing the fiber in that protective conduit rather then digging the whole street up to install traditional conduit. The method will work around town and is much cheaper than digging. A code change or at least public works approval is needed. This is important because it could be used to lite up Harbor Square and Stevens Hospital. We also need to get Lorenzo to work on the pricing element so we can move forward with our targets of opportunities. CTA and the EDC is waiting for these steps so we can move our work forward. Packet Page 184 of 364 2 If you can give Lorenzo a little push and get him committed to meeting with the EDC sub group ( I sit on the team and CTAC so I can be a bridge of the joint efforts.) that would help move the issues forward. Hopefully you can cut am paste things from this message and not send my remarks that shows Lorenzo as the hold up. Darrol From: Michael Plunkett Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:19 AM To: nghaug3@msn.com Subject: CTAC Plunkett Hello Darrell, Can you get me up to speed on where we are at with the draft letter/resolution to the Council on internet in Council Chambers? Is it coming back for CTAC for a final vote? Or did CTAC give you authority to just send it out? Michael Plunkett Packet Page 185 of 364 M I N U T E S Community Service/Development Services Committee Meeting October 12, 2010 Elected Officials Present: Staff Present: Council Member Strom Peterson, Chair Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director Council Member Petso Brian McIntosh, Parks Director Rob English, City Engineer Phil Williams, Public Works Director Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer The committee convened at 6:15 p.m. A. Review of organization and membership of Community Technology Advisory Committee. Council members Peterson and Petso discussed Council President Bernheim’s proposal for the Council to adopt simple rules of procedure pursuant to which each council member would appoint one person to the CTAC, and the members of the CTAC would select the annual chair. Council members Peterson and Petso asked for additional information about the purpose of the request. CTAC Chair Plunkett and Council member Bernheim were not available to answer their questions. Mr. Clifton noted that while the CTAC discussed this issue, the consensus was to allow those who want to serve on CTAC be allowed to serve and CTAC members questioned the need for the City Council to appoint CTAC members. ACTION: The Committee asked that this item be brought placed on the November City Council CSDS Committee agenda to allow Committee members the ability to discuss this issue with Council members Plunkett and/or Bernheim. B. Authorize $82,415 in motor vehicle fuel tax from the Street Construction/Improvement Fund (Fund#112) for the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project. City Engineer, Rob English, presented an overview of the 2009 Asphalt Overlay Project and reviewed the significant work items that resulted in additional project costs. The additional costs during construction were due to poor pavement conditions beneath the existing pavement surface, installation of curb ramps for ADA compliance and flagging. The additional pavement repairs were needed on both Dayton and 212th streets since sections of the street were severely cracked in many areas and additional excavation, reinforcement fabric and pavement were added to support the new overlay. The City completed its review and discussions with the contractor in September and determined $82,415 is needed in addition to the federal grant funds to help pay for the extra work. Staff recommends this cost be paid from motor vehicle fuel tax from the Street Construction/Improvement Fund (Fund #112). The total construction cost for this project was $1,082,400 and the federal grant paid $999,985 leaving a balance of $82,415 to be paid from local funds. Councilmember Petso asked if payment had been made to the Contractor and Mr. English responded that the last payment was on-hold until the item was approved by Council. Packet Page 186 of 364 AM-3504 Item #: 1. E. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Interlocal Agreement with the Snohomish Conservation District. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward to the consent agenda for approval at the November 16, 2010 Council meeting. Previous Council Action On October 26, 2010, the City Council pulled this item from the Consent Agenda and scheduled it for discussion at the CS/DS Committee on November 9, 2010. 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 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. In addition, SCD offers: Classes and workshops Engineering assistance Stream and wetland restoration Volunteer opportunities An annual Conservation Plant Sale Educational opportunities Internships This 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 Packet Page 187 of 364 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 11/03/2010 07:21 AM Public Works Phil Williams 11/03/2010 03:51 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/03/2010 04:22 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:28 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 11/02/2010 10:33 AM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 188 of 364 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2015 Page 1 of 8 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 1, 2011 – 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 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 Packet Page 189 of 364 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2015 Page 2 of 8 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 January 1, 2011, and terminate December 31, 2015, unless otherwise modified or terminated in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. B. The activities described in Appendix 1, scope and budget, negotiated by January 1 of each year, 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, Packet Page 190 of 364 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2015 Page 3 of 8 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 is set out in Appendix 1-2010, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, which shall take effect on January 1, 2011. 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 January 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 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 Packet Page 191 of 364 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2015 Page 4 of 8 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 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 Packet Page 192 of 364 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2015 Page 5 of 8 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 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 Packet Page 193 of 364 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2015 Page 6 of 8 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 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 Packet Page 194 of 364 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2015 Page 7 of 8 electronically retrievable public source. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the latest date written below. 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 195 of 364 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AND SNOHOMISH CONSERVATION DISTRICT January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2015 Page 8 of 8 DRAFT Appendix 1 Scope of work and Budget Calendar Year 2011 Activity Budget Task 1 – Administrative Management - Snohomish Conservation District (SCD) shall manage the interlocal agreement with the City. SCD shall send billing statements as needed and process these invoices $ 500 Task 2 – Low Impact Development Support - SCD shall provide engineering support of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques to the City’s Public Works Department. These services include but are not limited to design of rain gardens, permeable pavement, and green roofs. $3,500 Task 3 – Workshops -SCD shall provide workshops to Edmonds residents. These services include but are not limited to natural yard care, rain garden maintenance, and streamside stewardship. $3,500 Total $7,500 Packet Page 196 of 364 AM-3499 Item #: 1. F. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:5 Minutes Submitted By:Robert English Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplement Agreement with Murray, Smith and Associates, Inc. for updating the City's Water System Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward the Supplement Agreement to the consent agenda for approval at the November 16th Council meeting. Previous Council Action On December 16, 2008, Council authorized staff to advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to update the Water System Comprehensive Plan. On March 24, 2009, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a professional services agreement with Murray Smith and Associates, Inc. to update the Water System Comprehensive Plan. Narrative In March 2009, the City executed a professional services agreement with Murray, Smith and Associates to update the Water System Comprehensive Plan. The Plan was updated to meet the current drinking water regulations and to provide the City with a useful working document to guide the planning, scheduling and budgeting of water system improvements. The City Council approved the Plan in August and it has been sent to the Department of Health and neighboring public agencies for review and comment. The Plan is scheduled to be adopted in December when the City's Comprehensive Plan is amended for 2010. The Supplement Agreement will provide budget for: an additional 6 on-site meetings (the original contract included 5), additional scenarios under the water system analysis scope, and professional services to support staff in responding to questions related to the review of the draft plan by the City Council and Planning Board. There is also an additional task that will provide the City with fire flow and pressure data for the City's GIS system. This information will allow staff to paint hydrants the proper color according to their current fire flow capacity. The additional fee for the Supplement Agreement is $21,700 and these costs will be paid by the 412-100 Water Utility Fund. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Supplement Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 11/03/2010 07:08 AM Public Works Phil Williams 11/03/2010 02:14 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/03/2010 02:35 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:28 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 11/02/2010 06:42 AM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 197 of 364 Packet Page 198 of 364 Packet Page 199 of 364 Packet Page 200 of 364 Packet Page 201 of 364 Packet Page 202 of 364 AM-3500 Item #: 1. G. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:5 Minutes Submitted For:Mike De Lilla Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the 2010 Waterline Replacement Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward item to the consent agenda for approval at the November 16, 2010 Council meeting. Previous Council Action None. Narrative The 2010 Waterline Replacement Project will upgrade/replace portions of the City’s potable water network by replacing over 9,000 linear feet of existing waterlines and associated appurtenances at various locations within the City. The selection of the sites was determined using information from the 2002 Water Comprehensive Plan supplemented by new information from the 2010 Draft Water Comprehensive Plan , as well as by coordinating with upcoming road, sanitary sewer, and storm drain projects, and through input from Public Works field operations and maintenance staff. the selected Projects will 1) focus on upsizing and/or looping portions of the existing network to improve flow and pressure, and 2) will remove and replace pipes that are near the end of their life cycle based on age, pipe type, and maintenance history. The design phase is nearing completion and the project is scheduled to be advertised for bids in late 2010 or early 2011. Construction is expected to start by spring, 2011 and be complete by mid-2011. The estimated construction budget is $1.8M for water line replacements . We have decided to combine the 596/420 PRV station CIP project into the water line project. This adds $125,000 in revenue and expense to the replacement project bringing the total to $1,925,000. All project costs will be paid by the 412-100 Water Utility Capital Fund. There is $300,000 in the 2010 budget for the replacement project and $1,625,000 in 2011 for the replacements and the PRV project. We were unable to get the replacement project to a point where it could use the $300,000 budgeted in 2010 due to the Senior Utility Engineer position being held vacant until September, 2010. Therefore, to be able to complete the project(s) the $300,000 in spending authority for water line replacement in 2010 needs to be carried over to 2011 or the 2011 budget will need to be modified when actual bids are available. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 11/03/2010 01:02 PM Public Works Phil Williams 11/03/2010 03:42 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/03/2010 03:46 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:28 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 11/02/2010 07:44 AM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 203 of 364 AM-3501 Item #: 1. H. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:5 Minutes Submitted For:Pam Lemcke Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Upgrade Project. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward item to the consent agenda for approval at the November 16, 2010 Council meeting. Previous Council Action None. Narrative This CIP project will improve the intertie station with Alderwood Water District and upgrade existing reservoir vents and access points at the Seaview and Yost Reservoirs. The improvements will provide more efficient operation of the intertie supply station during peak demand periods when the City's Five Corners Pump Station is operating in conjunction with the supply station. The Seaview and Yost Reservoir improvements will replace existing vents and install new locking access hatches. The design phase is nearing completion and the project is scheduled to be advertised for bids in late 2010 or early 2011. The estimated construction budget is $340k and the project costs will be paid by the 412-100 Water Utility Fund. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 11/03/2010 02:40 PM Public Works Phil Williams 11/03/2010 03:44 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/03/2010 03:46 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:28 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 11/02/2010 08:39 AM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 204 of 364 AM-3503 Item #: 1. I. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:5 Minutes Submitted For:Bertrand Hauss Submitted By:Megan Cruz Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action Information Subject Title Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the Interurban Trail Improvements. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the November 16, 2010 Council meeting. Previous Council Action On April 6, 2004, Council authorized the Mayor to sign a consultant contract with KPFF Consulting Engineers for design of the Interurban Trail Project. On September 28, 2010, Council authorized staff to advertise a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for construction engineering services for the Interurban Trail Project. Narrative The Interurban Trail Project will complete the missing link of the regional trail through Edmonds. The trail will head north on 76th Avenue West from the new section in Shoreline at SR104, continue to the old rail corridor at McAleer Way and follow the corridor to 228th Street SW, where it will connect with the new southern terminus of the Mountlake Terrace trail. The trail project includes a .47 mile 12-foot wide paved path, landscaping, benches, signage, bicycle racks, a shelter and an information kiosk. Approximately 0.9 mile of 76th Avenue and residential 74th Avenue will be reconfigured to add a dedicated bike lane to complete the 1.37 mile section. Traffic calming techniques will be installed at road crossings, along with appropriate signage. The design phase is nearing completion and the project is scheduled to be advertised for bids in early 2011. Construction should be completed by the end of 2011. The total estimated construction cost for this project is $1.3M and this cost will be funded by state and federal grants. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 11/02/2010 03:02 PM Public Works Phil Williams 11/03/2010 03:49 PM City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/03/2010 04:22 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:28 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 11/02/2010 10:10 AM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 205 of 364 AM-3510 Item #: 1. J. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:5 Minutes Submitted By:Robert English Department:Engineering Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Information Information Subject Title Quarterly Public Works Project Report. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff The report is being provided for discussion. Previous Council Action None. Narrative Attached is a quarterly report for capital improvement projects managed by the Public Works Department. The report contains information on the estimated project budget, upcoming 2011 budget, funding source and schedule. This information is being provided in response to Councilmember Petso's request and can be provided every quarter in the future. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Project Report Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Engineering Robert English 11/04/2010 12:35 PM Public Works Phil Williams 11/05/2010 08:29 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 08:55 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/05/2010 09:12 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 09:14 AM Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 11/04/2010 10:20 AM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 206 of 364 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTSCapital Improvement ProgramStatusCity orTotal 2011City Complete **ActiveProject DescriptionType *Mgr.ConsultantBudget Budget Fund(s) # Advertise Const PhaseCommentsPublic Works Yard Water Quality Upgrade (Vehicle Wash Station & Cover for Material Piles)FacilitiesFacilitiesConsultant $55,000 $55,000 412 Mar-12 Sep-12 Pre Advertise for consultant 12/1076th Avenue West/75th Place West WalkwayParks JH Gray & Osborne$2,557,076 $0 125 Apr-09 Nov-10 ConConstruction 95% complete. Planting and minor work items to be finished in November 2010. Dayton Street PlazaParks ES Barker $160,605 $135,500 132 tbd tbd DesDesign at 95%. Interurban TrailParks BH KPFF $1,985,000 $1,327,000 132 Dec-10 Oct-11 Des Design at 90%; Negotiating with property owners to secure temporary construction easements. Consultant currently revising PS&E, based on WSDOT / City comments. Advertise for construction bids in late 2010 or early 2011. Old Woodway Elementary Park Construction - Southwest Edmonds Basin - Infiltration System Parks PL MacLeod-Reckord$951,786 $0 125 Sep-08 Sep-08 Cl-out Construction Complete; working with contractor to close-out project.BNSF CrossingsSewer PL KPFF $742,473 $88,000 412 Feb-10 Aug-10 Cl-out Construction Complete; working with contractor to close-out project.I & I StudySewer RE BHC $199,000 $50,000 412 _ _ StudyCity staff reviewing draft plan. Lift Station 2Sewer PL BHC $1,178,000 $899,000 412 May-11 Dec-11 Des Design at 30%. Working with property owner on easements and design details. Lift Station 7&8 and West Dayton SewerSewer PL HDR $3,109,632 $244,000 412 Apr-08 Oct-10 Cl-out Construction Complete; working with contractor to close-out project.Lift Stations 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 & 15Sewer PL CHS $3,655,000 $2,417,973 412 Mar-11 Dec-11 Des Design at 60%. Public Works reviewing plans. Olympic View Drive Lynnwood Phase 1Sewer PL CH2M Hill $567,813 $0 412/001 Mar-08 May-09 Cl-out Construction Complete.Sewer Main ReplacementsSewer MD City $30,000 $30,000 412 _ _ PreBegin preliminary assessment of projects and ranking.City-wide Drainage Replacement Project: Extension -12th Avenue North DrainageStorm JS Gray & Osborne;Universal$164,000 $110,000 412 Apr-11 Aug-11 Des Design at 90%; Permanent and temporary easements required to construct project. BudgetScheduleProject11/4/2010 PAGE 1Packet Page 207 of 364 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTSCapital Improvement ProgramStatusCity orTotal 2011City Complete **ActiveProject DescriptionType *Mgr.ConsultantBudget Budget Fund(s) # Advertise Const PhaseComments Budget ScheduleProjectCity-Wide Drainage Replacement Projects: Willow Creek Storm Anchor StrapsStorm PL/ES Moffit Nichol$15,000 $15,000 412 _ _ DesPrior designs under review and update.Edmonds Marsh - Shellabarger/ Willow Creek Flood Plain Delineation StudyStorm JS Consultant $239,000 $239,000 412 _ Dec-11 Pre Advertise for consultant 12/10Lake Ballinger Associated ProjectsStorm JS City $100,000 $100,000 412 _ Dec-11 Pre Finalizing ILA and Scope for engineering study of lake outlet (Weir) with Mountlake Terrace and begin Consultant work. $50,000 earmarked for detention vault for Interurban Trail constuction on west side of the lake in 2011.Low Impact Development Demonstration ProjectStorm JS Consultant $100,000 $100,000 412 Sep-11 Dec-11 Pre Scope under developmentStormwater Comprehensive PlanStorm JS Herrera $235,000 $0 412 _ Nov-10 Cl-Out Completed -Posted on City website Will be part of /Comprehensive Plan Amendments to Council 12/10SW Edmonds Basin Study Project 4-Connect Sumps on 105th & 106th Ave W near 228th St. SWStorm JS Consultant $106,000 $106,000 412 Mar-12 Sep-12 Pre Advertise or select consultant off Roster 12/10Talbot Rd / Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvement & Habitat Enhancement-Phase IStormJS Herrera/CHS$26,000 $0 412 Sep-10 Oct-10 Con Project substantially Complete.Talbot Rd / Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvement & Habitat Enhancement-Phase IIStorm JS Herrera $522,000 $522,000 412 Jun-11 Oct-11 Des Design at 70%; 90% design plans to be completed by 3/1/2011Terrace Creek Culvert Replacement at Talbot Rd.Storm JH CHS Engineers$500,000 $0 412 _ Jan-09 Cl-outConstruction Complete. Working with contractor to close-out project.2009 Overlay ProgramStreet JH City $1,126,255 $0 112 Jul-09 Oct-10 Cl-outConstruction Complete. Working with contractor to close-out project.226th St. SW Walkway Street BH JH $185,000 $139,000 112 Dec-10 May-11 Des Design at 95%; WSDOT currently reviewing first submittal of PS&E. WHPacific selected as consultant for construction management. Advertise for construction bids in spring 2011.228th St. SW Corridor Safety ImprovementsStreet BH HDR $4,336,000 $300,000 112 Mar-13 Dec-13 Des Design at 30%; Federal grant secured for design and ROW acquisition ($536,000). Dayton Street OverlayStreet JH KPFF $120,000 $120,000 112/412 Jul-11 Nov-11 Pre Design phase to begin in 2011. 11/4/2010 PAGE 2Packet Page 208 of 364 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTSCapital Improvement ProgramStatusCity orTotal 2011City Complete **ActiveProject DescriptionType *Mgr.ConsultantBudget Budget Fund(s) # Advertise Const PhaseComments Budget ScheduleProjectMain Street Pedestrian Lighting from 5th Ave to 6th AveStreet BH Consultant $725,000 $110,000 112 Dec-11 Oct-12 Pre Federal grant has been secured for design and construction (total amount: $725,000). Preparing preliminary design to determine scope and budget.Residential Neighborhood Traffic CalmingStreet BH City $50,000 $50,000 General _ _ _ $50,000 programmed for 2011 from the General Fund, allowing for the start of the traffic calming program. Shell Valley Emergency Access RoadStreet ES Perteet $611,600 $0 112/412 Mar-11 tbd DesDesign at 90%. Corps of Engineers permit application under review. SEPA permit application under review.SR524 WalkwayStreet JH Reid Middleton$884,596 $0 112 Feb-09 Mar-10 ConConstruction Complete. Contractor has submitted two construction claims. State Route (SR) 99 International District EnhancementsStreet BH CH2MHill $441,000 $226,524 129 Dec-10 Jun-11 DesDesign at 95%; WSDOT currently completing final PS&E review. WHPacific selected as consultant for construction management.2010 Replacement Program-WaterlineWater MD City $1,925,000 $1,500,000 $125,000412 Dec-10 Jun-11 DesDesign at 90%; Preparing final plans to advertise project. Advertise for construction bids in late 2010 or early 2011. 2010 Water System Plan UpdateWater RE MSA $170,000 $0 412 _ _ StudyDraft Plan sent out to Department of Health and public agencies for review and comment. The final plan is scheduled to be adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan in December.2011 Replacement Program-WaterlineWater MD Consultant $1,981,000 $1,981,000 412 Jun-11 Oct-11 PreAdvertise for design consultant in November 2010.Alderwood Meter, Seaview & Yost ImprovementsWater PL RH2 $520,000 $140,000 412 Nov-10 Feb-11 Des Design at 95%. Preparing final documents to advertise for construction bids. AMR Meter Evaluation StudyWater MD Consultant $50,000 $50,000 412 _ _ PreBegin coordination with Public Works for scoping 1/11.Five Corners Pump Station ImprovementsWater PL RH2 $1,317,284 $250,000 412 Nov-08 Jan-10 Cl-out Construction Complete; working with contractor to close-out project.Olympic View Drive Lynnwood Phase 2Water PL CH2M Hill $398,214 $0 412/001 Jan-09 Apr-10 Cl-out Construction Complete.PRV Stations 11 & 12Water MD City $16,000 $16,000 412 Jun-11 Sep-11 PreBegin coordination with Public Works for scoping 1/11.11/4/2010 PAGE 3Packet Page 209 of 364 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PROJECTSCapital Improvement ProgramStatusCity orTotal 2011City Complete **ActiveProject DescriptionType *Mgr.ConsultantBudget Budget Fund(s) # Advertise Const PhaseComments Budget ScheduleProjectBHESJHJSMDPLREPreDesROWAdConCl-OutStudyEd Sibrel, Engneering TechnicianJaime Hawkins, Captial Projects ManagerStudyRight-of-Way AcquisitionAdvertise for Contruction BidsRobert English, City Engineer**Active PhasePreliminary DesignJerry Shuster, Stormwater Engineer Program DesignConstructionClose-out Construcion ContractMike De Lilla, Senior Utilities EngineerPamela Lemcke, Capital Projects ManagerBertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer*Project Manager11/4/2010 PAGE 4Packet Page 210 of 364 AM-3516 Item #: 2. A. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Councilmember Peterson Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Review Committee: Finance Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Edmonds Public Facilities District/Edmonds Center for the Arts request for City grant. 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 On October 26, 2010, the City Council discussed this matter and forwarded it to the Finance Committee. Attachment: 10-26-10 City Council Minutes 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. Attachments Edmonds City Council Letter of Support for ECA 5-25-2010 10-26-10 City Council Minutes Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:29 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 11/04/2010 Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 211 of 364 Packet Page 212 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2010 Page 6 historically significant as the site of the signing of the Pt. Elliott Treaty of 1851. For that reason, WSF was required to expand its consideration of alternatives from Edmonds to Everett to ensure there were no reasonable alternatives for a new terminal. The alternatives are conceptual; WSF is soliciting input at the beginning of the EIS process. The comments Edmonds has submitted and the future comments will be considered in studying the alternatives. She provided a Community Guide to Scoping and the Project Concepts that describes the ten concepts. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether WSF lost the historic grounds if the ferry stays in Mukilteo. Ms. Macintosh answered WSF would not lose the grounds; if WSF remains in the Mukilteo area, they must reach agreement with the Tribes who signed the treaty. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether roads could be constructed over the grounds. Ms. Macintosh responded it remains to be seen what could be done. The concepts in that area minimize penetrations into the ground by the use of fill and avoid areas that are significant. Mayor Cooper advised that Public Works Director Phil Williams, Mr. Clifton and he plan to attend the October 27 meeting in the Council Chambers and he will speak during public comment. November 19 is the deadline for submitting public comments to WSF. Information for submitting comments is available on WSF’s website. 5. DISCUSSION OF BOND PAYMENT FOR EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT/ EDMONDS CENTER FOR THE ARTS. Joe McIalwain, Executive Director, Edmonds Center for the Arts (ECA), explained the primary purpose of his presentation was to request the City’s assistance with the Edmonds Public Facilities District (EPFD) and ECA meeting an upcoming bond payment due on December 1 as well as update the Council on the ECA’s activities. He reviewed ECA programs and services: • ECA’s Presenting Season o 25 Artists/Groups from Around the World o Music, Theatre, Dance, Comedy, Special Attractions • Partner Organizations o Cascade Symphony Orchestra o Olympic Ballet Theatre o Sno-King Community Chorale o Edmonds Community College, Black Box Theatre o City of Edmonds Cultural Services Department • Education & Outreach Programs o Student Matinee Program, In-School Workshops o Focus Primarily on Edmonds School District Mr. McIalwain reviewed the ECA’s impact • Quality performing arts events and concerts close to home for South County residents • Attractive venue for arts organizations from around the region to use for events and performances • Active year-round with theatre events, sports activities, classes, meetings, etc. • A resource for local teachers and students as school arts programs suffer budget cuts • A cultural asset for Edmonds, an important piece of Edmonds history – original Edmonds High School Campus, former Edmonds Junior High • 400 events in the theatre to date Packet Page 213 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2010 Page 7 • 50,000 people impacted by ECA each year • 46% from Edmonds and surrounding communities • 17% from City of Seattle • 37% from around the Puget Sound region (and beyond) • 100+ volunteers support ECA annually -board members, ushers, administration, special event support • 100% Board commitment to ECA • ECA Patrons frequent local restaurants before and after performances • ECA Patrons visit local shops and galleries • ECA is increasing the region’s awareness of Edmonds as an arts, entertainment and shopping destination • Approximately 50% of the audiences ECA attracts say they are attending the theatre for the first time • Annual Economic Impact of ECA: $2,895,600 o National economic impact study conducted by Americans for the Arts, the leading arts non- profit organization estimates the economic impact of non-profit arts organizations o Based on research findings from 156 communities and regions across America o Arts & Economic Prosperity o ECA creates jobs, generates tax revenues in Edmonds and Snohomish County o Arts tourism contributes to tax revenues on a local, state, and national level Mr. McIalwain explained the Snohomish County Public Facilities District was established in 2001 for the purpose of creating and operating public convention and arts centers to build tourism: • Four Projects: Comcast Arena, Lynnwood Convention Center, Future of Flight Museum, Edmonds Center for the Arts • Edmonds PFD is an independent public agency and is the owner and operator of Edmonds Center for the Arts • Edmonds PFD / ECA is affiliated with the City of Edmonds through an Interlocal Agreement o City Council appoints PFD Board Members o The City of Edmonds guarantees bonds issued in 2002 and in 2008 for the renovation and operation of the Center o The City does not currently provide annual financial support to the Center Next, Mr. McIalwain described ECA operation: • The ECA’s operating budget is balanced in 2010. This is due to: o Increase in ticket sales Ticket sales up 18% in 2009, steady in 2010 o Increase in rental revenues – Up 15% in 2010 o Increase in contributed revenue Increase of more than 32% in 2010 1/3 of annual operating revenue comes from contributions o Decrease in annual operating costs Down 13% since 2008 He also described ECA’s capital investments • EPFD retains approximately $10 million in capital debt related to the original renovation project in 2005-2006 • 2002 Bond Issue - $7 million o To cover a portion of the cost of the 2005 renovation Packet Page 214 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2010 Page 8 o Bonds guaranteed by City of Edmonds • Private Capital Campaign - $7 million o Combination donations from individuals, corporations and foundations • 2008 Bond Issue - $4 million o To cover the balance of the renovation costs o Bonded against a new revenue stream (“Tier 2”) from Snohomish County Public Facilities District o Bonds guaranteed by City of Edmonds He reviewed the sales tax revenue streams the ECA receives: • A) Direct Local-Level Sales Tax Rebate o Covers a portion of the 2002 Bond Issue • B) “Tier 1” County-Level Sales Tax Rebate o Covers the remainder of the 2002 Bond Issue • C) “Tier 2” County-Level Sales Tax Rebate o Intended to cover 2008 Bond Issue o Revenues projected to exceed $200,000 annually o Economic crisis resulted in a 90% reduction in revenues; the ECA will receive $15,000 from that source this year o This unrealized funding source is the cause of the current shortfall He provided a comparison of projected to actual Tier 2 County PFD revenues for years 2008-2026; projected revenues totaled $4,882,540; actual revenues will total $529,782. He explained the ECA will cover more than 80% of its capital bond payments in 2010 through a combination of dedicated sales tax funding sources and private donations. He compared revenues from direct local sales taxes, Tier 1, Tier 2, Snohomish County Lodging Tax, and private fundraising to capital bond payments in years 2010, 2011 and 2012. The projected shortfall in 2010 is estimated to be $97,160, $211,788 in 2011 and $210,943 in 2012. Mr. McIalwain explained because County revenue projections have not been realized, additional funds are required in 2010 to help cover a portion of EPFD’s bond payment. The projected 2010 requirement is $100,000. A Contingent Loan Agreement exists between EPFD and the City that provides a mechanism for the City to help the EPFD meet its debt payment via a loan. He requested the City Council consider a providing that support as a grant to the EPFD rather than a loan. That would help the ECA meet the short term challenge and mitigate long term challenges of adding to the ECA’s debt obligation. Mr. McIalwain reviewed long term solutions: • The Edmonds PFD Board and Staff are actively pursuing new revenue streams and improving operating performance to help meet future bond debt obligations. Other potential revenue sources include: o Snohomish County Lodging Tax Funds o Building Sponsorship o Extension of PFD Legislation and potential refinance of bonds o Economic Recovery o Improved Operating Performance – Net revenues to capital o Annual Support from the City of Edmonds He requested the Council: • In 2010, consider a one-time grant of approximately $100,000 (as opposed to a loan) to help reduce ECA’s future debt burden and encourage its long-term success Packet Page 215 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2010 Page 9 • Support the ECA / EPFD Boards and Staff in their efforts to secure a portion of County Lodging Tax Funds • Consider the possibility of annual, on-going support for ECA, as it is an important asset and plays a critical cultural role in Edmonds like the Senior Center, the Wade James Theatre, Yost Pool and may others do • Help maintain ECA as a leading performing arts venue in the Puget Sound region and an economic driver in South Snohomish County Mr. McIalwain noted when the PFD legislation sunsets, the ECA reverts to a City-owned facility. Councilmember Plunkett asked why the ECA did not receive Snohomish County Lodging Taxes today. Mr. McIalwain responded the Chair of the Snohomish County Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC), Snohomish County Councilmember Brian Sullivan and the Committee made a decision not to allocate revenue until the County’s Strategic Tourism Plan was updated in order to use the Plan to inform their decisions regarding allocation. A presentation on the Strategic Tourism Plan update will be provided on October 28 and the Committee will consider it in their allocation decision. He was hopeful the LTAC would move quickly in their decision to allocate funds based on the Plan. The ECA will compete in a process to access that funding. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether it was a funding stream that had not previously been allocated. Mr. McIalwain responded the last allocation 4-5 years ago when a one time allocation was made to a number of projects. The funds have been accumulating since that time. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged that the City guaranteed the ECA bonds. He anticipated he was the only current Councilmember to have voted on the 2002 bond issue. He asked whether the Council voted in 2008 to guarantee the bonds or if that was an extension of the 2002 bonds. Mr. McIalwain answered it was a new bond issue that the Council voted to support. With regard to a one-time grant or loan, Councilmember Plunkett observed the ECA’s future plans will address future payments. If the ECA was able to implement its plans, he asked whether the ECA could make the payments in the future. Mr. McIalwain agreed that was the goal, referring to long term solutions such as lodging tax, building sponsorship, etc. He reiterated the Council’s political support may be needed to realize those solutions. He summarized those revenue streams as well as economic recovery and operations will minimize or eliminate the need for future support from the City. Council President Bernheim suggested referring the request to the Council Finance Committee. Councilmember Buckshnis requested the following documents/information: whether the 2002 bonds can be refinanced, financial statement for the fiscal year end and historical, actual year-to-date and projections. She commented the presentation appeared to indicate the City would be required to contribute support every year from now until 2026. Councilmember Wilson commended Mr. McIalwain on the work he does for the ECA. He commented the City will stand by its obligation to the ECA and recognizes the value of the ECA. He asked whether the facility was completely renovated. Mr. McIalwain answered a second phase of renovations was planned for the classroom spaces and gymnasium (back-of-house) and a third phase for new construction. Councilmember Wilson asked whether there was capital available via the bonds to complete the renovations. Mr. McIalwain answered the funds raised were dedicated to the previous renovations; there is no capital available for future renovation for the balance of the facility. Packet Page 216 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes October 26, 2010 Page 10 Councilmember Wilson recalled the PFD intended to use some of the 2008 bond revenues to fund some of the start-up costs. Mr. McIalwain answered that was considered as well as renovation of the center classroom which has been completed. Councilmember Wilson recalled that the use of capital funds for operation was a concern of his that he may not have voiced loudly enough at the time because he was a new Councilmember. In hindsight capital funds should not have been used for operation. He asked how the public could be assured that would not happen in the future. Mr. McIalwain responded in order to get a business up and running, it has to be capitalized with start-up operating funds. When the PFD developed a budget for the renovation and start-up costs, the capital project included funding a portion of operations. He agreed as a result of the economic crisis, the PFD was forced to utilize additional funds from capital to support operations. If the ECA can balance its operating budget in these economic times, he was confident that the use capital for operation would be avoided to the best of their ability. He explained the use of capital funds for operating was done via an interfund loan; as operations improve the interfund loans will be repaid. Observing that the building will revert back to the City in the future when the PFD legislation sunsets and the possibility of the City contributing substantially to the debt service, Councilmember Wilson questioned whether the City should simply take over the facility, keep the staff and change the governance structure. Mr. McIalwain answered an arts organization is a very unique and specific model, difficult to operate and very time consuming for board members and staff. Their expertise and involvement on a daily basis with fundraising and oversight is crucial. There is a non-profit corporation that works side-by-side with the PFD. There are also legal questions associated with whether the City would take over the ECA before the PFD legislation sunsets. Councilmember Wilson commented in the senior center model, the City owns the building and it is operated by a non-profit organization. Councilmember Peterson advised his wife, Maria Montalvo, is a member of the PFD Board as well as the ECA Board. Like other board members, she volunteers a great deal of time. He has championed the cause of the ECA because of the benefits it provides the community and because he knows more about its operation due to his wife’s and other friends’ involvement. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the ECA is different than other PFD’s in Snohomish County in that it is the only PFD that does not receive any financial support from its host city. The Lynnwood Convention Center receives financial support from Lynnwood and Comcast Arena receives financial support from Everett. Mr. McIalwain advised the Lynnwood Convention Center and Comcast Arena receive significant amounts of local level lodging tax. The Future of Flight Museum receives an annual direct subsidy from the Airport via the County. With regard to other non-profit arts organizations in the Puget Sound region, the City of Kirkland owns the Kirkland Performance Center building and provides maintenance and annual financial support. The same is true for the Admiral Theater in Bremerton, Mount Baker Theater, and Broadway Center in Tacoma. The ECA does not receive annual financial support from the City. Councilmember Peterson pointed out the City also does not provide maintenance of the ECA; those functions are performed by ECA staff. 6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS David Clobes, Edmonds, explained that for the past 16 years he has displayed large political signs in front of his house on Olympic View Drive. He defended his personal right to political speech on his own property, remarking his signs do not interfere with the City. Although his signs may offend the Mayor, that is not a reason to silence him. His observation of the City Council over the past 38 years is that it is a club and he did not recognize it as the type of government that should be in charge of the City. He suggested the Council consider merging with Lynnwood. He anticipated changes occurring in the State over the next 18-24 months may make merging with Lynnwood a possibility. He referred to the Packet Page 217 of 364 AM-3464 Item #: 2. B. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:15 Minutes Submitted By:Al Compaan Department:Police Department Committee:Finance Type:Action Information Subject Title Approve Contract for Professional Services - City of Edmonds Prosecutor. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Return to Consent Agenda and authorize Mayor Cooper to sign the contract. Previous Council Action Reviewed by Finance Committee on October 12, 2010. Approved for Consent Agenda. Item was pulled from Consent Aghenda at the October 19, 2010 City Council meeting and was returned to Finance Committee for further consideration. Narrative The City presently has a professional services contract with Zachor Thomas, Inc. for prosecution services. The contract term under the present agreement was from April 1, 2008 through March 31, 2010, with a renewal clause for up to two one-year extensions without further action of the parties. The current monthly retainer per the contract is $11,330.00. Due to the addition of two weekly Edmonds Municipal Court calendars in April 2010, over and above what was contemplated for obligated services in the present contract, City staff and Zachor Thomas feel it appropriate to enter into a new professional services contract, effective November 1, 2010, and running through December 31, 2012, for a fixed monthly retainer of $13,000.00 during the term of the contract. This new monthly retainer, accommodating the two additional calendars, is financially advantageous to the City compared to hourly billing under the current contract for the additional services rendered. Draft contract has been reviewed as to form and content by the City Attorney. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2011 Revenue:Expenditure:$156,000 Fiscal Impact: Non-Departmental General Fund budget Attachments Draft Zachor Thomas Contract 11-1-2010 thru 12-31-2012 Existing Zachor Thomas Contract 4-1-2008 thru 3-31-2010 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/02/2010 02:30 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:28 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 10/20/2010 Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 218 of 364 Page 1 dlh.contracts.10.prosecutor.final.doc CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY OF EDMONDS PROSECUTOR WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has established its municipal court under provisions of Chapter 3.50 RCW in the Edmonds City Code and Chapter 2.15; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to contract with a skilled firm with attorneys familiar with the prosecution of criminal and infraction matters involving allegations of violation of municipal ordinances; and WHEREAS, the law firm of Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. (the principals who are H. James Zachor, Jr. and Melanie S. Thomas Dane) and its attorneys are licensed to practice law in the State of Washington with experience as prosecutors within the State of Washington and the City of Edmonds, and WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds and Zachor & Thomas, Inc. have a contract for prosecutorial services that the parties wish to amend because there has been an increase of two additional calendars by Edmonds Municipal Court that requires the attendance by Zachor & Thomas, Inc.; and WHEREAS, additional compensation for said added calendars would otherwise be calculated on an hourly basis under the existing contract; and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and benefits to be derived, this Contract is entered into on the date specified hereafter between the City of Edmonds, a municipal corporation, (hereafter referred to as the “City”) and Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. (hereafter referred to as the “Prosecutor”), subject to the terms and conditions set forth below: 1. Duties: The Prosecutor shall provide the following services: 1.1 Review police incident reports for determination of charging; 1.2 Maintain all current cases in an appropriate filing system; 1.3 Review and remain familiar with filed criminal misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases; 1.4 Interview witnesses as necessary in preparation of prosecution of cases; 1.5 Respond to discovery requests, make sentence recommendations and prepare legal memoranda, when necessary; 1.6 Prepare cases for trial, including the issuance of witness subpoenas (for service by the Police Department, when applicable), conduct evidence retrieval (with the assistance of the Police Department and other City agencies), and prepare jury instructions, as necessary; Packet Page 219 of 364 Page 2 dlh.contracts.10.prosecutor.final.doc 1.7 To assist the City Attorney, when applicable, in response to Public Disclosure requests; 1.8 Represent the City at all arraignments, pretrial hearings, motion hearings, review hearings, in-custody hearings, and trials as scheduled in 2010; 1.9 Prosecute contested code and traffic infraction violations which are scheduled on the regular criminal calendar as scheduled in 2010; 1.10 Represent the City in the prosecution of drug, felony, and firearm forfeitures that are filed by the City in the Edmonds Municipal Court, Lynnwood Municipal Court, or heard in Mountlake Terrace. Forfeitures filed in Superior Court or District Court shall be billed at the hourly rate set forth hereafter. Notice of Intended Forfeitures and Seizure Hearings shall be set in the Court of jurisdiction within 90 days of receipt of Notice of Demand for Hearing. 1.11 Be available to the Police Department for questions at all times, by providing appropriate telephone numbers, cell phone numbers, e- mail addresses, and voice mail access. Calls are to be returned by the next business day. At a time and date to be mutually agreed upon by the parties, the Prosecutor shall conduct yearly training with the Police Department. The Prosecutor maintains a business office in the City of Edmonds and Police Officers may meet with the Prosecutor at anytime during normal business hours, when the Prosecutor is available. 1.12 Consult with the City Attorney, as needed, regarding Edmonds City Code amendments. 1.13 Services provided under this agreement play an important part in fostering public confidence in the criminal justice system and are an important and essential part of law enforcement. All services provided under this agreement shall be in accord with the Rules of Professional Responsibility, local court rules and the normal standard of care among prosecutors in Western Washington. 2. Compensation 2.1 Base Rate. The Prosecutor shall receive a monthly retainer of THIRTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($13,000.00) per month for performance of those duties set forth in paragraph 1 above beginning November 1, 2010. Packet Page 220 of 364 Page 3 dlh.contracts.10.prosecutor.final.doc 2.2 Hourly Rate. Services performed outside the scope of the duties described in paragraph 1 above, or which may be mutually agreed upon to be added at a later date, shall be in addition to the base rate set forth in paragraph 2.1. Absent a separate agreement, those services shall be billed at a rate of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) per hour. Any RALJ case filed in Superior Court shall be billed at the rate of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) per hour. Any other cases filed at the Court of Appeals, cases filed at the Supreme Court, cases filed in the Snohomish County District Court; forfeiture cases filed in courts other than the Edmonds Municipal Court, Lynnwood Municipal Court, or heard in Mountlake Terrace, which require the appearance of the Prosecutor; and such other activities agreed to by the City and the Prosecutor, shall be billed at ONE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS ($125.00) per hour. The Prosecutor shall obtain written approval from the City prior to pursuing appeal of any matter beyond the Superior Court. 2.3 Fees Review. The schedule of fees provided for in paragraph 2.1 and 2.2 shall apply for the contract period reflected in Article 4. Should the court substantially alter the requirements of the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor shall provide notification to the City. Changes in fees shall be proposed by the Prosecutor to the Mayor. Any changes must be mutually agreed to by the Mayor and the Prosecutor, and then must be approved by City Council. Upon acceptance by all parties, the changes will be made a part of this Agreement. 2.4 Costs. The City shall be the sole obligor and shall pay all witness fees, expert witness fees (including but not limited to Speed Measuring Device Experts), transcript and document fees for RALJ appeals cases, and interpreters’ fees determined to be necessary by the Prosecutor in the preparation and disposition of its cases. The City shall approve all other anticipated fees, before such expense is incurred. The City will not unreasonably delay in granting approval of such expenses. The City further agrees to hold the Prosecutor harmless from such expenses and costs as set forth hereinabove. 2.5 Assistant Prosecutors. The City contracts with the Prosecutor for a monthly fee for prosecution services. Should the Prosecutor be absent, it shall be the responsibility of the Prosecutor to provide substitute coverage with a properly licensed State of Washington Packet Page 221 of 364 Page 4 dlh.contracts.10.prosecutor.final.doc attorney, who has been previously approved by the City through its Police Chief. In the event of a dispute regarding approval of any individual, the City Council shall be final arbiter. All Prosecutors (including substitute) must wear city issued identification when in the Public Safety Building. If a “Conflict Prosecutor” is required, such “Conflict Prosecutor” shall be approved by the City through its Police Chief. In the event of a dispute regarding approval of any individual, the City Council shall be final arbiter. The Prosecutor is responsible for any costs associated with the “Conflict Prosecutor.” 3. Term of Contract. The Term of this Contract shall be from the first day of November 2010 through December 31, 2012. Upon the effective date of this Contract, all other existing contracts between the parties for prosecutorial services shall terminate. 4. Termination. The attorney/client relationship is personal and involves the ability of the parties to communicate and maintain credibility. Therefore, the Prosecutor and/or the City Council, in its sole legislative discretion, reserve the right to terminate this Contract upon one hundred twenty (120) days written notice. This contract may be terminated by either party at any time for cause. By way of illustration, and not limitation, cause shall include violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Washington State Court Rules of law or ordinance or of any term of this contract. 5. Ownership. All City of Edmonds’ files and other documents maintained by the Prosecutor shall be the files of the City of Edmonds and accessible by the City through its City Attorney or other duly authorized representative during normal business hours, subject to the Washington State Bar Association Rules of Ethics. At the request of the City, any and all files maintained by the Prosecutor shall be tendered to the City, subject to the terms and conditions of this Contract and the Washington State Bar Association Rules of Ethics. All equipment and facilities furnished by the City shall remain the sole property of the City. Any equipment, facilities and materials provided by the Prosecutor shall remain the sole property of the Prosecutor. 6. Independent Contractor. The Prosecutor and its assistants are professionals and independent contractors, acting without direct supervision. The Prosecutor waives any claim in the nature of a tax, charge, cost or employee benefit that would attach if the Prosecutor or its assistants were held to be employees of the City. 7. Insurance. The Prosecutor shall maintain a policy of professional liability and malpractice insurance throughout the term of this Contract. Packet Page 222 of 364 Page 5 dlh.contracts.10.prosecutor.final.doc 8. Indemnity. 8.1 So long as the Prosecutor is acting within the scope of this Contract and in accord with its ethical responsibilities under the provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct established by the Washington Supreme Court, it shall be entitled to legal defense and representation as an official of the City in accord with the provisions of Chapter 2.06 ECC. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to require defense or indemnity for acts beyond the scope of this Contract, including, but not limited to, tortuous or wrongful acts committed by the Prosecutor. 8.2 Nothing herein shall be interpreted to require the Prosecutor to indemnify the City, its officers, agents or employees from loss, claim or liability arising from the negligent, wrongful or tortuous conduct of the City, its officers, agents or employees. 8.3 Nothing herein shall be interpreted to require the City to indemnify the Prosecutor, its officers, agents or employees from loss, claim or liability arising from negligent, wrongful or tortuous conduct of the Prosecutor, its officers, agents or employees. 9. Sole Contract Between the Parties and Amendment. This Contract is the sole written Contract between the parties. Any prior written or oral understanding shall merge with this Contract. It shall be amended only by the express written consent of the parties hereto. Packet Page 223 of 364 Page 6 dlh.contracts.10.prosecutor.final.doc DATED this ____________ day of ______________, 2010. CITY OF EDMONDS: PROSECUTOR: Zachor & Thomas, Inc., P.S. BY: ___________________________ BY:________________________ Mayor Gary Haakenson H. James Zachor, Jr., President ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ________________________________ City Clerk, Sandra S. Chase APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ________________________________ W. Scott Snyder Packet Page 224 of 364 Packet Page 225 of 364 Packet Page 226 of 364 Packet Page 227 of 364 Packet Page 228 of 364 Packet Page 229 of 364 Packet Page 230 of 364 AM-3490 Item #: 2. C. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:15 Minutes Submitted By:Jim Stevens Department:Public Works Committee:Finance Type:Action Information Subject Title Edmonds Historical Museum Repairs Project Costs. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve that the project be among the items on the consent agenda for the full Council when the remaining paperwork items are completed: Final Payment Request, Affidavit of Prevailing Wages Paid, As-Builts, and Warranty Information. Previous Council Action Council awarded the bid for this project to Pioneer Masonry Restoration Company, Inc., at the meeting on July 27, 2010. Narrative The City procedures for the use of the MRSC Small Works Roster were followed to select Pioneer Masonry Restoration Company, Inc., to perform sorely needed repairs to the exterior surfaces of the Edmonds Historical Museum. The bid award was approved by the Council on July 27, 2010, and the contract Notice to Proceed was issued effective August 18, 2010 with a term of 59 working days, or November 10, 2010. The project attained substantial completion well ahead of that date, on October 5th, with a relatively small list of mostly minor issues to address on the punch list. The total project budget approved by the Council included the base award amount of $40,792.04, as well as two contingency pieces. The first anticipated skim coating the entire foundation wall, per unit cost values, at $21,000. The second entailed providing an adequate reserve for unanticipated repairs to the building, using the architect's projected estimate of the need at $16,000. This building is 100 years old, and sufficient destructive testing to determine the full extent of its needs was not practical, shy of undertaking the project itself. So, it made more sense to set a reasonable dollar value to this contingency, rather than address it with the traditional 10% of bid, the usual amount set aside for construction projects on existing structures. A primary project goal was to address the state of the mortar between the bricks, which appeared to have gaps or be failing in many places, especially above the level of the metal cornice that surrounds the building near its roof. This cornice itself needed repair and painting to extend its life. Additionally, there were cracks and bulges on the foundation walls and stair walls and piers that were at the least unsightly conditions, if they were not indicative of worse subsurface conditions requiring yet larger repairs. This turned out to be the case, for example, with the south stair pier. Removing the crumbling exterior showed its interior structure had suffered from the effects of time and weather to the point it needed a complete replacement. The foundation wall itself actually consists of a solid concrete wall with an applique (called parge) in place over its surface. This parge material needed to be sounded to determine how solidly it still adhered to the base material. Finally, caulking at and around the thresholds, windows, doors, and stairs had long ago failed. All these joints needed to be cleaned out and filled with new material to keep moisture out of the building. Ultimately, there were five paperwork trails contributing to what is being compiled as the sole project change order. They are PR-01 through PR-04, and FA #1. PR-01 accounts simply for a delay to the work because of last-minute mortar analysis that showed the mixture to be used in repointing (mortar repair) needed to be changed to be compatible with the existing historic mortar, and it added seven working days to the contract time at no dollar cost. PR-02 used unit cost values collected with the bids to accommodate additional needed hole, crack, and parge spall (delamination) repair on the foundation and stair walls. Its value was determined to be $5,924.13 before tax, and it also added three days to the contract time. PR-03 addressed changes mostly to the work on the bricks, where large voids to the bedding mortar were discovered, where new bricks were needed to replace incorrect or badly damaged bricks, and where deeper patches were needed at window lintels. Its value was determined to be $2,141.00, and it added two days to the contract time. At a value of $299.00, PR-04 concerned the addition of a piece of steel angle at a corner in the rear of the building where vehicles had hit it in the past, damaging it and the surrounding walls. The single force account used during the project addressed the cost of performing deeper repairs to the foundation and stair walls. The extent of these repairs was only understood after removing the delaminated parge material, revealing additional damage to the concrete base material. This needed to be refilled so a patch to the parge could then be applied. Its value was Packet Page 231 of 364 damage to the concrete base material. This needed to be refilled so a patch to the parge could then be applied. Its value was set at $5,245.47. Back-up materials for all these paper trails are attached to this agenda item. There are yet four paperwork items necessary to reach the point of requesting project acceptance from the Council, but, at this juncture the total costs are known and are of value to the Finance Committee for its review. Because the Finance Committee meets only once monthly, taking this step now makes sense in order to comply with City procedures and be as timely as possible ultimately with the release of retainage to the contractor. Attachments Museum C.O. Docs Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Public Works Phil Williams 11/01/2010 07:50 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/02/2010 02:30 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:28 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 10/28/2010 09:58 AM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 232 of 364 Packet Page 233 of 364 Packet Page 234 of 364 Packet Page 235 of 364 Packet Page 236 of 364 Packet Page 237 of 364 Packet Page 238 of 364 Packet Page 239 of 364 Packet Page 240 of 364 Packet Page 241 of 364 Packet Page 242 of 364 Packet Page 243 of 364 AM-3512 Item #: 2. D. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines Department:Finance Committee:Finance Type:Information Information Subject Title Monthly General Fund Update. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff None Previous Council Action None Narrative General Fund Overview – October 2010 Historically, General Fund receipts at the end of October are 73.88% of the annual revenue budget. As of October 31, 2010, General Fund receipts are slightly below target at 70.84% of the annual revenue budget. General Fund expenditures are down through October at 77.59% of budgeted expenditures, compared to the historical trend for October, 79.29%. Attachments October 2010 Report Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/04/2010 01:05 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:30 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 11/04/2010 Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 244 of 364 City of Edmonds  Finance and Information Systems DATE: November 9, 2010 TO: City of Edmonds, City Council, Finance Committee FROM: Lorenzo Hines Jr., Director of Finance and Information Services SUBJECT: General Fund Report for the month ending October 2010 Honorable Members, The attached charts contain revenue collection projections for the major General Fund sources with the exception of Property taxes. Significant revenues from Property taxes are received in April, May, October and November, and given the uneven receipt of these funds, monthly forecasts are not prepared. REET receipts are received into two stand-alone funds and are not part of the General Fund. General Fund Overview – October 2010 Historically, General Fund receipts at the end of October are 73.88% of the annual revenue budget. As of October 31, 2010, General Fund receipts are slightly below target at 70.84% of the annual revenue budget. Amended Revenue Budget Revenues Over/Under % Received $36,518,573 $25,871,210 ($10,647,363) 70.84% General Fund expenditures are down through October at 77.59% of budgeted expenditures, compared to the historical trend for October, 79.29%. Amended Expenditure Budget Expenditures Over/Under % Used $35,501,341 $27,545,462 ($7,955,879) 77.59% Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. CITY OF EDMONDS MIKE COOPER CITY HALL FIRST FLOOR MAYOR EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425)771-0240 FAX (425)771-0265 LORENZO HINES JR. DIRECTOR FINANCE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS DEPARTMENT Packet Page 245 of 364 CURRENT FORECAST 618,152 2010 BUDGET 750,000 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast %6.98%5.21%7.51%8.13%7.78%10.53%10.74%8.90%10.23%9.37%7.75%6.86% Cumulative Forecast %6.98%12.20%19.70%27.83%35.61%46.14%56.88%65.78%76.01%85.39%93.14%100.00% Monthly Forecast $52,378 39,087 56,300 60,945 58,351 78,992 80,585 66,728 76,727 70,309 58,121 51,478 Cumulative Forecast $52,378 91,465 147,765 208,710 267,060 346,052 426,637 493,366 570,093 640,401 698,522 750,000 Actual Collected $50,068 27,235 27,394 67,322 50,680 50,753 48,847 101,629 47,710 62,499 47,903 42,428 Cumulative Collection $50,068 77,304 104,697 172,019 222,699 273,452 322,299 423,928 471,638 534,137 582,041 624,469 YEAR END FORECAST 716,930 633,881 531,407 618,152 625,417 592,654 566,580 644,443 620,475 625,550 624,934 624,469 Projected YE Variance (33,070) (116,119) (218,593) (131,848) (124,583) (157,346) (183,420) (105,557) (129,525) (124,450) (125,066) (125,531) Budget Variance %-4.41%-15.48%-29.15%-17.58%-16.61%-20.98%-24.46%-14.07%-17.27%-16.59%-16.68%-16.74% City of Edmonds 2010 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2010 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS Actuals/Trend Budget R:\Taxes\Major Revenue Projections 10 CHARTS Page 1 of 5 11/3/2010 6:50 PM Packet Page 246 of 364 2010 OUTLOOK 4,390,919 2010 BUDGET 5,519,949 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast %7.93%10.14%7.09%7.32%8.73%7.64%8.02%9.27%8.18%8.56%9.22%7.90% Cumulative Forecast %7.93%18.08%25.17%32.48%41.21%48.85%56.87%66.14%74.32%82.88%92.10%100.00% Monthly Forecast $438,003 559,813 391,416 403,842 481,908 421,630 442,727 511,755 451,304 472,665 509,046 435,839 Cumulative Forecast $438,003 997,816 1,389,232 1,793,074 2,274,982 2,696,612 3,139,339 3,651,094 4,102,398 4,575,064 5,084,110 5,519,949 Actual Collected $345,310 440,769 316,908 318,093 379,901 360,224 337,998 395,262 390,964 353,868 403,438 345,419 Cumulative Collection $345,310 786,079 1,102,987 1,421,080 1,800,981 2,161,205 2,499,203 2,894,465 3,285,429 3,639,297 4,042,735 4,388,155 YEAR END FORECAST 4,351,780 4,348,612 4,382,586 4,374,771 4,369,847 4,423,975 4,394,388 4,376,030 4,420,682 4,390,919 4,389,302 4,388,155 Projected YE Variance (1,168,169) (1,171,337) (1,137,363) (1,145,178) (1,150,102) (1,095,974) (1,125,561) (1,143,919) (1,099,267) (1,129,030) (1,130,647) (1,131,794) Budget Variance %-21.16%-21.22%-20.60%-20.75%-20.84%-19.85%-20.39%-20.72%-19.91%-20.45%-20.48%-20.50% City of Edmonds 2010 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model SALES AND USE TAX - 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2010 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS Actuals/Trend Budget R:\Taxes\Major Revenue Projections 10 CHARTS Page 2 of 5 11/3/2010 6:50 PM Packet Page 247 of 364 2010 OUTLOOK 757,804 2010 BUDGET 924,550 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast %13.80%14.85%13.62%11.17%9.30%6.37%4.62%3.44%3.25%3.62%6.40%9.57% Cumulative Forecast %13.80%28.65%42.27%53.43%62.73%69.10%73.72%77.16%80.41%84.03%90.43%100.00% Monthly Forecast $127,567 137,283 125,915 103,236 85,953 58,927 42,719 31,805 30,032 33,467 59,178 88,469 Cumulative Forecast $127,567 264,850 390,765 494,001 579,954 638,881 681,600 713,405 743,437 776,904 836,081 924,550 Actual Collected $113,871 98,472 89,931 73,703 67,490 54,018 49,585 29,852 27,976 31,889 45,039 67,332 Cumulative Collection $113,871 212,343 302,274 375,976 443,466 497,485 547,070 576,922 604,898 636,786 681,826 749,158 YEAR END FORECAST 825,288 741,256 715,180 703,660 706,964 719,930 742,067 747,672 752,260 757,804 753,972 749,158 Projected YE Variance (99,262) (183,294) (209,370) (220,890) (217,586) (204,620) (182,483) (176,878) (172,290) (166,746) (170,578) (175,392) Budget Variance %-10.74%-19.83%-22.65%-23.89%-23.53%-22.13%-19.74%-19.13%-18.63%-18.04%-18.45%-18.97% City of Edmonds 2010 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model GAS UTILITY TAX - 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2010 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS Actuals/Trend Budget R:\Taxes\Major Revenue Projections 10 CHARTS Page 3 of 5 11/3/2010 6:50 PM Packet Page 248 of 364 2010 OUTLOOK 1,489,209 2010 BUDGET 1,387,744 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast %5.98%8.59%9.73%6.73%8.38%6.66%9.50%8.86%6.84%11.04%5.89%11.81% Cumulative Forecast %5.98%14.57%24.30%31.03%39.41%46.07%55.57%64.42%71.26%82.31%88.19%100.00% Monthly Forecast $82,964 119,272 134,978 93,385 116,308 92,418 131,807 122,896 94,944 153,257 81,669 163,845 Cumulative Forecast $82,964 202,236 337,214 430,599 546,907 639,325 771,132 894,028 988,973 1,142,229 1,223,899 1,387,744 Actual Collected $136,185 105,184 143,225 136,678 130,747 132,178 120,783 116,683 105,460 98,620 87,641 175,825 Cumulative Collection $136,185 241,369 384,594 521,272 652,019 784,197 904,980 1,021,663 1,127,124 1,225,744 1,313,384 1,489,209 YEAR END FORECAST 2,277,965 1,656,273 1,582,726 1,679,967 1,654,460 1,702,207 1,628,619 1,585,864 1,581,600 1,489,209 1,489,209 1,489,209 Projected YE Variance 890,221 268,529 194,982 292,223 266,716 314,463 240,875 198,120 193,856 101,465 101,465 101,465 Budget Variance %64.15%19.35%14.05%21.06%19.22%22.66%17.36%14.28%13.97%7.31%7.31%7.31% City of Edmonds 2010 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 1,750,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2010 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS Actuals/Trend Budget R:\Taxes\Major Revenue Projections 10 CHARTS Page 4 of 5 11/3/2010 6:50 PM Packet Page 249 of 364 2010 OUTLOOK 1,454,669 2010 BUDGET 1,529,710 TOTAL JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Monthly Forecast %9.89%11.77%10.41%10.69%9.19%7.68%7.22%6.28%6.62%5.85%7.42%6.98% Cumulative Forecast %9.89%21.66%32.07%42.76%51.95%59.63%66.85%73.13%79.75%85.60%93.02%100.00% Monthly Forecast $151,297 180,018 159,229 163,564 140,645 117,471 110,448 96,058 101,282 89,417 113,563 106,719 Cumulative Forecast $151,297 331,315 490,544 654,107 794,752 912,223 1,022,671 1,118,729 1,220,011 1,309,428 1,422,991 1,529,710 Actual Collected $164,594 162,116 138,859 152,489 133,223 110,128 104,362 92,821 100,846 85,756 107,304 100,837 Cumulative Collection $164,594 326,710 465,569 618,058 751,280 861,408 965,770 1,058,591 1,159,437 1,245,193 1,352,498 1,453,335 YEAR END FORECAST 1,664,151 1,508,449 1,451,828 1,445,404 1,446,037 1,444,498 1,444,597 1,447,480 1,453,760 1,454,669 1,453,930 1,453,335 Projected YE Variance 134,441 (21,261) (77,882) (84,306) (83,673) (85,212) (85,113) (82,230) (75,950) (75,041) (75,780) (76,375) Budget Variance %8.79%-1.39%-5.09%-5.51%-5.47%-5.57%-5.56%-5.38%-4.96%-4.91%-4.95%-4.99% City of Edmonds 2010 Monthly Revenue Forecasting Model ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX - 250,000 500,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,250,000 1,500,000 1,750,000 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2010 CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS Actuals/Trend Budget R:\Taxes\Major Revenue Projections 10 CHARTS Page 5 of 5 11/3/2010 6:50 PM Packet Page 250 of 364 AM-3511 Item #: 2. E. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:15 Minutes Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines Department:Finance Committee:Finance Type:Information Information Subject Title 2010 Third Quarter Budget Update. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff For information only Previous Council Action None Narrative Overview The attached report provides information regarding general fund revenues and expenditures, as well as expenditures from other funds. General Fund Revenues As of September 30, 2010, the city’s General Fund (GF) revenues are approximately 65% of budget. Historically, General Fund receipts at the end of September are roughly 67% of the annual revenue budget. Tax revenues appear to be on pace with the budget. However, the major revenue concern remains the reduced sales tax proceeds. The retail sales tax category is at roughly 60% of budget. At this point in the year, we would expect that percentage to be at approximately 74%. We should note that we expect sizable revenues in November when the remainder of property tax revenues is received. General Fund Expenditures Actual GF expenditures for the same period were 75% of budgeted expenditures, compared to the historical trend for September, 72.03%. Comparison to the June 2010 Quarterly The June 2010 quarterly report contained two anticipated material budget amendments. This report does not reflect those amendments. Council passed the midyear budget amendment on 10/05/2010. The impact of those amendments will be reflected in subsequent reports. Attachments Third Quarter Report Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/04/2010 01:04 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:29 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 11/04/2010 Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 251 of 364 CITY OF EDMONDS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS (September 30, 2010) Overview General Fund Update ....... i General Fund Revenue Detail .... 1 Expenditure Summary Status by Fund ................. 6 Status by Department ....... 7 Expenditure Detail by Fund General Fund ................... 8 LEOFF Res ...................... 8 Drug Enforce ................... 9 Street Fund ....................... 9 Street Construction .......... 9 Multi-Modal ..................... 10 Building Maintenance ...... 10 Municipal Arts ................. 10 Hotel/Motel ...................... 10 Employee Parking ............ 10 Youth Scholarship ........... 11 Tourism Promotion .......... 11 REET 2 .................................. 11 Park Acquisition (REET 1) 11 Gifts Catalog .................... 11 Special Projects ................ 12 Cemetery Maintenance .... 12 Fire Donations ................. 12 Parks Construction .......... 12 Sister City ........................ 12 L.I.D. Fund Ctr.................13 Limited Tax Bd ................13 Combined Utility .............14 Combined Util Ctr ...........15 Capital Improv Res ..........15 Equipment Rental.............15 Firemen’s Pension ............16 Trans. Ben District ...........16 Expenditure Detail by Department City Council .....................17 Mayor ...............................17 Human Resources ............17 Municipal Court ...............18 Economic Development ...18 City Clerk .........................18 Administrative Services. ..19 City Attorney ...................19 Non-Departmental............19 Police Department ............20 Fire Department ...............20 Community Services ........20 Development Services .....21 Engineering ......................21 Parks & Recreation ..........22 Public Works ....................22 Facilities Maintenance .....23 Storm Drainage ................24 Water ................................25 Sewer................................26 Treatment Plant ................27 Packet Page 252 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT i CITY OF EDMONDS 2010 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET REPORT Overview The attached report provides information regarding general fund revenues and expenditures, as well as revenue and/or expenditures from other selected funds. General Fund Revenues As of September 30, 2010, the city’s General Fund (GF) revenues are approximately 65% of budget. Historically, General Fund receipts at the end of September are roughly 67% of the annual revenue budget. Tax revenues appear to be on pace with the budget. However, the major revenue concern remains the reduced sales tax proceeds. The retail sales tax category is at roughly 60% of budget. At this point in the year, we would expect that percentage to be at approximately 74%. We should note that we expect sizable revenues in November when the remainder of property tax revenues is received. General Fund Expenditures Actual GF expenditures for the same period were 75% of budgeted expenditures, compared to the historical trend for September, 72.03%. Comparison to the June 2010 Quarterly The June 2010 quarterly report contained two anticipated material budget amendments. This report does not reflect those amendments. Council passed the midyear budget amendment on 10/05/2010. The impact of those amendments will be reflected in subsequent reports. Packet Page 253 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT Title Budget 09/30/2010 Revenues Over/Under % Received BEGINNING CASH & INVESTMENTS 1,273,265 2,167,156 893,891 170.2% REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,383,000 4,983,872 -4,399,128 53.1% EMS PROPERTY TAX 3,911,000 1,856,087 -2,054,913 47.5% VOTED PROPERTY TAX 853,084 453,060 -400,024 53.1% LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 5,519,949 3,285,430 -2,234,519 59.5% NATURAL GAS USE TAX 16,065 10,545 -5,520 65.6% 1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 649,836 394,388 -255,448 60.7% GAS UTILITY TAX 924,550 604,898 -319,652 65.4% T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 73,544 514,937 441,393 700.2% TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,387,744 1,127,124 -260,620 81.2% ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,529,710 1,159,437 -370,273 75.8% SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 280,908 208,145 -72,763 74.1% WATER UTILITY TAX 350,854 530,739 179,885 151.3% SEWER UTILITY TAX 487,425 352,127 -135,298 72.2% STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 190,575 172,256 -18,319 90.4% LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 242,000 184,329 -57,671 76.2% PULLTABS TAX 55,000 41,331 -13,669 75.1% AMUSEMENT GAMES 500 - -500 0.0% PENALTIES ON GAMBLING TAXES 500 - -500 0.0% TAXES 25,856,244 15,878,704 -9,977,540 61.4% FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,130 840 -4,290 16.4% PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 1,500 690 -810 46.0% AMUSEMENTS 5,875 9,525 3,650 162.1% BUS. LICENCE PERMIT PENALTY 1,500 4,893 3,393 326.2% GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 117,900 98,090 -19,811 83.2% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 1,075,609 427,943 -647,666 39.8% FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON - 68,591 68,591 0.0% OLY VIEW WTR DIST. FRANCHISE 124,499 156,754 32,255 125.9% DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 19,000 14,685 -4,315 77.3% NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 47,100 32,150 -14,950 68.3% RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE - 6,531 6,531 0.0% BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 643,991 282,693 -361,298 43.9% ANIMAL LICENSES 14,000 8,759 -5,241 62.6% STREET AND CURB PERMIT 45,000 36,590 -8,410 81.3% OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 6,100 4,355 -1,745 71.4% LICENSES AND PERMITS 2,107,204 1,153,089 -954,115 54.7% GENERAL FUND REVENUES Page 1 Packet Page 254 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT Title Budget 09/30/2010 Revenues Over/Under % Received GENERAL FUND REVENUES HUD EDI Grant - 88,746 88,746 0.0% DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - Bullet Proof Vest 2,500 6,903 4,403 276.1% EECBG Grant - 79,203 79,203 0.0% 2009 Recovery Act Edward Byrne - 24,619 24,619 0.0% WTSC SLOW DOWN OR PAY UP - 2,361 2,361 0.0% WTSC X-52 DUI AND SPEEDING - 5,674 5,674 0.0% WTSC-NIGHT TIME SEAT BELT ENF.- 1,392 1,392 0.0% E07943 P#17 PW#242 2006 Storm Assistance - 100 100 0.0% WSP - DRUG RECOGNITION EXPERT OT 500 - -500 0.0% WA STATE DEPT OF HEALTH GRANT 1,644 - -1,644 0.0% PUD PRIVILEGE TAX 183,859 - -183,859 0.0% JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 15,000 12,773 -2,227 85.2% MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 9,421 6,792 -2,629 72.1% CRIMINAL JUSTICE - SPECIAL PROGRAMS 31,793 25,756 -6,037 81.0% DUI - CITIES 7,337 5,702 -1,635 77.7% LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 205,430 151,507 -53,923 73.8% LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 299,586 248,834 -50,752 83.1% SHARED COURT COSTS 11,000 24 -10,976 0.2% POLICE FBI CONTRACTS 13,500 - -13,500 0.0% DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 9,000 7,262 -1,738 80.7% CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.56,850 24,085 -32,765 42.4% WOODWAY - LAW PROTECTION 7,200 7,542 342 104.8% CITY OF MTLK TERR-ANIMAL CONTR 35,820 - -35,820 0.0% SNOCOM/DIRECTOR SERVICES 179,022 - -179,022 0.0% SNO-ISLE 65,792 49,571 -16,221 75.3% INTERGOVERNMENTAL 1,135,254 748,847 -386,407 66.0% Page 2 Packet Page 255 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT Title Budget 09/30/2010 Revenues Over/Under % Received GENERAL FUND REVENUES RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,300 477 -823 36.7% COURT RECORD SERVICES 1,000 - -1,000 0.0% D/M COURT REC SER - 67 67 0.0% SALE MAPS & BOOKS 1,000 130 -870 13.0% MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 600 160 -440 26.6% PHOTOCOPIES 7,100 2,810 -4,290 39.6% POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 5,200 4,422 -778 85.0% ASSESSMENT SEARCH - 20 20 0.0% PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 30,000 11,675 -18,325 38.9% POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 25,000 26,166 1,166 104.7% ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 123,000 57,631 -65,369 46.9% ELECTRONIC MONITORING 20,000 1,217 -18,783 6.1% ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 13,000 574 -12,426 4.4% BOOKING FEES 7,000 4,600 -2,400 65.7% FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 15,019 5,670 -9,349 37.8% EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 11,000 15,433 4,433 140.3% EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 700,000 315,593 -384,407 45.1% POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 1,000 5 -995 0.5% CRIM CNV FEE DUI 10,700 421 -10,279 3.9% CRIM CONV FEE CT 6,400 5,199 -1,201 81.2% CRIM CONV FEE CN 1,900 1,847 -53 97.2% POLICE TRAINING CLASSES 250 4,028 3,778 1611.3% ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 119,000 75,920 -43,080 63.8% ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 7,500 6,389 -1,112 85.2% ANNUAL VEHICLE FEE (TBD)700,000 442,758 -257,242 63.3% ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 119,000 38,539 -80,461 32.4% FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 11,955 3,330 -8,625 27.9% PLAN CHECKING FEES 335,000 163,094 -171,907 48.7% PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 4,150 1,609 -2,541 38.8% S.E.P.A. REVIEW 14,280 1,940 -12,340 13.6% SHORELINE PERMIT 850 - -850 0.0% CRITICAL AREA STUDY 20,230 19,805 -425 97.9% SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 53,600 66,860 13,260 124.7% LOCKER FEES 500 577 77 115.4% SWIM CLASS FEES 65,350 64,795 -555 99.2% PROGRAM FEES 759,710 704,632 -55,078 92.8% TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 8,600 5,918 -2,682 68.8% BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES - 570 570 0.0% INTERFUND REIMB-CONTRACT SVCS 1,355,059 996,654 -358,405 73.6% CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES 4,555,253 3,051,532 -1,503,721 67.0% Page 3 Packet Page 256 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT Title Budget 09/30/2010 Revenues Over/Under % Received GENERAL FUND REVENUES PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 13,000 5,563 -7,437 42.8% TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 60,000 41,194 -18,806 68.7% BC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 275,000 204,226 -70,774 74.3% NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 6,000 200 -5,800 3.3% OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 600 583 -17 97.1% PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 15,000 22,729 7,729 151.5% PR - HANDICAPPED 8,000 2,350 -5,650 29.4% PARKING INFRACTION LOC 100 260 160 260.0% PARK / INDDISZONE - 139 139 0.0% DWI PENALTIES 7,000 5,941 -1,059 84.9% OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 2,300 101 -2,199 4.4% CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 50,000 37,118 -12,882 74.2% OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 1,900 751 -1,149 39.5% OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 16,000 9,306 -6,694 58.2% COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 1,000 935 -65 93.5% CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 119,000 70,219 -48,781 59.0% JURY DEMAND COST 100 - -100 0.0% PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 39,000 27,844 -11,156 71.4% COURT INTERPRETER COST 300 250 -50 83.4% MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 26,000 2,443 -23,557 9.4% FINES AND FORFEITURES 640,300 432,151 -208,149 67.5% INVESTMENT INTEREST - (381) -381 0.0% INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 25,000 3,974 -21,026 15.9% INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 4,000 2,057 -1,943 51.4% PARKING 4,000 6,883 2,883 172.1% SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 128,230 121,315 -6,915 94.6% GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 8,000 5,739 -2,261 71.7% BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 5,000 3,560 -1,440 71.2% LEASES LONG-TERM 164,570 127,569 -37,001 77.5% VENDING MACHINE CONCESSION 2,200 2,544 344 115.6% OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 14,000 8,445 -5,555 60.3% PARKS DONATIONS 3,900 2,709 -1,191 69.5% BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS - 750 750 0.0% SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE - 1,285 1,285 0.0% SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 3,000 4,169 1,169 139.0% CONFISCATED/FORFEITED PROPERTY - 1,082 1,082 0.0% POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 3,200 255 -2,945 8.0% CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES - 4 4 0.0% OTHER MISC REVENUES 48,712 4,638 -44,074 9.5% SMALL OVERPAYMENT - 80 80 0.0% NSF FEES - PARKS & REC - 120 120 0.0% NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 500 450 -50 90.0% PLANNING SIGN REVENUE 2,000 2,989 989 149.4% SALE OF FIXED ASSETS 1,767,857 968,872 -798,985 54.8% MISCELLANEOUS 2,184,169 1,269,107 -915,062 58.1% Page 4 Packet Page 257 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT Title Budget 09/30/2010 Revenues Over/Under % Received GENERAL FUND REVENUES INTERFUND TRANSFER-IN 25,000 - -25,000 0.0% INTERFUND TRANSFER 25,086 12,543 -12,543 50.0% INTERFUND TRANSFER 54,378 - -54,378 0.0% Interfund transfer from fund 511 - 1,259,932 1,259,932 0.0% TRANSFERS-IN 104,464 1,272,475 1,168,011 1218.1% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 37,856,153 25,973,062 -11,883,091 68.6% Page 5 Packet Page 258 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT #Title Appropriation 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 001 GENERAL FUND 34,545,964 25,940,474 -8,605,490 75.1% 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 465,161 317,529 -147,632 68.3% 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 74,115 27,506 -46,609 37.1% 111 STREET FUND 1,537,232 1,069,696 -467,536 69.6% 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,332,560 367,950 -1,964,610 15.8% 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.3,000,000 2,866 -2,997,134 0.1% 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 205,200 142,598 -62,602 69.5% 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 110,425 34,775 -75,651 31.5% 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 77,883 61,790 -16,093 79.3% 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,086 13,414 -12,672 51.4% 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,400 3,511 111 103.3% 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 22,100 14,634 -7,466 66.2% 125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,190,000 1,567,800 377,800 131.7% 126 REAL EST EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 956,796 102,008 -854,788 10.7% 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 750 8,334 7,584 1111.2% 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 0 16,048 16,048 0.0% 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 151,289 115,318 -35,971 76.2% 131 FIRE DONATIONS 0 22,465 22,465 0.0% 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,784,000 3,313 -1,780,687 0.2% 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 21,000 4,516 -16,484 21.5% 211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 55,300 0 -55,300 0.0% 234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND,452,160 143,580 -308,580 31.8% 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 15,301,171 10,819,133 -4,482,038 70.7% 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 6,823,600 1,420,890 -5,402,710 20.8% 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 571,412 1,756,442 1,185,030 307.4% 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,603,744 2,062,606 458,862 128.6% 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 125,048 81,208 -43,840 64.9% 631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 0 443,362 443,362 0.0% GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS 71,436,396 46,563,767 -24,872,629 65.2% BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND Page 6 Packet Page 259 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT Title Appropriation 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used CITY COUNCIL 309,745 208,819 -100,926 67.4% OFFICE OF MAYOR 271,102 187,176 -83,926 69.0% HUMAN RESOURCES 299,755 188,659 -111,096 62.9% MUNICIPAL COURT 781,567 531,768 -249,799 68.0% ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 79,700 12,980 -66,720 16.3% CITY CLERK 524,619 368,447 -156,172 70.2% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,384,321 889,069 -495,252 64.2% CITY ATTORNEY 501,033 508,100 7,067 101.4% NON-DEPARTMENTAL 12,051,215 10,281,633 -1,769,582 85.3% POLICE SERVICES 9,662,319 6,628,179 -3,034,140 68.6% FIRE SERVICES 0 28,099 28,099 0.0% COMMUNITY SERVICES 326,699 306,758 -19,941 93.9% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 3,178,204 1,986,420 -1,191,784 62.5% PARKS & RECREATION 3,449,470 2,527,994 -921,476 73.3% PUBLIC WORKS 324,112 293,464 -30,648 90.5% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,402,103 992,907 -409,196 70.8% GENERAL FUND 34,545,964 25,940,474 -8,605,490 75.1% 8,605,490.48 Title Appropriation 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY 1,930,689 1,343,712 -586,977 69.6% WATER 4,216,960 2,951,365 -1,265,595 70.0% SEWER 5,754,718 4,377,852 -1,376,866 76.1% TREATMENT PLANT 3,398,804 2,146,204 -1,252,600 63.1% COMBINED UTILITY OPS 15,301,171 10,819,133 -4,482,038 70.7% BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT - GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT - COMBINED UTILITY PAGE 7 Packet Page 260 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30,2010 BUDGET REPORT 001 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 12,894,532 8,759,105 -4,135,427 67.9% 120 OVERTIME 309,801 362,112 52,311 116.9% 150 HOLIDAY BUYBACK 189,869 1,648 -188,221 0.9% 230 BENEFITS 4,940,101 3,674,865 -1,265,236 74.4% 240 UNIFORMS 67,695 34,357 -33,338 50.8% 310 SUPPLIES 455,451 284,527 -170,924 62.5% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 91 -909 9.1% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 127,915 144,131 16,216 112.7% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,703,491 1,368,220 -335,271 80.3% 420 COMMUNICATION 219,926 146,746 -73,180 66.7% 430 TRAVEL 57,530 20,500 -37,030 35.6% 440 ADVERTISING 81,912 37,793 -44,119 46.1% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 140,878 112,532 -28,346 79.9% 460 INSURANCE 429,000 456,368 27,368 106.4% 470 PUBLIC UTILITY 445,916 317,150 -128,766 71.1% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 242,078 130,159 -111,919 53.8% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 306,835 141,618 -165,216 46.2% 510 INTERGOVTL SVC 8,286,405 7,836,716 -449,689 94.6% 530 EXCISE TAXES 11,000 4,509 -6,491 41.0% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFERS-OUT 1,266,189 1,157,572 -108,617 91.4% 640 EQUIPMENT 30,000 - -30,000 0.0% 710 1998 LTGO REF BOND PRINCIPAL 969,661 - -969,661 0.0% 750 FIRE STATION # 20 - PRINCIPAL 62,131 62,131 0 100.0% 790 2005 LOAN-PHONE SYSTEM 22,882 22,883 1 100.0% 830 1998 BONDS - INTEREST 367,777 158,188 -209,589 43.0% 890 OTR INTEREST AND DEBT SERVICE COSTS 1,500 - -1,500 0.0% 921 INTERFUND FUEL - BOAT - 361 361 0.0% 931 INTERFUND SUPPLIES - BOAT - 6,387 6,387 0.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 913,489 685,132 -228,357 75.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,000 - -1,000 0.0% 981 INTERFUND REPAIR - BOAT - 14,672 14,672 0.0% 34,545,964 25,940,474 -8,605,490 75.1% 009 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 230 BENEFITS 408,161 262,752 -145,409 64.4% 290 In-Home LTC Claims 55,000 39,218 -15,783 71.3% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 15,560 14,560 1,556.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 - -1,000 0.0% 465,161 317,529 -147,632 68.3% GENERAL FUND LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE PAGE 8 Packet Page 261 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30,2010 BUDGET REPORT 104 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 310 SUPPLIES 200 - -200 0.0% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 2,000 1,669 -331 83.5% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 - -5,000 0.0% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 971 -1,262 43.5% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 800 - -800 0.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 5,000 -15,000 25.0% 510 INTERGOVTL SVC 43,882 19,866 -24,016 45.3% 74,115 27,506 -46,609 37.1% 111 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 465,483 379,313 -86,170 81.5% 120 OVERTIME 32,413 14,633 -17,780 45.1% 230 BENEFITS 173,517 142,097 -31,420 81.9% 240 UNIFORMS 7,300 4,766 -2,534 65.3% 310 SUPPLIES 208,400 112,939 -95,461 54.2% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 34,136 14,294 -19,842 41.9% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19,000 463 -18,537 2.4% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 4,200 2,026 -2,174 48.2% 430 TRAINING 3,380 - -3,380 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 2,500 928 -1,572 37.1% 460 INSURANCE 37,478 49,223 11,745 131.3% 470 PUBLIC UTILITY 254,250 184,328 -69,922 72.5% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 15,300 6,523 -8,777 42.6% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 12,660 4,970 -7,690 39.3% 510 INTERGOVTL SVC 16,000 1,993 -14,007 12.5% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 10,595 - -10,595 0.0% 710 1998 LTGO REF BOND PRINCIPAL 35,929 - -35,929 0.0% 830 2007 LTGO BOND - INTEREST 9,266 4,633 -4,633 50.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 195,425 146,567 -48,858 75.0% 1,537,232 1,069,696 -467,536 69.6% 112 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 72,975 72,975 0.0% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT 162,086 42,087 -119,999 26.0% 650 CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS 2,082,711 144,134 -1,938,577 6.9% 780 PWTF LOAN-220TH ST SW 04-691-029 PRINC 39,319 39,320 1 100.0% 781 PWTFL-100TH AVE W 06-962-012 PRINCIPAL 32,882 32,882 0 100.0% 830 PWTF LOAN-220TH ST SW 04-691-029 INTER 2,767 2,768 1 100.0% 831 PWTFL-100TH AVE W 06-962-012 INTEREST 2,795 2,795 0 100.0% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 10,000 30,991 20,991 309.9% 2,332,560 367,950 -1,964,610 15.8% DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND STREET FUND COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE PAGE 9 Packet Page 262 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30,2010 BUDGET REPORT 113 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 3,000,000 2,866 -2,997,134 0.1% 3,000,000 2,866 -2,997,134 0.1% 116 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 310 SUPPLIES 2,500 31,043 28,543 1,241.7% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000 18,461 8,461 184.6% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE - 93,093 93,093 0.0% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 200 - -200 0.0% 650 PROJECTS 192,500 - -192,500 0.0% 205,200 142,598 -62,602 69.5% 117 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 310 SUPPLIES 4,475 949 -3,526 21.2% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 1,014 14 101.4% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVS 84,200 24,165 -60,035 28.7% 440 ADVERTISING 4,000 4,000 0 100.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,000 - -1,000 0.0% 480 REPAIRS/MAINT.300 - -300 0.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 12,450 4,647 -7,803 37.3% 550 TRANSFER TO FUND 117 3,000 - -3,000 0.0% 110,425 34,775 -75,651 31.5% 120 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 23,000 12,778 -10,222 55.6% 440 ADVERTISING 25,000 39,479 14,479 157.9% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 10,000 508 -9,492 5.1% 550 TRANSFER TO FUND 623 19,883 9,025 -10,858 45.4% 77,883 61,790 -16,093 79.3% 121 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 310 SUPPLIES 1,000 871 -129 87.1% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 25,086 12,543 -12,543 50.0% 26,086 13,414 -12,672 51.4% MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. BUILDING MAINTENANCE MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND PAGE 10 Packet Page 263 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30,2010 BUDGET REPORT 122 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 490 MISCELLANEOUS 3,400 3,511 111 103.3% 3,400 3,511 111 103.3% 123 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 310 SUPPLIES 100 - -100 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 10,500 6,704 -3,796 63.8% 440 ADVERTISING 3,000 4,715 1,715 157.2% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 8,500 3,216 -5,284 37.8% 22,100 14,634 -7,466 66.2% 125 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 310 SUPPLIES - 41,937 41,937 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 30,000 201,559 171,559 671.9% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 334,000 66,069 -267,931 19.8% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 796,000 - -796,000 0.0% 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 30,000 1,107,058 1,077,058 3,690.2% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES - 151,177 151,177 0.0% 1,190,000 1,567,800 377,800 131.7% 126 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 310 SUPPLIES 5,000 - -5,000 0.0% 550 TRANSFER TO FUND 234 70,792 17,896 -52,896 25.3% 610 LAND 250,000 - -250,000 0.0% 710 1998 REF BOND PRINCIPAL 461,581 - -461,581 0.0% 830 2001 BONDS, B - INTEREST 168,223 84,111 -84,112 50.0% 890 FISCAL AGENT FEES 1,200 - -1,200 0.0% 956,796 102,008 -854,788 10.7% 127 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 310 SUPPLIES 350 3,834 3,484 1,095.3% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 400 4,500 4,100 1,125.0% 750 8,334 7,584 1,111.2% YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND GIFTS CATALOG FUND PAGE 11 Packet Page 264 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30,2010 BUDGET REPORT 129 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 16,048 16,048 0.0% - 16,048 16,048 0.0% 130 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 68,505 49,884 -18,621 72.8% 120 OVERTIME 2,050 2,342 292 114.2% 230 BENEFITS 29,053 21,466 -7,587 73.9% 240 UNIFORMS 1,000 - -1,000 0.0% 310 SUPPLIES 7,000 8,798 1,798 125.7% 340 RESALE ITEMS 20,000 14,258 -5,742 71.3% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 1,000 1,459 459 145.9% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 1,021 -391 72.3% 430 TRAVEL 1,000 - -1,000 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 3,000 889 -2,111 29.6% 470 PUBLIC UTILITY 3,800 2,629 -1,171 69.2% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 500 5,327 4,827 1,065.4% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 522 -478 52.2% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 3,000 - -3,000 0.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 8,969 6,723 -2,246 75.0% 151,289 115,318 -35,971 76.2% 131 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 490 MISCELLANEOUS - 22,465 22,465 0.0% - 22,465 22,465 0.0% 132 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 3,313 3,313 0.0% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER TO FD 117 17,840 - -17,840 0.0% 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,766,160 - -1,766,160 0.0% 1,784,000 3,313 -1,780,687 0.2% 138 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 310 SUPPLIES 1,000 - -1,000 0.0% 430 STUDENT TRIP 16,500 - -16,500 0.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 3,500 4,516 1,016 129.0% 21,000 4,516 -16,484 21.5% SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT FIRE DONATIONS PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND SISTER CITY COMMISSION PAGE 12 Packet Page 265 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30,2010 BUDGET REPORT 211 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 490 ACCOUNTING MISCELLANEOUS 300 - -300 0.0% 730 LID BONDS PRINCIPAL 50,000 - -50,000 0.0% 830 INT LT EXTERNAL DEBT 5,000 - -5,000 0.0% 55,300 - -55,300 0.0% 234 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 710 2002 BOND PRINCIPAL 165,000 - -165,000 0.0% 830 2002 BOND INTEREST 287,160 143,580 -143,580 50.0% 452,160 143,580 -308,580 31.8% L.I.D. FUND CONTROL LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND, PAGE 13 Packet Page 266 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30,2010 BUDGET REPORT 411 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 2,773,158 1,918,419 -854,739 69.2% 120 OVERTIME 117,320 71,172 -46,148 60.7% 230 BENEFITS 1,034,942 743,867 -291,075 71.9% 240 UNIFORMS 28,800 16,468 -12,332 57.2% 310 SUPPLIES 630,709 371,721 -258,988 58.9% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 140,030 30,593 -109,437 21.8% 330 WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,540,000 860,025 -679,975 55.8% 340 WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 3,000 - -3,000 0.0% 341 WATER PARTS INVENTORY 80,000 19,251 -60,749 24.1% 342 WATER METER INVENTORY 60,000 44,703 -15,297 74.5% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 24,100 19,516 -4,584 81.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 206,373 68,190 -138,183 33.0% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 71,955 45,369 -26,586 63.1% 430 TRAINING 19,430 1,130 -18,300 5.8% 440 ADVERTISING 2,820 - -2,820 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 32,420 9,859 -22,561 30.4% 460 INSURANCE 344,938 391,000 46,062 113.4% 470 PUBLIC UTILITY 500,024 43,141 -456,883 8.6% 471 UTILITY SERVICES ACCRUAL 375,490 237,778 -137,712 63.3% 472 PUBLIC UTILITY - WWTP ACCOUNTS 8,240 396,096 387,856 4,807.0% 473 CITY WATER 5,660 5,172 -488 91.4% 474 ASH DISPOSAL 54,590 32,795 -21,795 60.1% 475 SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING 1,000 280 -720 28.0% 480 REPAIR/MAINTENANCE 109,488 26,017 -83,471 23.8% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 458,970 357,956 -101,014 78.0% 510 INTERGOVTL SVC 288,676 220,590 -68,086 76.4% 540 STORMWATER TAX 594,000 1,055,121 461,121 177.6% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 3,308,313 2,362,047 -946,266 71.4% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1,925 7,859 5,934 408.3% 710 1998 LTGO BOND PRIN 103,866 - -103,866 0.0% 720 1998 WTR/SWR RFD ISSUE EDWAT98-PRINC 353,507 - -353,507 0.0% 780 PWTF-2005 SWR LIFT STN 05-691-015 PRNCP 85,618 160,397 74,779 187.3% 790 2005 BOA PHONE SYSTEM PRINCIPAL 15,254 15,255 1 100.0% 830 2005 BOA PHONE SYSTEM INTEREST 193,217 105,267 -87,950 54.5% 831 2007 LTGO BOND - INTEREST 1,282 641 -641 50.0% 840 AMORTIZED DEBT ISSUE COSTS 33,104 24,827 -8,277 75.0% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 1,243,611 816,987 -426,624 65.7% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 452,841 339,624 -113,217 75.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS/MAINT 2,500 - -2,500 0.0% 15,301,171 10,819,133 -4,482,038 70.7% COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION PAGE 14 Packet Page 267 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30,2010 BUDGET REPORT 412 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 1,151,128 1,151,128 0.0% 550 Transfer to Fund 117 196,000 62,375 -133,625 31.8% 650 SR 104 SEWER MAIN REHAB PROJECT 6,627,600 207,387 -6,420,213 3.1% 6,823,600 1,420,890 -5,402,710 20.8% 414 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 498,722 498,722 0.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 129,790 - -129,790 0.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS - 2,653 2,653 0.0% 650 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 100,000 1,164,209 1,064,209 1,164.2% 710 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 144,222 - -144,222 0.0% 720 2001 G.O. BOND - PRINCIPAL 53,663 - -53,663 0.0% 780 PWTF-2002 SANITARY SWR 02-691-019 PRN 34,875 34,875 0 100.0% 830 PWTF-2002 SANITARY SWR 02-691-019 INTR 39,383 21,243 -18,140 53.9% 831 2007 LTGO BOND - INTEREST 69,479 34,740 -34,739 50.0% 571,412 1,756,442 1,185,030 307.4% 511 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 212,655 156,523 -56,132 73.6% 120 OVERTIME 2,000 738 -1,262 36.9% 230 BENEFITS 78,264 63,888 -14,376 81.6% 240 UNIFORMS 2,000 761 -1,239 38.0% 310 SUPPLIES 70,000 50,933 -19,067 72.8% 311 SHOP SUPPLIES - 4,260 4,260 0.0% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 4,120 427 -3,693 10.4% 340 FUEL - DIESEL 499,973 167,299 -332,674 33.5% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 20,000 6,549 -13,451 32.7% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,550 713 -2,837 20.1% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,649 -351 88.3% 430 TRAVEL 2,000 30 -1,970 1.5% 440 ADVERTISING 500 145 -355 29.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE - 3,434 3,434 0.0% 460 INSURANCE 36,985 38,257 1,272 103.4% 470 PUBLIC UTILITY 17,000 8,302 -8,698 48.8% 480 RADIO REPAIR/MAINT 145,000 36,729 -108,271 25.3% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 6,339 2,339 158.5% 510 INTERGOVTL SVC 4,000 2,145 -1,855 53.6% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER - 1,452,677 1,452,677 0.0% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 471,500 53,659 -417,841 11.4% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES-CAPITAL COSTS 19,000 - -19,000 0.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 8,197 6,147 -2,050 75.0% 1,603,744 2,062,606 458,862 128.6% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE PAGE 15 Packet Page 268 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30,2010 BUDGET REPORT 617 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES - 37,204 37,204 0.0% 230 BENEFITS 71,000 39,589 -31,411 55.8% 290 PENSION PAYMENTS 54,048 - -54,048 0.0% 410 PROF SERVICES - 4,415 4,415 0.0% 125,048 81,208 -43,840 64.9% 631 #Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - 564 564 0.0% 510 INTERGOVTL SERVICES - 442,798 442,798 0.0% - 443,362 443,362 0.0% FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT PAGE 16 Packet Page 269 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT 110 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 114,462 77,166 -37,296 67.4% 120 OVERTIME 5,590 5,300 -290 94.8% 230 BENEFITS 99,743 68,220 -31,523 68.4% 310 SUPPLIES 1,000 844 -156 84.4% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT - 327 327 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 56,000 49,717 -6,283 88.8% 420 COMMUNICATIONS - 44 44 0.0% 430 TRAVEL 2,500 302 -2,198 12.1% 480 REPAIRS/MAINT 1,500 1,212 -288 80.8% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 28,950 5,685 -23,265 19.6% 309,745 208,819 -100,926 67.4% 210 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 205,650 146,187 -59,463 71.1% 230 BENEFITS 53,352 33,520 -19,832 62.8% 310 SUPPLIES 3,000 2,075 -925 69.2% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,100 602 -498 54.7% 420 COMMUNICATION 1,400 1,468 68 104.8% 430 TRAVEL 1,500 408 -1,092 27.2% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 1,245 -255 83.0% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 100 370 270 369.5% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 3,500 1,302 -2,198 37.2% 271,102 187,176 -83,926 69.0% 220 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 184,335 126,229 -58,106 68.5% 230 BENEFITS 57,154 38,387 -18,767 67.2% 310 SUPPLIES 2,756 1,996 -760 72.4% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - -100 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 24,500 7,182 -17,318 29.3% 420 COMMUNICATIONS - 512 512 0.0% 430 TRAVEL 500 - -500 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 10,000 8,913 -1,087 89.1% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,245 -755 62.2% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 370 -5,630 6.2% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 12,410 3,825 -8,585 30.8% 299,755 188,659 -111,096 62.9% CITY COUNCIL OFFICE OF MAYOR HUMAN RESOURCES PAGE 17 Packet Page 270 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT 230 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 513,233 348,410 -164,823 67.9% 120 OVERTIME 2,900 1,837 -1,063 63.4% 230 BENEFITS 172,284 112,353 -59,931 65.2% 310 SUPPLIES 16,000 11,304 -4,696 70.6% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,700 3,200 1,500 188.2% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 55,000 45,799 -9,201 83.3% 420 COMMUNICATIONS - 1,816 1,816 0.0% 430 TRAVEL 2,800 957 -1,843 34.2% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,900 1,489 -411 78.4% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 1,050 1,619 569 154.2% 490 MISC - JURY 3,700 2,025 -1,675 54.7% 510 INTERGOVTL SVC 11,000 960 -10,040 8.7% 781,567 531,768 -249,799 68.0% 240 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 310 SUPPLIES 2,500 380 -2,120 15.2% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 800 - -800 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 19,000 3,776 -15,224 19.9% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 9,400 8 -9,392 0.1% 430 TRAVEL 3,000 9 -2,991 0.3% 440 ADVERTISING 40,000 6,192 -33,808 15.5% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 5,000 2,615 -2,385 52.3% 79,700 12,980 -66,720 16.3% 250 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES AND WAGES 275,219 203,838 -71,381 74.1% 120 OVERTIME 410 - -410 0.0% 230 BENEFITS 88,583 59,213 -29,370 66.8% 310 SUPPLIES 13,760 11,706 -2,054 85.1% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 27,250 20,900 -6,350 76.7% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 59,050 33,512 -25,538 56.8% 430 TRAVEL 2,080 117 -1,963 5.6% 440 ADVERTISING 20,420 17,330 -3,090 84.9% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 23,810 16,573 -7,237 69.6% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANC 8,037 3,255 -4,782 40.5% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 2,003 -3,997 33.4% 524,619 368,447 -156,172 70.2% MUNICIPAL COURT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY CLERK PAGE 18 Packet Page 271 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT 310 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 685,382 459,503 -225,879 67.0% 120 OVERTIME 6,100 7,374 1,274 120.9% 230 BENEFITS 206,000 134,392 -71,608 65.2% 310 SUPPLIES 78,750 38,556 -40,194 49.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 93,500 100,831 7,331 107.8% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 68,750 44,838 -23,912 65.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 72,494 48,321 -24,173 66.7% 430 TRAVEL 2,750 298 -2,452 10.8% 440 ADVERTISING - 25 25 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 9,600 9,499 -101 99.0% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 109,995 39,572 -70,423 36.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 21,000 5,859 -15,141 27.9% 640 DP MACHINERY/EQUP 30,000 - -30,000 0.0% 1,384,321 889,069 -495,252 64.2% 360 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 498,033 508,100 10,067 102.0% 490 MISC PROSECUTOR 3,000 - -3,000 0.0% 501,033 508,100 7,067 101.4% 390 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 000 DISCOUNT ON GO BONDS 3,310,189 - -3,310,189 0.0% 110 SALARIES - SNOCOM DIR 142,800 - -142,800 0.0% 230 BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYM 962,229 806,417 -155,812 83.8% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC PUB 255,898 173,195 -82,703 67.7% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 3,600 2,700 -900 75.0% 460 INSURANCE 429,000 456,368 27,368 106.4% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 87,111 51,279 -35,831 58.9% 510 INTERGOVT SVC 7,469,437 7,386,391 -83,046 98.9% 530 EXCISE TAXES 11,000 4,509 -6,491 41.0% 550 TRANSFER OUT FD 617 1,266,189 1,157,572 -108,617 91.4% 710 1996 BOND - PRINCIPAL 969,661 - -969,661 0.0% 750 STATION # 20 - PRIN 62,131 62,131 0 100.0% 790 2005 LOAN-PHONE SYSTE 22,882 22,883 1 100.0% 830 2007 LTGO BOND - INTER 367,777 158,188 -209,589 43.0% 890 OTR INT/DEBT SVCE COS 1,500 - -1,500 0.0% 15,361,404 10,281,633 -5,079,771 66.9% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CITY ATTORNEY NON-DEPARTMENTAL PAGE 19 Packet Page 272 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT 410 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 5,613,213 3,753,491 -1,859,722 66.9% 120 OVERTIME 261,499 337,100 75,601 128.9% 150 HOLIDAY BUYBACK 189,869 1,648 -188,221 0.9% 230 BENEFITS 1,735,909 1,307,702 -428,207 75.3% 240 UNIFORMS 55,880 30,001 -25,879 53.7% 310 SUPPLIES 83,925 60,258 -23,667 71.8% 320 FUEL CONSUMED - 91 91 0.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 16,115 28,130 12,015 174.6% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 131,431 68,132 -63,299 51.8% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 21,700 20,576 -1,124 94.8% 430 TRAVEL 28,520 15,358 -13,162 53.9% 440 ADVERTISING 2,500 230 -2,270 9.2% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 12,000 12,957 957 108.0% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 27,094 11,509 -15,585 42.5% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 43,324 23,179 -20,145 53.5% 510 INTERGOVTL SVC 738,718 411,667 -327,052 55.7% 921 INTERFUND FUEL - BOAT - 361 361 0.0% 931 INTERFUND SUPPLIES - B - 6,387 6,387 0.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 699,622 524,729 -174,893 75.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIRS 1,000 - -1,000 0.0% 981 INTERFUND REPAIR - BO - 14,672 14,672 0.0% 9,662,319 6,628,179 -3,034,140 68.6% 510 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 230 BENEFITS - 9,152 9,152 0.0% 240 UNIFORMS - 288 288 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC - 13,561 13,561 0.0% 420 COMMUNICATION - 4,166 4,166 0.0% 480 REPAIRS - 131 131 0.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS - 802 802 0.0% - 28,099 28,099 0.0% 610 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 218,676 152,365 -66,311 69.7% 120 OVERTIME 1,117 - -1,117 0.0% 230 BENEFITS 54,639 36,596 -18,043 67.0% 310 SUPPLIES 2,000 353 -1,647 17.6% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 500 - -500 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 42,000 114,250 72,250 272.0% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 690 512 -178 74.2% 430 TRAVEL 2,000 11 -1,989 0.5% 440 ADVERTISING 1,060 - -1,060 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,320 1,245 -75 94.3% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 500 370 -130 73.9% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,000 914 -1,086 45.7% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 197 144 -53 73.1% 326,699 306,758 -19,941 93.9% POLICE SERVICES FIRE SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMIN PAGE 20 Packet Page 273 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT 620 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 1,270,844 806,739 -464,105 63.5% 120 Overtime 6,020 1,592 -4,428 26.5% 230 BENEFITS 389,355 257,920 -131,435 66.2% 240 UNIFORMS 1,655 - -1,655 0.0% 310 SUPPLIES 30,700 12,135 -18,566 39.5% 350 MINOR EQUIPMENT 1,900 - -1,900 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 190,750 53,786 -136,964 28.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 6,784 3,743 -3,042 55.2% 430 TRAVEL 6,630 1,363 -5,267 20.6% 440 ADVERTISING 3,580 1,868 -1,712 52.2% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 27,590 15,342 -12,248 55.6% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANC 14,598 2,153 -12,445 14.8% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 43,215 12,155 -31,060 28.1% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 16,793 12,594 -4,199 75.0% 2,010,414 1,181,390 -829,024 58.8% 620 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 856,006 587,115 -268,891 68.6% 120 OVERTIME 11,965 832 -11,133 7.0% 230 BENEFITS 256,916 179,417 -77,499 69.8% 240 UNIFORMS 620 - -620 0.0% 310 SUPPLIES - 696 696 0.0% 350 MINOR EQUIPMENT 500 3,946 3,446 789.3% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 2,000 6,059 4,059 302.9% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 8,400 4,081 -4,319 48.6% 430 TRAVEL 620 357 -263 57.6% 440 ADVERTISING 500 - -500 0.0% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 1,780 365 -1,415 20.5% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 5,250 4,737 -513 90.2% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 23,233 17,426 -5,807 75.0% 1,167,790 805,030 -362,760 68.9% DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING ENGINEERING PAGE 21 Packet Page 274 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT 640 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 1,946,503 1,403,536 -542,967 72.1% 120 OVERTIME 5,500 2,918 -2,582 53.1% 230 Employee Benefits 572,612 405,881 -166,731 70.9% 240 UNIFORMS 6,540 2,076 -4,464 31.7% 310 SUPPLIES 119,600 93,212 -26,388 77.9% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 2,800 2,876 76 102.7% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 331,779 258,285 -73,494 77.8% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 24,528 16,481 -8,047 67.2% 430 TRAVEL 2,870 1,050 -1,820 36.6% 440 ADVERTISING 3,852 3,236 -616 84.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 51,072 44,516 -6,556 87.2% 470 PUBLIC UTILITY 133,416 120,111 -13,305 90.0% 480 REPAIRS & MAINTENANC 24,324 20,251 -4,073 83.3% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 35,975 22,980 -12,995 63.9% 510 INTERGOVTL SVC 64,250 37,698 -26,552 58.7% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 123,849 92,887 -30,962 75.0% 3,449,470 2,527,994 -921,476 73.3% 650 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 230,224 221,338 -8,886 96.1% 120 OVERTIME 200 235 35 117.7% 230 BENEFITS 70,540 56,454 -14,086 80.0% 310 SUPPLIES 5,460 3,615 -1,845 66.2% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE - 39 39 0.0% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 480 960 480 200.1% 430 TRAVEL 960 268 -692 27.9% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 6,486 5,536 -950 85.4% 470 PUBLIC UTILITY 2,500 1,643 -857 65.7% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 2,100 64 -2,036 3.1% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 2,200 1,088 -1,112 49.4% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 2,962 2,223 -739 75.1% 324,112 293,464 -30,648 90.5% PARKS & RECREATION PUBLIC WORKS PAGE 22 Packet Page 275 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT 651 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 637,985 473,189 -164,796 74.2% 120 OVERTIME 8,500 4,922 -3,578 57.9% 230 BENEFITS 220,785 169,241 -51,544 76.7% 240 UNIFORMS 3,000 1,992 -1,008 66.4% 310 SUPPLIES 96,000 47,399 -48,601 49.4% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 - -1,000 0.0% 350 MINOR EQUIPMENT 10,000 4,822 -5,178 48.2% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 15,000 10,548 -4,452 70.3% 430 TRAVEL 800 - -800 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE - 183 183 0.0% 470 PUBLIC UTILITY 310,000 195,396 -114,604 63.0% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 45,000 48,918 3,918 108.7% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 4,200 1,169 -3,031 27.8% 510 INTERGOVTL SVC 3,000 - -3,000 0.0% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 46,833 35,129 -11,704 75.0% 1,402,103 992,907 -409,196 70.8% FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PAGE 23 Packet Page 276 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT 652 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 458,420 314,061 -144,359 68.5% 120 OVERTIME 22,360 7,011 -15,349 31.4% 230 BENEFITS 175,230 129,689 -45,541 74.0% 240 UNIFORMS 6,500 4,707 -1,793 72.4% 310 SUPPLIES 49,500 12,251 -37,249 24.7% 350 MINOR EQUIPMENT 2,800 3,422 622 122.2% 410 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 22,115 5,446 -16,669 24.6% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 854 -2,346 26.7% 430 TRAINING 3,330 37 -3,293 1.1% 440 ADVERTISING 500 - -500 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 24,000 5,397 -18,603 22.5% 460 INSURANCE 38,828 49,223 10,395 126.8% 470 UTILITIES 10,000 6,242 -3,758 62.4% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 8,486 6,238 -2,248 73.5% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 68,540 55,707 -12,833 81.3% 510 INTERGOVT SERVICE 20,070 34,300 14,230 170.9% 540 STORMWATER TAX 108,000 172,256 64,256 159.5% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 18,126 - -18,126 0.0% 640 MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 1,925 - -1,925 0.0% 710 1998 LTGO BOND PRIN 100,545 - -100,545 0.0% 720 2003 WTR/SWR ISSUE -PR 36,005 - -36,005 0.0% 780 PWTF-STMWTR OUTFALL 32,063 32,063 -1 100.0% 790 2005 BOA PHONE SYSTEM 1,842 1,842 0 100.0% 830 2005 BOA PHONE SYSTEM 91,865 47,426 -44,439 51.6% 910 INTERFUND SERVICES 436,736 313,271 -123,465 71.7% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 189,703 142,272 -47,431 75.0% 1,930,689 1,343,712 -586,977 69.6% STORM DRAINAGE PAGE 24 Packet Page 277 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT 654 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 RCP - SALARIES 689,345 463,862 -225,483 67.3% 120 OVERTIME 24,180 18,764 -5,416 77.6% 230 RCP - BENEFITS 249,338 170,112 -79,226 68.2% 240 UNIFORMS 6,880 2,293 -4,587 33.3% 310 SUPPLIES 135,000 91,206 -43,794 67.6% 320 FUEL CONSUMED - 421 421 0.0% 330 WATER PURCHASED FOR 1,540,000 860,025 -679,975 55.8% 341 WATER PARTS INVENTOR 80,000 19,251 -60,749 24.1% 342 WATER METER INVENTO 60,000 44,703 -15,297 74.5% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,000 7,775 -2,225 77.8% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 74,300 26,021 -48,279 35.0% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 18,772 -11,228 62.6% 430 RCP - TRAVEL 4,850 - -4,850 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 560 - -560 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 640 -860 42.7% 460 INSURANCE 86,849 81,729 -5,120 94.1% 470 PUBLIC UTILITY 28,000 14,443 -13,557 51.6% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 22,286 383 -21,903 1.7% 490 RCP - MISCELLANEOUS 211,630 175,303 -36,327 82.8% 510 INTERGOVTL SVC 30,000 28,747 -1,253 95.8% 540 WATER TAX 216,000 530,739 314,739 245.7% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER-O 18,126 - -18,126 0.0% 640 EQUIPMENT - 7,859 7,859 0.0% 710 2007 LTGO BOND - PRINC 1,845 - -1,845 0.0% 720 2003 WTR/SWR -PRINCPL 116,226 - -116,226 0.0% 780 PWTF LOAN-5 CORNERS P 4,295 24,270 19,975 565.1% 790 2005 BOA PHONE SYSTEM 5,343 5,343 0 100.0% 830 2005 BOA PHONE SYSTEM 57,040 29,914 -27,126 52.4% 840 AMORTIZED DEBT ISSUE 16,552 12,414 -4,138 75.0% 910 INTERFUND SVC 361,169 214,641 -146,528 59.4% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 135,646 101,736 -33,910 75.0% 4,216,960 2,951,365 -1,265,595 70.0% WATER PAGE 25 Packet Page 278 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT 655 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 426,330 296,015 -130,315 69.4% 120 OVERTIME 17,330 8,276 -9,054 47.8% 230 BENEFITS 180,340 129,335 -51,005 71.7% 240 UNIFORMS 5,170 2,183 -2,987 42.2% 310 SUPPLIES 52,469 24,521 -27,948 46.7% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 800 - -800 0.0% 340 SEWER INVENTORY 3,000 - -3,000 0.0% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,000 8,319 2,319 138.7% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 50,958 13,516 -37,442 26.5% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 19,395 -10,605 64.7% 430 TRAVEL 2,490 - -2,490 0.0% 440 ADVERTISING 560 - -560 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 1,870 1,160 -710 62.0% 460 INSURANCE 129,098 168,102 39,004 130.2% 470 PUBLIC UTILITY 462,024 22,456 -439,568 4.9% 472 PUBLIC UTILITY - WWTP - 392,556 392,556 0.0% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 18,666 2,617 -16,049 14.0% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 100,000 74,152 -25,848 74.2% 510 INTERGOVTL SVS 139,906 119,009 -20,897 85.1% 540 SEWER UTILITY TAX 270,000 352,127 82,127 130.4% 550 INTERFUND TRANSFER 3,272,061 2,362,047 -910,014 72.2% 710 2007 LTGO BOND - PRINC 1,476 - -1,476 0.0% 720 1998 WTR/SWR -PRINCPL 102,750 - -102,750 0.0% 780 PWTF-2005 SWR LIFT STN 49,260 104,065 54,805 211.3% 790 2005 BOA PHONE SYSTEM 3,283 3,284 1 100.0% 830 2005 BOA PHONE SYSTEM 24,211 17,840 -6,371 73.7% 831 2007 LTGO BOND - INTER 1,282 641 -641 50.0% 840 AMORTIZED DEBT ISSUE 16,552 12,413 -4,139 75.0% 910 INTERFUND SVC 265,706 154,860 -110,846 58.3% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 118,626 88,965 -29,661 75.0% 980 INTERFUND REPAIR/MAI 2,500 - -2,500 0.0% 5,754,718 4,377,852 -1,376,866 76.1% SEWER PAGE 26 Packet Page 279 of 364 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 BUDGET REPORT 656 # Title Budget 09/30/2010 Expenditures Over/Under % Used 110 SALARIES 1,199,063 844,482 -354,581 70.4% 120 OVERTIME 53,450 37,121 -16,329 69.5% 230 BENEFITS 430,034 314,732 -115,302 73.2% 240 UNIFORMS 10,250 7,286 -2,964 71.1% 310 SUPPLIES 393,740 243,744 -149,996 61.9% 320 FUEL CONSUMED 139,230 30,172 -109,058 21.7% 350 SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,300 - -5,300 0.0% 410 PROFESSIONAL SVC 59,000 23,208 -35,792 39.3% 420 COMMUNICATIONS 8,755 6,348 -2,407 72.5% 430 TRAVEL 8,760 1,094 -7,666 12.5% 440 ADVERTISING 1,200 - -1,200 0.0% 450 RENTAL/LEASE 5,050 2,662 -2,388 52.7% 460 INSURANCE 90,163 91,945 1,782 102.0% 471 ELETRICITY PLANT 375,490 237,778 -137,712 63.3% 472 NATURAL GAS 8,240 3,540 -4,700 43.0% 473 CITY WATER 5,660 5,172 -488 91.4% 474 ASH DISPOSAL 54,590 32,795 -21,795 60.1% 475 SOLID WASTE/RECYCLIN 1,000 280 -720 28.0% 480 REPAIR/MAINT 60,050 16,779 -43,271 27.9% 490 MISCELLANEOUS 78,800 52,793 -26,007 67.0% 510 INTERGOVTL SVS 98,700 38,533 -60,167 39.0% 720 2003 WTR/SWR ISSUE -PR 98,526 - -98,526 0.0% 790 2005 BOA PHONE SYSTEM 4,786 4,786 0 100.0% 830 2005 BOA PHONE SYSTEM 20,101 10,088 -10,013 50.2% 910 INTERFUND SVC 180,000 134,216 -45,784 74.6% 950 INTERFUND RENTAL 8,866 6,651 -2,215 75.0% 3,398,804 2,146,204 -1,252,600 63.1% TREATMENT PLANT PAGE 27 Packet Page 280 of 364 AM-3513 Item #: 2. F. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Department:Community Services Committee:Finance Type:Action Information Subject Title Review City of Edmonds Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action On November 2, 2010, the Edmonds City Council referred the attached Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda to the Community Services/Development Services, Finance and Public Safety Committees in order to give each committee an opportunity to review and discuss agenda items related to each committee. Narrative The attached proposed Draft 2011 legislative agenda outlines prioritized items which, if approved by the City Council, will serve as a scope of work for Mike Doubleday and staff during the 2011 Washington State legislative session/year. Mr. Doubleday attended the November 1, 2010 City Council meeting to present an overview of the legislative agenda. During the meeting, City Council members expressed the following: Council member Wilson: • Asked for clarification on Tax Increment Financing • Asked about legislative priorities related to transportation • Expressed removing Secondary Priority Agenda Item 6 "Red Light Cameras" from the agenda • Discussed the possibility of proposing a Lake Ballinger funding request agenda item Council member Bernheim: • Asked about the City’s past support to add lobbying for making marijuana criminal offenses into an infraction. Council member Peterson: • Asked about Phase 2 Storm water funding and toxics tax and whether this is coming back before the legislature. Council member Buckshnis: • Asked about WRIA 8 and Cap and Trade • Asked about "Product Stewardship Program" which is the return/disposal of unused prescription drugs (2009 HB1165) • Asked about the Puget Sound Partnership. During the November 2, 2010 City Council meeting, I provided Sandy Chase with a copy of a Legislative Priorities for Puget Sound Watershed Health and Salmon Habitat Recovery which was an attachment to an e-mail sent to me by Council member Buchshnis. I asked Sandy Chase to provide each City Council member with a copy. Council member Petso: • Asked about Top Priority Agenda Item 1 and whether the heading Edmonds Crossing reflects language of the agenda item. Additionally, Council member Petso asked whether supporting this item would encourage Washington State Ferries (WSF) to keep or expand service at the Main Street Terminal. Related to this, Mayor Cooper requested inserting language about the existing Washington State Ferry Terminal located in Edmonds, and language about the Packet Page 281 of 364 City's opposition to reassignment of the Mukilteo/Clinton Ferry route to Edmonds. In response, Top Priority Agenda Item 1 has been modified for your review and consideration. NEW ITEM: Extension of Public Facilities District sales and use tax credit This item relates to the City of Spokane Public Facilities District (PFD) requesting the legislature to extend the PFD sales tax credit (.033) from 2027 to 2037. The Spokane PFD wants to "do new things" with the extension. Having heard about this request, other PFD's want to use the extension, if authorized, to refinance debt and lower annual debt payments. If the legislature authorizes an extension, a PFD and/or City would have the choice to utilize this provision. As such, the City may want to add this to the 2011 legislative agenda and express support the Spokane PFD request as this could give the Edmonds PFD and City an opportunity to refinance existing debt and lower monthly/annual debt payments. Attachments Attachment 1: City of Edmonds Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/04/2010 01:05 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:30 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 11/04/2010 11:20 AM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 282 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 1 DRAFT Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda (Includes revisions based on comments from Council members during November 2, 1010 City Council meeting) 11.3.2010 TOP PRIORITY 1. Washington State Ferries • Existing Edmonds Main Street WSF Terminal Public Private Partnership and Safety Support a continued partnership with the DOT Public Private Partnership Office to develop a workable safety solution at the Edmonds waterfront for pedestrian ferry riders. No Expansion – Request legislative assistance in preventing Washington State Ferries from expanding the existing Edmonds Main Street WSF Terminal. • Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal Project – Request legislative assistance in preventing the reassignment of the Mukilteo/Clinton Ferry route to Edmonds. 2. Protect State-Shared and State-Committed Revenues Protect state-shared and committed revenues such as: • Liquor profits and taxes, • The municipal criminal justice account, • The Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF), • The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP). Packet Page 283 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 2 3. Local Fiscal Flexibility Support a package of local fiscal flexibility measures such as: • Unifying the uses of the first and second quarters of the local Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), including flexibility to use the local REET for parks maintenance and operations, • Additional flexibility with lodging taxes, • Reduce matching requirements for state grants, • Review statutory update schedules for land use and environmental planning updates, such as GMA, SMA, water systems and sewer plans, to determine if streamlining is possible or updates can be delayed. In addition, oppose temporary suspension of local impact fee authority. 4. Public Records Requests Support legislation to provide some relief for cities and other governmental agencies from overly burdensome public records requests. 5. Street Maintenance Utility Authority Support the Street Maintenance Utility Authority legislation as both a management tool and a funding source for local transportation systems. 6. Transportation Revenue Package Support the advancement of a statewide transportation revenue package to address infrastructure projects in Edmonds. • Edmonds’ highest transportation funding priority is the 228th/SR99 safety project. We recently were selected to receive grant funding for design and ROW acquisition for this project. Packet Page 284 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 3 • Seek support for an engineering pre-design, detailed traffic study, and ROW plan for a signature, five-legged round-a-bout at Five Corners. This project will address a significant but correctable congestion problem on the primary corridor leading into downtown Edmonds. 7. Edmonds Main Street Rebuilding Project Seek capital budget funding for the Edmonds Main Street Rebuilding Project (from 5th Avenue North to 6th Avenue North); this includes incorporating Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. 8. Phase II Storm Water Funding • Seek state funding for cities, including Edmonds, so they can continue to meet Phase II storm water requirements. • Seek a delay of further storm water requirements now scheduled for 2012. 9. LEOFF 1 Medical Costs - Oppose any further expansion of LEOFF 1 retiree medical benefits without an alternative funding source. Cities and towns are not in a position to take on any additional costs. Look for opportunities to fund ongoing LEOFF 1 retiree health care costs. SECONDARY PRIORITY 1. Airport Siting Monitor legislation that seeks to site a new commercial airport in the Puget Sound region. 2. Aerospace Industry Support the Washington Aerospace Partnership and other stakeholder groups in developing a unified strategy (e.g., Packet Page 285 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 4 training & education, research & development, Office of Aerospace and Defense, unemployment insurance tax, worker’s compensation, transportation infrastructure) to ensure that Washington State remains the leading location in the world for aerospace. Led by The Boeing Company, the aerospace industry within Snohomish County employs as many as 45,000 people, while one out of every three to six Washington State jobs is supported either directly or indirectly by the aerospace industry 3. Economic Development Support “tax-increment financing (TIF)”, a tool used by most other states to foster economic and community development to allow cities to proactively implement their comprehensive plans and to ensure local, regional and national competitiveness. 4. Driving While License Suspended Monitor legislation that reduces DWLS 3 to an infraction which will reduce the large number of DWLS 3 cases in municipal court. 5. Public Safety Authority Monitor discussion of a Public Safety Authority, a separate taxing district dedicated to police services in a city or region that could be governed by the Mayor and City Council. 6. Red Light Cameras Preserve the authority for cities to implement red light camera technology. 7. Gang Activity Packet Page 286 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 5 Support additional tools for combating gang activity including intervention and prevention activities. • Support local tools and innovation for gang prevention and intervention; seek sustainable, ongoing funding for gang prevention and intervention, graffiti removal programs, and law enforcement suppression activities. • Support the creation of new offenses for criminal gang intimidation and school criminal gang intimidation and sentence enhancements for gang-related offenses. • Support new tools for nuisance abatement and protection orders related to criminal street gang activity. 8. Vehicle Prowling Support additional penalties for vehicle prowling. 9. Business License Streamlining Monitor the discussion around local government business license streamlining. 10. Additional Revenue Authority for Transit Agencies Monitor transit agencies (including Community Transit) legislation, which likely will request additional revenue authority in order to avoid large cuts in service. 11. Preserve local government’s current ability to purchase health care insurance. Oppose any requirement to mandate participation in state-wide health insurance pools. Advocate for maintaining current authority for selecting health insurance programs. 12. Pensions Support level/stable contribution rates for cities that do not fluctuate with economic “boom/bust” cycles. In addition, Packet Page 287 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 6 consider pursuing a deferral of any increase in employer contributions from July 2011 to January 2012. 13. Lake Ballinger capital funding request ? Packet Page 288 of 364 AM-3519 Item #: 2. G. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:30 Minutes Submitted By:Sandy Chase Department:City Clerk's Office Committee:Finance Type:Information Information Subject Title Review remaining 2011 Budget questions. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Narrative An Agenda Memo was not prepared for this item. Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Mayor Mike Cooper 11/05/2010 09:12 AM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 09:14 AM Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 11/04/2010 02:36 PM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 289 of 364 AM-3517 Item #: 2. H. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:5 Minutes Submitted By:Carl Nelson Department:Finance Committee:Finance Type:Action Information Subject Title Interlocal Agreement for SNOCOM Internet Access. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Place on the consent agenda for signature by Mayor. Previous Council Action The Council has previously reviewed and approved two other interlocals (Edmonds Community College and Stevens Hospital) for the City to provide Internet services. This would be the thrid. Narrative SNOCOM and the City are connected by fiber that provides Police and the Fire Marshals access to SNOCOM information and dispatch services. The City has offered to provide Internet Access to SNOCOM over the fiber connection. The attached interlocal provdes the terms, conditions, and rates for that service. SNOCOM has expressed an initial interest for the City to provide service at the 20Megabit level which would result in monthly revenue to the City of $600. Given our current fiber connection to SNOCOM there are no additional expenses anticipated to provide this service. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2011 Revenue:$7,200 Expenditure:0 Fiscal Impact: The proposed interlocal would provide $600/mo revenue from the City providing SNOCOM Internet access. There are no additional expenses to provide this service to them. Attachments Interlocal Agreement Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/04/2010 01:26 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:30 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Carl Nelson Started On: 11/04/2010 12:50 PM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 290 of 364 SNOCOM City of Edmonds Fiber Optic Service Interlocal Agreement with SNOCOM This Fiber Optic Service Interlocal Agreement is entered into this ______ day of _____________, 2010, between the City of Edmonds and SNOCOM, providing for fiber optic services to SNOCOM by the City of Edmonds. Whereas, Chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act) permits local government units to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to cooperate with other government entities on the basis of mutual advantage and thereby to provide services and facilities in a manner pursuant to forms of governmental organizations that will accord best with geographic, economic population, and other factors influencing the needs and development of local communities, now therefore, The City of Edmonds (“City”) and SNOCOM (“SNOCOM”) agree as follows: 1. Findings 1.1 The City is building a high speed, broad band fiber optic network and internet connection in the City in order to provide advanced telecommunication and data management services to its various departments and to enhance city services to the public, including but not limited to water and sewer services, fire and police services, and library and park services. 1.2 The SNOCOM wishes to expand its outreach to the public safety community to further reach its New World implementation goals. However, some of these efforts cannot be expanded adequately and efficiently without access to a second sophisticated broadband fiber network and internet connection which provides redundant connectivity. 1.3 The installation of an advanced fiber network allows the City to enjoy substantial additional capacity in the system and the opportunity to supply broad band fiber optic and internet connection services to other government institutions, such as the SNOCOM, on a basis that will expand the internal communication abilities and the educational outreach of those institutions, while at the same time lowering the overall cost of the fiber optic network to the City and enhancing the robustness of the City’s fiber optic system. The additional capacity will also enable the City to expand its own usage in future years to serve City agencies and to serve the citizens of Edmonds. 2. Term 2.1 The initial term of this Agreement is five years from its effective date. 2.2 The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date on which the fiber optic connection is completed to the SNOCOM, and the SNOCOM has tested the connection by sending and receiving internet traffic at the demarcation patch panel. Packet Page 291 of 364 SNOCOM Interlocal Services Agreement Page 2 of 13 2.3 At the end of the initial five-year term, either party may terminate the Agreement on ninety days’ advance written notice to the other party. 2.4 If not terminated at the end of the initial five-year term, the Agreement will extend automatically on a year to year basis. 2.5 Either party may then terminate the Agreement at the end of each successive one-year extension on ninety days’ advance written notice to the other party. 3. City Obligations The City will provide the following services (either with its own employees or through its contractors) to the SNOCOM: 3.1 Install a high speed broad band fiber cable and connection to a demarcation patch panel attached to the SNOCOM at the following locations: 3.1.1 6204 215TH ST SW, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA 98043-2031 3.2 Supply metering facilities capable of measuring the SNOCOM’s use of the City fiber network on an industry standard basis, as described below in section 6.4.1. 3.3 Operate and maintain the City’s high speed broad band internet connection and fiber system, including the connections to demarcation patch panels at the SNOCOM for a minimum of five years from the effective date of the Agreement. 3.4 Use its best efforts to provide a 99 percent standard of reliability of the network internet connection, excluding (1) one two-hour scheduled maintenance window per month between weekend hours (Friday at 9 PM – Monday at 3 AM). 3.5 Bill the SNOCOM on a monthly basis on the basis of rate principles established in section 6.4. 4. SNOCOM Obligations In return for the services provided by the City under section 3, the SNOCOM will do the following: 4.1 Provide suitable locations for installation of high speed broad band fiber cable and connections to demarcation patch panels attached to the SNOCOM at the at the locations described in section 3.1. 4.2 Provide the City with access to SNOCOM property to install the fiber connections and fiber optic cable, together with underground conduits should underground connections be required. 4.3 Provide the City with a procedure to rapidly obtain 24 hour a day/seven days per week access to the demarcation patch panels attached to the SNOCOM at the locations described in section 3.1, and any other locations on SNOCOM property over which the City fiber system is connected. 4.4 Assume full responsibility for the SNOCOM’s communication systems on the SNOCOM’s side of the demarcation patch panels. 4.5 Pay the City for costs and fees, within 30 days of receipt of a properly completed invoice. 5. Technical Specifications Packet Page 292 of 364 Edmonds School College Broadband Agreement Page 3 of 13 5.1 Technical specifications of the City’s broad band fiber system and internet connection existing at the time this Agreement is entered into are described in Exhibit A, which is made a part of the Agreement. 5.2 The City reserves the option to change those specifications at any time during the term of the Agreement. 5.3 Should the specifications change, the City will attempt to inform the SNOCOM of those changes at least sixty days prior to the change. However, because there may be multiple changes to the system over the term of the Agreement, the City does not guarantee that all changes in technical specifications will be provided to the SNOCOM. 5.4 The SNOCOM has the option at any time to request and obtain the most up to date technical specifications in the possession of the City. 6. Pricing The City will charge the SNOCOM for high speed, broad band fiber optic network and internet connection under the following categories: (1) installation costs amortized over five years, (2) maintenance expenses, inclusive of any federal, state, city, or other local taxes, (3) port charges, and (4) bandwidth usage charges. 6.1 Installation The installation cost of connecting to the SNOCOM will be charged to the SNOCOM at cost and amortized over the initial five year term of the agreement. 6.1.1 The estimated cost of installing the fiber optic connection and demarcation patch panel at the locations specified in section 3.1 is provided in Exhibit B 6.1.2 This amount is only an estimate. The actual installation costs, which may be different, will be the amount used to calculate the amortized installation charges to the SNOCOM. 6.1.3 The actual installation costs will be financed over 5 years using an interest rate of 1.5% over the State’s investment pool rate in effect at the time the agreement is adopted. This fixed monthly cost, will be charged for the first sixty months under the agreement. 6.1.4 After the first sixty months of billing under the agreement, the monthly charges for installation will cease, unless there are additional intervening installations or other capital costs agreed upon in writing by both parties. 6.2 Maintenance A charge for ongoing maintenance will be separately identified on the City’s monthly billing to the SNOCOM. The components of that modest maintenance charge are: 6.2.1 Maintenance of fiber and conduits based in part on the length of connection between the connection points to the SNOCOM and the City’s fiber system. 6.2.2 Maintenance of the hardware and software associated with the demarcation patch panels at the connections to the SNOCOM and the metering mechanisms necessary to operate the connections to the SNOCOM. 6.2.3 Proportionately allocated federal, state, and local taxes. 6.3 Port Charge A fixed monthly port charge will be billed to the SNOCOM for each connection point identified above in section 3.1 and for any other connection to the SNOCOM that may later be added. 6.3.1 The port charges identified in the illustrative Exhibit B will remain fixed for the initial five-year term of the Agreement. They may then be changed by the City on an annual basis provided the City gives the SNOCOM 180 days’ advance written notice of changes in the monthly port charges. Packet Page 293 of 364 SNOCOM Interlocal Services Agreement Page 4 of 13 6.4 Bandwidth A fourth component of charges to the SNOCOM will be based on bandwidth usage. 6.4.1 The City will utilize an industry standard “95th percentile” method of computing network utilization as follows: 6.4.1.1 The City will track the SNOCOM’s usage in 5 minute intervals over the course of a calendar month. 6.4.1.2 The City will then sort the intervals based on usage (highest to lowest) and discard the top 5 percent of intervals for that month. 6.4.1.3 The City will then compute usage based on the highest 5 minute interval remaining after discarding the top 5 percent. 6.4.2 The SNOCOM will have a choice of a minimum bandwidth price schedule or no minimum bandwidth price schedule. 6.4.2.1 The rates per mb of bandwidth usage and port charges will be lower if a minimum monthly bandwidth charge is established, regardless of the actual usage. 6.4.2.2 Minimum monthly bandwidth guarantees are available at the 10, 15, 20, 30 and 50 mb/month levels. 6.4.2.3 If a minimum monthly bandwidth is guaranteed, any higher usage by the SNOCOM will be charged at the lower $/mb rate associated with that minimum guarantee level. 6.4.2.4 Should the SNOCOM choose not to guarantee a minimum mb/month bandwidth, the bandwidth and port charges will be higher. Bandwidth will be based only on the actual usage during the month measured by the “95th percentile” method of computing network utilization described above in section 6.4.1. 6.4.3 The SNOCOM must select a bandwidth option or a specific level of minimum bandwidth at the inception of the Agreement. 6.4.3.1 The bandwidth option initially selected by the SNOCOM is outlined in Schedule B. 6.4.3.2 As the Bandwidth requirements of the SNOCOM increase, the SNOCOM will be able to increase their minimum bandwidth commitment in order to take advantage of the lower unit costs. The SNOCOM must request modification of the billing structure in writing, and it will take effect the billing period that follows the date the notice is received plus 30 days. The SNOCOM may only reduce its minimum bandwidth commitment on the annual anniversary date of the Agreement or subsequent renewals. 6.4.4 The Pricing Matrix identified in Exhibit B will remain fixed for the initial five-year term of the Agreement. After the initial five-year term, the rates may be changed by the City on an annual basis provided the City gives the SNOCOM 180 days’ advance written notice of changes in bandwidth charges. 7. Notices 7.1 Notices required under this Agreement must be in writing. Packet Page 294 of 364 Edmonds School College Broadband Agreement Page 5 of 13 7.1.1 Written notices may be delivered by hand-delivery, U.S. Mail, FedEx (or other express delivery service), fax, or e-mail. 7.1.2 Notices will be effective, however, only on the date received. 7.2 Notices to the City should be sent to the following Position Finance Director Street Address 121 Fifth Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone Number 425.775-2525 e-mail address FinanceDir@ci.edmonds.wa.us 7.3 Notices to the SNOCOM should be sent to the following Name Terry Peterson Position Street Address 6204 215TH ST SW, MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, WA 98043-2031 Phone Number (425) 774-2521 e-mail address tpeterson@snocom.org 7.4 The designated recipients for written notices may be changed at any time during the Agreement, so long as the change is delivered to the other party in writing. 8. Successors and Assigns 8.1 This Agreement may be assigned by either party to a successor or assign, provided the other party agrees in writing. 8.2 Approval of a request for transfer to a successor or assign must not be unreasonably withheld. 9. Limitation of Liability 9.1 The City has no responsibility for any data loss or any other consequential damages that may result from the failure, interruption or poor performance of its high speed, broad band fiber optic network and internet connection. 9.2 The only remedy available to the SNOCOM as a result of the failure, interruption, or poor performance of the City’s high speed, broad band fiber optic network and internet connection is the reduction of City charges proportional to the time of the failure, interruption, or poor performance. 9.3 There are no third-party beneficiaries of this Agreement. 10. Indemnity and Insurance 10.1 The City and the SNOCOM mutually indemnify each other, for any losses or other claims arising, under the terms of this agreement, from the operation and maintenance of the City’s high speed broad band internet connection and fiber system during the term of this Agreement, unless the loss or claim is caused solely by either the City or the SNOCOM, in which case that party will be solely responsible. 10.2 The SNOCOM is covered by the State of Washington Self-Insurance Program and the Tort Claims Act (Chapter 4.92 RCW). Claims against SNOCOM and its employees, officers, and agents in the performance of their duties under this Agreement will be paid from the tort claims liability account as provided in Chapter 4.92 RCW. Employees are covered under the employee medical malpractice policy offered by the State of Washington, Office of Financial Management, Risk Management division, while working on site. Packet Page 295 of 364 SNOCOM Interlocal Services Agreement Page 6 of 13 11. Integration 11.1 This Agreement represents the complete agreement between the City and the SNOCOM relating to the installation, maintenance and operation of the City’s high speed broad band internet connection and fiber system. 11.2 The Agreement integrates within it all prior discussions and drafts. 11.3 No amendment to the Agreement will be valid, unless it is in the form of a written amendment that specifically amends or specifically supersedes this Agreement. 12. Severability 12.1 If any part of this Agreement is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, those provisions will be severed from the Agreement and the obligations of the parties will continue under the remaining terms of the Agreement. 12.2 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds this Agreement to be beyond the legal authority of the City to provide internet broadband services on a service contract basis, the parties agree to enter into an interlocal agreement providing for a joint arrangement to provide each government with its own internal communication under the unified management and operation of the City in accordance with the provisions of this service agreement. 13. Force Majeure The parties to this Agreement will be not be required to carry out its terms during a period when either party is prevented from doing so by a force majeure event including natural disasters such as windstorms and earthquakes, terrorist attacks or other public safety emergencies, and injunctions or other court orders. 14 Dispute Resolution 14.1 It is not anticipated that any significant disputes will arise in the course of this Agreement. If disputes do arise, however, they will be handled as follows: 14.1.1 The first step will be for the Mayor of the City and the President of the SNOCOM to meet in an attempt to resolve the dispute. 14.1.2 If the Mayor of the City and the President of the SNOCOM are unable to resolve the problem within two weeks of meeting, the City Council of the City and the School Board of the SNOCOM will be asked to convene a special joint meeting to address the issue. 14.1.3 If within two weeks after meeting in joint session, the City Council of the City and the School Board of the SNOCOM are together unable to resolve the dispute, the Mayor of the City and the President of the SNOCOM will meet to agree on a mediator for a binding resolution who will be hired to convene the parties within thirty days. The cost of the mediator will be shared equally by the City and the SNOCOM. If he Mayor of the City and the President of the SNOCOM cannot agree on a mediator, a mediator will be appointed by the presiding judge of Snohomish County Superior Court, with the cost of arbitration born equally. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 15. Termination of Service Packet Page 296 of 364 Edmonds School College Broadband Agreement Page 7 of 13 15.1 CUSTOMER may terminate services provide for in this agreement, for any reason, after first giving CITY 45 days written notice of their intent to terminate. If CUSTOMER initiates the termination of services, the following obligations shall be enforced: 15.1.1 Capital Expenses – Any remaining balance associated with amortized capital costs shall immediately become due and payable. 15.1.2 Infrastructure Maintenance - Except for the fiber run between Monroe Hall and Clearview Hall, all fiber infrastructure installed as a part of this agreement shall remain the property of CITY. Should CUSTOMER wish to continue using the fiber, the normal infrastructure maintenance charges shall remain in effect. Should the CUSTOMER decide to discontinue usage of any of the installed infrastructure, CITY shall have the option of disabling or repurposing the abandoned segments. 15.1.3 Early Termination Charge – To help offset long term capital costs incurred by CITY in the event of a CUSTOMER initiated early termination request, CUSTOMER shall pay an early termination fee. The termination fee shall be computed using the following formula: ETC = (RM/3) * ( MC – MCA) Where · ETC = The Early Termination Charge due. · RM = Remaining months in the term of the agreement, · MC = The total monthly charge for service for the bandwidth commitment level then in effect for CUSTOMER · MCA = The Monthly Capital (installation) Amortization amount. 15.1.4 Return of Equipment - CUSTOMER shall make their premises available to employees or subcontractors of CITY during normal working hours, in order to facilitate the recovery of any CITY equipment that may be installed at CUSTOMER’s premises. 15.2 CITY may terminate services provided for in this agreement, for any reason, after first giving 180 days written notice to CUSTOMER of CITY’s intent to terminate. If CITY initiates the termination of service, the following obligations shall be enforced: 15.2.1 Capital Expenses – Any remaining balance associated with amortized capital costs shall become due and payable. CUSTOMER may, at their option, elect to pay this amount in a lump sum, or propose a mutually agreeable payment schedule to CITY. Upon termination of services, CUSTOMER may elect to have CITY continue maintaining the fiber infrastructure at the then prevailing monthly rates, or may elect to maintain any fiber infrastructure installed on their premises themselves. Any fiber infrastructure NOT on CUSTOMER premises shall remain the property of CITY. 15.2.2 Infrastructure Maintenance - Except for the fiber run between Monroe Hall and Clearview Hall, all fiber infrastructure installed as a part of this agreement shall remain the property of CITY. Should CUSTOMER wish to continue using the fiber, the normal infrastructure maintenance charges shall remain in effect. Should the CUSTOMER decide to discontinue usage of any of the installed infrastructure, CITY shall have the option of disabling or repurposing the abandoned segments. 15.2.3 Return of Equipment - CUSTOMER shall make their premises available to employees or subcontractors of CITY during normal working hours, in order to facilitate the recovery of any CITY equipment that may be installed at CUSTOMER’s premises. Packet Page 297 of 364 SNOCOM Interlocal Services Agreement Page 8 of 13 Packet Page 298 of 364 Edmonds School College Broadband Agreement Page 9 of 13 Agreement Approved: DATED THIS ________ DAY OF _____________________, 20____. CITY OF EDMONDS Mayor Mike Cooper ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: By: Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: W. Scott Snyder, City Attorney SNOCOM Signature on behalf of SNOCOM: Printed Name: Title: Date: Packet Page 299 of 364 SNOCOM Interlocal Services Agreement Page 10 of 13 EXHIBIT A Interface Specifications and Requirements General Background 1. The Edmonds Fiber Network (EFN) was initially established in 2005 with the installation of a 24 strand backbone running from Hwy 99 west to the vicinity of the ferry dock in downtown Edmonds. There are numerous splice loops along the route and the City has a patch panel located in the Public Safety Building in downtown Edmonds and at the Public Works facility near the intersection of 212th and Hwy 99. This segment is referred to as the “City Backbone Segment”. 2. The City backbone was augmented in 2006 with and additional of 24 strands running from the Public Works facility, south under Hwy 99 to the King Snohomish County boundary near 238th. This segment is known as the “Hwy 99 Segment”. 3. Late in 2006, the City purchased six strands of fiber from the Seattle Fiber consortium running from the King- Snohomish County Boundary (238th) south to the Westin building in Seattle where it interconnects with a multi-homed Tier 1 ISP. The part of the network is known as the “Seattle Segment”. 4. Early in 2007, the City connected the Seattle Segment to 6 strands of the Hwy 99 segment which is now collectively known as the “Westin Segment”. 5. In August of 2007, the City installed a redundant Cisco 65xx switching fabric to interconnect the City Backbone with the Westin Segment to provide the City and certain Public, Education & Government (PEG) partners with high speed access to the internet as well as the State of Washington Inter- Governmental Network (IGN). 6. The Edmonds Public Works facility serves as the City’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and has substantial battery back-up as well as a large scale diesel generator installation that will provide continuous power in the event of a long term power outage. 7. Should the Westin Segment experience an outage, the EFN has an alternate physical route available to the internet that will automatically pick-up the traffic. The City also plans to have an alternate route to the internet through a provider not located in Seattle to provide non-stop connectivity in the event a catastrophic failure were to occur at the Westin facility. 8. All segments utilize single mode (SM) fiber. 9. Current City and Partner connections are both 2 fiber full duplex as well as single fiber full duplex. Depending upon cost and availability connections may be single fiber full duplex connections. The older two fiber connections may be transitioned to single strand over time. 10. City and Partner connections can be lit with either 100mbps or 1000mbps (1 gig) lasers depending on the customer’s requirements. Customer Specifications 1. Every connection to the EFN will have three components: a. EFN Facilities – Which includes all fiber optic cable, aerial supports and underground conduit (not on customer property) splice cases, switching and routing equipment that is located on the public side of the Customer Premises Demarcation Point (EFN - DEMARC). b. Customer Facilities – This includes any fiber-optic or copper cable that connects a customer’s systems (Routers, Firewalls, Switches or computers) to the EFN DEMARC. c. EFN DEMARC - The DEMARC is the physical endpoint of the EFN facilities and is located inside the customer’s premises. Based on Customer requirements, the DEMARC can be Passive ( a non-powered fiber patch panel) or it can be Active (a non-powered fiber patch panel coupled to a fiber optic switch and optionally, a fiber-to-CAT 5 media converter) A small battery back-up device will be provided to ensure the Active DEMARC components remain operational during short term outages or power fluctuations. All DEMARC equipment whether passive or active is considered part of the EFN facilities from an ownership and management perspective. 2. Customers are required to provide a 15amp (min) power outlet within three feet of the EFN DEMARC location. This outlet does NOT need to be on a dedicated circuit, but should be sized to accommodate the load of the UPS during its rapid charge cycle. 3. Customers requiring non-stop EFN connectivity shall provide a circuit from the Customers continuous power source (UPS or Generator) to the UPS device powering the active DEMARC components. Packet Page 300 of 364 Edmonds School College Broadband Agreement Page 11 of 13 4. At the time of contract signing, Customer and the City shall agree upon the location of the EFN DEMARC as well as the nature of the DEMARC components. 5. The City will provide Customer with a routable unique IP address for their connections as well as the addresses necessary to communicate with the EFN switching fabric. 6. Customer will be required to provide all interconnect cables required to connect their systems to the EFN demark. 7. Customers are not permitted to utilize the EFN UPS device for any purpose other than backing up the EFN DEMARC components. 8. Customers are encouraged to share with the EFN support team details of their Disaster Recovery / Business Continuity (DRBC) Plan so that the EFN support team is aware of the personnel who should be contacted in the case of a long or short term outage. 9. The EFN support team will provide Customer with a DRBC plan for the EFN that the Customer can incorporate into their own DRBC planning. Packet Page 301 of 364 SNOCOM Interlocal Services Agreement Page 12 of 13 EXHIBIT A Installation NONE NEEDED Packet Page 302 of 364 Edmonds School College Broadband Agreement Page 13 of 13 EXHIBIT B Pricing Matrix 1. The following Pricing Matrix reflect the agreed upon pricing to be used for the term of this agreement 2. The SNOCOM has chosen a minimum bandwidth commitment of 20 Mbps for the term of the agreement. This minimum commitment can be modified UPWARD given 30 days notice pursuant to the terms of Section 6.4.3.2 of this agreement. 3. Pricing Matrix: 4. If the SNOCOM’s monthly usage based on the 95th percentile calculation method is 20mb or less the monthly charge will be $600 plus any applicable taxes. 5. If the SNOCOM’s monthly usage based on the 95th percentile calculation method exceeds 20mb, the monthly charge will be calculated as follows: Example: (Assuming 21.25mb usage for the period) Component Calculation Charge Port Charge Fixed Rate Component $140.00 Amortized Capital Costs Fixed Rate Component $0.00 Maintenance Charge Fixed Rate Component $60.00 Minimum Bandwidth Charge Minimum Bandwidth Charge $400.00 Bandwidth Overage (Assuming actual bandwidth at 21.25mb for the period) 21.25 – 20.00= 1.25mb x $20 = $25 $25.00 Total Total Monthly Charge for 21.25 Mbps $625.00 Edmonds Fiber Network - w/minimum BW Commitment Monthly Charges 95th % Port Capital Bandwidth Usage (mb) Charge Amortization Maint Bandwidth Total Cost/Mb 20 140 $0 $60 $400 $600 $20 30 140 $0 $60 $540 $740 $18 50 140 $0 $60 $900 $1,100 $18 Packet Page 303 of 364 AM-3523 Item #: 2. I. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines Department:Finance Review Committee: Finance Committee Action: Type:Action Information Subject Title Final 2010 Budget Amendment. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Approve Previous Council Action None Narrative The attached amendment is necessary to account for additional revenues/expenditures, interfund and intrafund adjustments. Fiscal Impact Fiscal Year:2010 Revenue: Expenditure: Fiscal Impact: The attachment amendment requests an additional $1.2 million in expenditure authority, summarized as follows: 001 - General Fund $218K 411 - Combined Utility $1.0 million Rest of Funds ($51K) Attachments Ordinance and Support Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 12:16 PM Mayor Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 12:16 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 12:16 PM Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 11/05/2010 Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 304 of 364 R:\BUDGET\BUDGET AMENDMENT\2010\NOVEMBER AMENDMENT DOCUMENTS\NOVEMBER AMENDING ORDINANCE.DOCX ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. WHEREAS, previous actions taken by the City Council require Interfund Transfers and increases in appropriations; and WHEREAS, state law requires an ordinance be adopted whenever money is transferred from one fund to another; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the amended budget appropriations and information which was made available; and approves the appropriation of local, state, and federal funds and the increase or decrease from previously approved programs within the 2010 Budget; and WHEREAS, the applications of funds have been identified; THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1. of Ordinance No. 3711 adopting the final budget for the fiscal year 2010 is hereby amended to reflect the changes shown in “Exhibit A” adopted herein by reference. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take Packet Page 305 of 364 ii effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the title. APPROVED: MAYOR, MIKE COOPER ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE: CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: BY ___ W. SCOTT SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: PUBLISHED: EFFECTIVE DATE: ORDINANCE NO. Packet Page 306 of 364 iii SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________ of the City of Edmonds, Washington On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title, provides as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3711 AS A RESULT OF UNANTICIPATED TRANSFERS AND EXPENDITURES OF VARIOUS FUNDS, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request. DATED this _____ day of ________________,2010. CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE Packet Page 307 of 364 iv EXHIBIT“A:” BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND 2010 2010 FUND FUND BEGINNING REVENUE EXPENDITURES ENDING NO. DESCRIPTION CASH CASH 001 GENERAL FUND 2,175,670 35,567,645 35,718,908 2,024,407 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 1,927,600 0 0 1,927,600 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 512,176 387,566 465,161 434,581 010 PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCY RESERVE 0 1,334,693 0 1,334,693 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 131,976 28,500 74,115 86,361 111 STREET FUND 319,008 1,539,574 1,537,232 321,350 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE -184,393 2,172,797 1,982,560 5,844 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 51,542 3,000,000 3,000,000 51,542 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 42,035 412,438 454,473 0 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 374,547 115,540 110,425 379,662 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,570 400 0 17,970 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 181,037 67,530 86,883 161,684 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 93,897 27,500 26,086 95,311 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 17,166 3,464 4,307 16,323 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 50,855 19,368 23,985 46,238 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,570,016 775,356 1,942,000 403,372 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 442,755 764,397 956,796 250,356 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 172,069 32,281 15,259 189,091 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 3,052 239,910 242,110 852 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 94,066 208,630 151,289 151,407 131 FIRE DONATIONS 22,462 2,800 22,466 2,796 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 24,007 1,789,000 1,784,000 29,007 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 144,281 3,760 25,403 122,638 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 766,066 31,223 0 797,289 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 11,181 21,400 21,000 11,581 211 LID FUND CONTROL 6,337 107,500 113,300 537 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 50,233 60,000 0 110,233 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 0 452,160 452,160 0 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 6,861,160 14,106,473 18,367,154 2,600,479 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 1,852,225 7,858,332 6,823,600 2,886,957 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 51,152 2,782,176 2,743,588 89,740 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 4,709,059 2,138,757 2,892,423 3,955,393 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 284,951 103,782 125,048 263,685 631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 0 750,000 750,000 0 Totals 22,775,758 76,904,952 80,911,731 18,768,979 Packet Page 308 of 364 v EXHIBIT “B”: BUDGET AMENDMENTS BY EXPENDITURE ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. ORD. NO. 2010 FUND FUND 3711 3771 3809 Amended NO. DESCRIPTION 12/2/2008 12/15/2009 10/17/2010 11/16/2010 Budget 001 GENERAL FUND 35,768,808 (1,321,294) 1,053,826 217,568 35,718,908 006 EMERGENCY/FINANCIAL RESERVE 0 0 0 0 0 009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 465,161 0 0 0 465,161 104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 74,115 0 0 0 74,115 010 PUBLIC SAFETY EMERGENCY RESERVE 0 0 0 0 0 111 STREET FUND 1,537,232 0 0 0 1,537,232 112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,332,560 0 0 -350,000 1,982,560 113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD. 3,000,000 0 0 0 3,000,000 116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 205,200 0 249,273 0 454,473 117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 110,425 0 0 0 110,425 118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 0 0 0 0 0 120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 77,883 0 4,000 5,000 86,883 121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,086 0 0 0 26,086 122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 3,400 0 0 907 4,307 123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 22,100 0 0 1,885 23,985 125 PARK ACQ/IMPROVEMENT 1,190,000 0 552,000 200,000 1,942,000 126 SPECIAL CAPITAL FUND 956,796 0 0 0 956,796 127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 750 0 6,100 8,409 15,259 129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 0 0 242,110 0 242,110 130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROV 151,289 0 0 0 151,289 131 FIRE DONATIONS 0 0 22,466 0 22,466 132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION 1,784,000 0 0 0 1,784,000 136 PARKS TRUST FUND 0 0 0 25,403 25,403 137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 0 0 0 0 0 138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 21,000 0 0 0 21,000 211 LID FUND CONTROL 55,300 0 0 58,000 113,300 213 LID GUARANTY FUND 0 0 0 0 0 234 LTGO BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND 452,160 0 0 0 452,160 411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 15,301,171 0 2,029,183 1,036,800 18,367,154 412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 6,823,600 0 0 0 6,823,600 414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 571,412 0 2,172,176 0 2,743,588 511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,702,193 0 1,190,230 0 2,892,423 617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 125,048 0 0 0 125,048 631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 0 0 750,000 0 750,000 Totals 72,757,689 (1,321,294) 8,271,364 1,203,972 80,911,731 Packet Page 309 of 364 vi EXHIBIT “C”: BUDGET AMENDMENT DETAIL Department BARS Category Debit Credit Description on Summary Sheet General Fund 001 000 000 313 100 000 00 Sales & Use Tax 1,000,000 Reduction of Sales Tax Revenue Estimate General Fund 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 1,000,000 Police 001 000 410 521 710 350 00 Small Equipment 985 Grant for Radar Purchases Police 001 000 410 521 710 350 01 Small Equipment 985 General Fund 001 000 000 334 030 500 00 Grants 1,970 Police 001 000 410 521 710 120 00 Overtime 2,645 Slow Down or Pay Up July 2010 General Fund 001 000 000 333 020 601 00 Grants 2,645 Police 001 000 410 521 710 120 00 Overtime 2,125 DUI and Target Zero Enforcement General Fund 001 000 000 333 020 601 00 Grants 2,125 Police 001 000 410 521 710 120 00 Overtime 1,757 X-52 DUI Enforcement General Fund 001 000 000 333 020 601 00 Grants 1,757 Police 001 000 410 521 710 120 00 Overtime 1,465 X-52 Speed Grant General Fund 001 000 000 333 020 601 00 Grants 1,465 Police 001 000 410 521 100 350 00 Small Equipment 4,210 Byrne Grant Funding Police 001 000 410 521 220 350 00 Small Equipment 8,436 General Fund 001 000 000 331 160 580 00 Grants 12,646 City Attorney 001 000 360 515 100 410 00 Professional Services 144,250 Unbudgeted Attorney Costs General Fund 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 144,250 Parks & Recreation 001 000 640 575 510 110 00 Salaries 15,000 Aquatic Salaries General Fund 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 15,000 Parks & Recreation 001 000 640 575 530 430 00 Travel 457 Senior Adventures Field Trip Fees Parks & Recreation 001 000 640 575 530 490 00 Miscellaneous 603 General Fund 001 000 000 347 600 000 00 Program Fees 1,060 Parks & Recreation 001 000 640 574 200 490 00 Miscellaneous 50,000 Merchant Bankcard Fees Police 001 000 410 521 110 490 00 Miscellaneous 150 Court 001 000 230 512 500 490 00 Miscellaneous 14,500 General Fund 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 64,650 Stormwater 411 000 652 542 900 490 00 Miscellaneous 8,100 Water 411 000 654 534 800 490 00 Miscellaneous 12,200 Sewer 411 000 655 535 800 490 00 Miscellaneous 16,500 Utility Fund 411 000 654 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 36,800 Water 411 000 654 597 412 550 00 Interfund Transfer 800,000 Transfers from Operations to Capital Stormwater 411 000 652 597 412 550 00 Interfund Transfer 200,000 Utility Fund 411 000 654 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 1,000,000 Water Construction 412 100 000 397 411 000 00 Interfund Transfer 800,000 Water Construction 412 100 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 800,000 Stormwater Construction 412 200 000 397 411 000 00 Interfund Transfer 200,000 Stormwater Construction 412 200 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 200,000 Street Construction 112 200 630 595 330 650 00 Construction Projects 350,000 Decrease Construction Project Costs Street Construction 112 200 630 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 350,000 Youth Scholarship 122 000 640 574 100 490 00 Miscellaneous 907 Youth Scholarships-Increase Awards Youth Scholarship 122 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 907 Tourism Promotion Arts 123 000 640 573 100 440 00 Advertising 1,885 Adjustment for grant Tourism Promotion Arts 123 000 000 337 070 000 00 Grants 1,885 Gifts Catalog Fund 127 000 640 575 500 310 00 Supplies 4,800 127 Fund Gifts Catalog Fund 127 000 000 367 000 000 00 Donations 23,920 Gifts Catalog Fund 127 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 19,120 Gifts Catalog Fund 127 000 640 575 500 410 00 Professional Services 2,000 Interpretive Panel Marina Beach Gifts Catalog Fund 127 000 640 575 500 310 00 Supplies 1,609 Gifts Catalog Fund 127 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 3,609 Packet Page 310 of 364 vii Hotel/Motel Tax 120 000 310 597 132 550 00 Interfund Transfer 5,000 Transfer to 132 for grant match Hotel/Motel Tax 120 000 310 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 5,000 Capital Projects 132 000 000 397 120 000 00 Interfund Transfer 5,000 Capital Projects 132 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 5,000 Parks Trust Fund 136 300 640 597 001 550 00 Interfund Transfer 25,403 2010 Pool Subsidy Parks Trust Fund 136 300 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 25,403 General Fund 001 000 000 397 136 000 00 Interfund Transfer 25,403 General Fund 001 000 390 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 25,403 LID Fund Control 211 000 320 597 213 550 00 Interfund Transfer 58,000 LID Receipts LID Fund Control 211 000 320 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 58,000 LID Guaranty Fund 213 000 000 397 211 000 00 Interfund Transfer 58,000 LID Guaranty Fund 213 000 320 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 58,000 REET 2 125 000 640 594 750 650 00 Construction Projects 200,000 125 Fund REET 2 125 000 640 508 000 000 00 Ending Fund Balance 200,000 Packet Page 311 of 364 Prepared By:Lorenzo Hines Department: GF Revenues Description on Budget Amendment Summary Reduction of Sales Tax Revenue Estimate Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) -$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Sales & Use Tax 001.000.000.313.100.000.00 1,000,000.00 Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease 1,000,000.00$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund 001.000.390.508.000.000.00 (1,000,000.00) Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) (1,000,000.00)$ Reduce Sales Tax forecast due to struggling economy. Page 1 Packet Page 312 of 364 Prepared By:Gerry Gannon Department: Police Department Description on Budget Amendment Summary Grant for Radar Purchases Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Small Equipment 001.000.410.521.710.350.00 984.41 001 General Small Equipment 001.000.410.521.710.350.01 984.41 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)1,968.82$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 001 General Grant Funding 001.000.000.334.030.500.00 (984.41) 001 General Grant Funding 001.000.000.334.030.500.00 (984.41) Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (1,968.82)$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$ The department purchased two radars for traffic enforcement in school zones. The department will be reimbursed for the cost of the radars from the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission. Page 2 Packet Page 313 of 364 Prepared By:Gerry Gannon Department:Police Department Description on Budget Amendment Summary Slow Down or Pay Up July 2010 Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Overtime 001.000.410.521.710.120.00 2,644.77 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)2,644.77$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 001 General Grant Funding 001.000.000.333.020.601.00 (2,644.77) Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (2,644.77)$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$ The department is requesting a budget amendment for overtime expended during Slow Down or Pay Up speed enforcement grant. The April and July 2010, overtime expenditures are as follows $2,644.77. The overtime expenditures will be reimbursed by the WSTSC. Page 3 Packet Page 314 of 364 Prepared By:Gerry Gannon Department:Police Department Description on Budget Amendment Summary DUI and Target Zero Enforcement Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Overtime 001.000.410.521.710.120.00 2,124.93 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)2,124.93$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 001 General Grant Funding 001.000.000.333.020.601.00 (2,124.93) Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (2,124.93)$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$ The department is requesting a budget amendment for overtime expended during the X-52 DUI Target Zero enforcement grant. The Jul to Sep 2010, overtime expenditures are as follows $2,124.93. The overtime expenditures will be reimbursed by the WSTSC. Page 4 Packet Page 315 of 364 Prepared By:Gerry Gannon Department:Police Department Description on Budget Amendment Summary X-52 DUI Enforcement Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Overtime 001.000.410.521.710.120.00 1,756.84 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)1,756.84$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 001 General Grant Funding 001.000.000.333.020.601.00 (1,756.84) Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (1,756.84)$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$ The department is requesting a budget amendment for overtime expended during the X-52 DUI Target Zero enforcement grant. The Aug 12 to Sep 6, 2010, overtime expenditures are as follows $1,756.84. The overtime expenditures will be reimbursed by the WSTSC. Page 5 Packet Page 316 of 364 Prepared By:Gerry Gannon Department:Police Department Description on Budget Amendment Summary X-52 Speed Grant Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Overtime 001.000.410.521.710.120.00 478.12 001 General Overtime 001.000.410.521.710.120.00 986.53 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)1,464.65$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 001 General Grant Funding 001.000.000.333.020.601.00 (478.12) 001 General Grant Funding 001.000.000.333.020.601.00 (986.53) Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (1,464.65)$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$ The department is requesting a budget amendment for overtime expended during X-52 speed enforcement grant. The June and July 2010, overtime expenditures are as follows; June ($478.12), July ($986.53). The overtime expenditures have been reimbursed by the WSTSC. Page 6 Packet Page 317 of 364 Prepared By:Gerry Gannon Department:Police Department Description on Budget Amendment Summary Byrne Grant Funding Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Small Equipment 001.000.410.521.100.350.00 4,209.31 001 General Fund Small Equipment 001.000.410.521.220.350.00 8,435.76 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)12,645.07$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 001 General Grant Fund 001.000.000.331.160.580.00 (4,209.31) 001 General Grant Fund 001.000.000.331.160.580.00 (8,435.76) Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (12,645.07)$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$ This is grant funding from the 2009 Recovery Act Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Local Solicitation. As part of the grant program the department purchased 16 printers to be used with the collision/ticket writing software ($4209.31). The department requested a change to the grant program due to technology changes and requested the pagers be removed from the original grant request. This request was granted by our program manager. In addition, the grant manager approved the department's request to purchase additional Tasers from the grant funds. The department purchased 9 additional Tasers and associated equipment ($8,435.76). Page 7 Packet Page 318 of 364 Prepared By:Deb Sharp for Scott Snyder Department: City Attorney Description on Budget Amendment Summary Unbudgeted Attorney Costs Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Professional Services 001.000.360.515.100.410.00 144,250.00 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) 144,250.00$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease -$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund 001.000.390.508.000.000.00 (144,250.00) Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) (144,250.00)$ Please see the attached memo (City Attorney 1-3) from the City Attorney. Page 8 Packet Page 319 of 364 A Member of the International Lawyers Network with independent member law firms worldwide 1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98101-1686 206.447.7000 Fax: 206.447.0215 Web: www.omwlaw.com {WSS833300.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } MEMORANDUM DATE: November 4, 2010 TO: Council Finance Committee City of Edmonds FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the City Attorney RE: City Attorney Budget -- Unbudgeted Costs The purpose of this memo is to provide year to date estimates regarding legal matters which were unbudgeted in 2010. As the Council is aware, while the general City Attorney budget provides for claim review, a certain amount of nuisance lawsuits and one or two Land Use Petition Act reviews annually, your legal budget does not include a contingency for larger litigation matters. During the course of the year, I report to the City Council and receive your approval for these defense or other legal expenditures. This memo reviews matters which were not budgeted but which require appropriations or transfers. These matters have been reviewed by the City Council in executive session or, as in the case of the TBD, involve a separately funded entity. TBD As you are aware, the TBD is a separate entity. While I bill the City for services to the TBD, the legal charges, which by year end will total approximately $6,000 should be transferred to the City Attorney budget from TBD revenue or billed to the TBD by the City. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS The Council did not budget for labor negotiations in 2010, and the current budget does not appear to provide for labor costs for 2011. As you may remember, my estimates, provided to the City Council in executive session, were for negotiation costs for 2010 of $35,000 to $50,000 depending upon the approach which the City Council wished to utilize in negotiation. Because the City Council has authorized a roll-over contract approach for 2010, costs for this year are estimated to run approximately $10,000 to $10,500 for the three units. That estimate breaks down to approximately $3,750 for Teamsters, $2,000 for Police, $3,500 for SEIU and $1,000 for Police Support and general City Council discussions. City Attorney 1 Packet Page 320 of 364 Council Finance Committee November 4, 2010 Page 2 {WSS833300.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } If these contracts are rolled over, the City Council should anticipate budgeting the $35,000 to $50,000 costs for full negotiations in 2011. LITIGATION The following matters have been discussed with Council in executive session and specific strategies approved: 1. Locke v. Edmonds. In accordance with City Council direction, the claims against Mr. Locke have been dismissed and staff and I are attempting to work out an “on the ground” solution to his driveway/drainage problems. Year end costs are estimated to be $5,000 total. 2. Meiers v. Edmonds. This slope failure case has been noted for trial. Costs to year end are estimated to $8,000. This matter is being defended in conjunction with WCIA-appointed counsel, Mark Bucklin. The City incurs legal costs because certain of the claims are not covered. 3. Breske -- Claims and Licensing Complaint. 3.1 Claims and Litigation. Approximately $14,000 has been incurred year to date on this appeal to the Court of Appeals following a LUPA decision in the City’s favor. Year end costs in this category are estimated to $18,000. 3.2 Licensing Complaint. In addition, the Breskes filed licensing complaints against current and former City employees. The City Council authorized the employees’ defense under the City’s indemnity ordinance. Costs to date are approximately $9,500 with an additional $500 estimated to year end for a total of $10,000. 4. LUPA Actions. Two LUPA matters are currently before the Snohomish County Superior Court. Hathaway v. Edmonds relates to a code enforcement action regarding steep slope tree removal. Costs year end are estimated to be $19,000. Drake v. Edmonds is a straight forward neighbor appeal of an accessory dwelling unit approval. Year end costs are estimated to be $9,000. This level of LUPA defense is a normally incurred cost within your budget and is noted here only for your information. 5. Construction Claims. TE Briggs’ claims have been discussed extensively with City Council in executive session. Costs year to date are approximately $16,000 and the City Council has approved $10,000 in costs for mediation. The attorney costs to year end are estimated to be $26,000. The 175th Walkway claim has incurred legal costs year to date of approximately $11,000 with $3,000 estimated to year end, for a total of $14,000. These totals yield unbudgeted litigation costs at $40,000 for construction claims. City Attorney 2 Packet Page 321 of 364 Council Finance Committee November 4, 2010 Page 3 {WSS833300.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } 6. Sweet Pea Tree. The Council authorized investigation, tree appraisal and initial litigation costs in this matter. Approximately $3,400 has been expended through October 31. The City Council is evaluating how and whether to pursue this claim. Year end costs are estimated to be $3,400 plus any additional costs approved by City Council. 7. Reidy / Thuesen. These matters have been discussed extensively in executive session with City Council approval of a litigation strategy involving outside counsel attempting to mediate the claims of the two parties. As you will remember, a claim and lawsuit was filed by Mr. Reidy as well as a claim and lawsuit by Mr. Thuesen against the City. In addition, code enforcement actions and monitoring of the Thuesen development application has resulted in legal costs. The claims and litigation by Mr. Reidy involve year to date costs of $2,064. The Thuesen development review and code enforcement action regarding Mr. Reidy arising out of the Thuesen development application total $19,900. As the City Council is aware, these costs were incurred in the first quarter of the year. Given estimated costs of approximately $75,000 to litigate the various lawsuits, the City Council authorized retention of Grant Weed as conflict counsel to attempt to craft a settlement agreement and solution between the Reidys and Thuesens. Mr. Weed was successful. His costs of $40,564 and costs of a waste container to remove construction debris ($1,405) bring the estimated total to year end, including $2,000 for continued monitoring of the settlement to $65,000. 8. Karlsten. This flooding claim has been reviewed on several occasions with the City Council in executive session. Pursuant to approved legal strategy, $4,517.30 has been incurred year to date and $6,000 is estimated for year end costs. While your legal budget will cover some of these costs, Council approval of unbudgeted costs include: 1. TBD: $ 6,000 2. Labor: $ 10,250 3. Litigation: $128,000 [does not include LUPA defense costs for Hathaway and Drake]. for a total of unbudgeted litigation and labor negotiation costs of approximately $144,250. WSS/gjz City Attorney 3 Packet Page 322 of 364 Prepared By:Renee McRae Department:Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Description on Budget Amendment Summary Aquatics salaries Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Salaries 001.000.640.575.510.110.00 (15,000.00) Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)(15,000.00)$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease -$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Ending Cash 001.000.390.508.000.000.00 15,000.00 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)15,000.00$ In 2009 the schedule for Yost Pool was revised for cost savings. The change in hours of operation and a 92- day season resulted in a salary savings of $15,000. The savings were made to the 2009 budget and this carries the savings into the 2010 budget. Page 9 Packet Page 323 of 364 Prepared By:Renee McRae Department:Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Description on Budget Amendment Summary Senior Adventurers Field Trip Fees Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Travel 001.000.640.575.530.430.00 457.15 001 General Fund Miscellaneous 001.000.640.575.530.490.00 602.85 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)1,060.00$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Program Fees 001.000.000.347.600.000.00 (1,060.00) Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (1,060.00)$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$ The Senior Adventurers (Edmonds Day Camp 5th and 6th grade group) were charged a trip fee, which was included in their registration fee. Day Camp is over and we need to move the revenue into the correct expenditure lines (transportation, 43 and entrance fees, 49) to pay for the trips. Page 10 Packet Page 324 of 364 Prepared By:Deb Sharp Department: Multiple Departments Description on Budget Amendment Summary Merchant Bankcard Fees Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Miscellaneous 001.000.640.574.200.490.00 50,000.00 001 General Fund Miscellaneous 001.000.410.521.110.490.00 150.00 001 General Fund Miscellaneous 001.000.230.512.500.490.00 14,500.00 411 Utility Fund Miscellaneous 411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8,100.00 411 Utility Fund Miscellaneous 411.000.654.534.800.490.00 12,200.00 411 Utility Fund Miscellaneous 411.000.655.535.800.490.00 16,500.00 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) 101,450.00$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease -$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Ending Cash 001.000.390.508.000.000.00 (64,650.00) 411 Utility Fund Ending Cash 411.000.654.508.000.000.00 (36,800.00) Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) (101,450.00)$ In past years, the merchant bankcard fees have been included in the City's bank analysis calculation. The analysis calculation takes into consideration the City's earning credit (interest) and all the fees associated with our bank account. The analysis calculation includes fees such as NSF fees, deposits, positive pay items, ACH credits, transit items, just to name a few. Also included are Merchant Bankcard Fees which are the fees the City is charged each time we accept a credit card as payment. Since the earnings credit is so low and the City is taking more and more credit cards, the City is recognizing a negative interest earnings amount. In order to address this, we reviewed and reversed all the merchant bankcard fees for FY 2010 as of September. We will then expense the fees to the appropriate department. For example, any recreation charges will be charged against parks, utility payments against the utility fund and court charges to the court. One department not listed below is Development Services, they have enough expenditure excess authority (due to the director vacancy) to absorb the additional expense of approximately $6000. Page 11 Packet Page 325 of 364 Prepared By:Deb Sharp Department: Utility Fund Description on Budget Amendment Summary Transfers from Operations to Capital Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 411 Utility Fund Interfund Transfer 411.000.654.597.412.550.00 800,000.00 411 Utility Fund Interfund Transfer 411.000.652.597.412.550.00 200,000.00 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) 1,000,000.00$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 412 Utility Construction Interfund Transfer 412.100.000.397.411.000.00 (800,000.00) 412 Utility Construction Interfund Transfer 412.200.000.397.411.000.00 (200,000.00) Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (1,000,000.00)$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount 411 Utility Fund 411.000.654.508.000.000.00 (1,000,000.00) 412 Utility Construction 412.100.630.508.000.000.00 800,000.00 412 Utility Construction 412.200.630.508.000.000.00 200,000.00 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) -$ All revenue receipts for the utility funds are receipted into the 411 utility operations fund. An interfund transfer appropriation is needed to move excess funds from the utility operations fund (411) to the utility construction fund (412). In the last budget amendment there was $100,000 transfer for both the storm utility and the water utility for a total of $200,000. When requesting that amount I had preliminary numbers for the year and did not want to transfer a large amount until I had the 2010 estimate and 2011 budget numbers from the 411 storm utility manager and the 411 water manager. During the budget process it was determined based on the dollars remaining in the two utilities that the below amounts could be transferred from the 411 fund to the 412 fund. These dollar amounts are included in the 2010 year-end estimate columns for both funds in your budget books. Page 12 Packet Page 326 of 364 Prepared By:Deb Sharp Department: Street Construction Fund Description on Budget Amendment Summary Decrease Construction Project Costs Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 112 Street Construction Construction Projects 112.200.630.595.330.650.00 (350,000.00) Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)(350,000.00)$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease -$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount 112 Street Construction Ending Cash 112.200.630.508.000.000.0 350,000.00 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)350,000.00$ The ending fund balance for this fund is negative due to the previous adjustment amending the beginning fund balance to the actual 2010 beginning cash and investment amount. Per the department's year-end estimate, construction project costs in this fund are substantially less than the budgeted amount. This entry is submitted to bring the fund into balance. Page 13 Packet Page 327 of 364 Prepared By:Renee McRae Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Description on Budget Amendment Summary Youth Scholarships - Increase Awards Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 122 Youth Scholarship Miscellaneous 122.000.640.574.100.490.00 907.00 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)907.00$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease -$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount 122 Youth Scholarship Ending Cash 122.000.640.508.000.000.00 (907.00) Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(907.00)$ We are seeing an increase in scholarship requests due to the economy and would like to increase our awards to $4,307. Page 14 Packet Page 328 of 364 Budget Activity Form Prepared By:Frances Chapin Department: Parks, Rec, Cultural Services Description on Budget Amendment Summary Adjustment for grant Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 123 Tourism Promotion Arts Advertising 123.000.640.573.100.440.00 1,885.00 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) 1,885.00$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 123 Tourism Promotion Arts Snohomish County 123.000.000.337.070.000.00 (1,885.00) Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (1,885.00)$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) -$ The Edmonds Arts Commission received a lodging tax grant from Snohomish County in the amount of $1885 for national advertising of the Write on the Sound writers' conference (WOTS). This amount was expended under advertising. Page 15Packet Page 329 of 364 Prepared By:Renee McRae Department:Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Description on Budget Amendment Summary 127 Fund Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 127 Gifts Catalog Fund Supplies 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 4,800.00 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)4,800.00$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 127 Gifts Catalog Fund Contributions 127.000.000.367.000.000.00 (23,920.00) Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (23,920.00)$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount 127 Gifts Catalog Fund 127.000.640.508.000.000.00 19,120.00 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)19,120.00$ With the opening of Hickman Park and the construction of Haines Wharf Park, benches became available for gifting. Increase in revenue due to bench sales and increase in budgeted expenditures for plaques for benches. Page 16 Packet Page 330 of 364 Prepared By:Renee McRae Department:Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Description on Budget Amendment Summary Interpretive Panel Marina Beach Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 127 Gifts Catalog Professional Services 127.000.640.575.500.410.00 2,000.00 127 Gifts Catalog Supplies 127.000.640.575.500.310.00 1,609.00 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)3,609.00$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease -$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount 127 Gifts Catalog Ending Cash 127.000.640.508.000.000.00 (3,609.00) Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(3,609.00)$ In 2009, we received $4,000 from the Snohomish County-Camano Association of Realtors for an interpretive panel (scenic identifier) at Marina Beach. In 2010 we contracted with an artist to design the panel and had the panel manufactured. Page 17 Packet Page 331 of 364 Prepared By:Stephen Clifton Department: Economic Development Description on Budget Amendment Summary Transfer to 132 for grant match Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 120 Hotel/Motel Tax Interfund Transfer 120.000.310.597.132.550.00 5,000.00 Total Expenditure Increase (Decreases)5,000.00$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 132 Capital Projects Interfund Transfer 132.000.000.397.120.000.00 (5,000.00) Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (5,000.00)$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount 120 Hotel/Motel Tax 120.000.310.508.000.000.00 (5,000.00) 132 Capital Projects 132.000.640.508.000.000.00 5,000.00 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)-$ The Economic Development Department allocated $5,000 in 2010 as a match for the Preserve America grant awarded in September 2010. This funding is part of the monies budgeted from the 120 fund for use by the Economic Development Department. The transfer is from the 120 to the 132 fund for the Preserve America grant matching expenditures. Page 18 Packet Page 332 of 364 Prepared By:Renee McRae Department: Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Description on Budget Amendment Summary 2010 Pool Subsidy Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 136 Parks Trust Fund Interfund Transfers 136.300.640.597.001.550.00 25,403.00 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) 25,403.00$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 001 General Fund Interfund Transfers 001.000.000.397.136.000.00 (25,403.00) Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (25,403.00)$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount 136 Parks Trust Fund 136.300.640.508.000.000.00 (25,403.00) 001 General Fund 001.000.390.508.000.000.00 25,403.00 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) -$ In 2009, the Save Yost Pool group raised monies to keep Yost Pool open for the season. There is still a balance in the fund to cover the subsidy for the 2010 season. Revenues and expenditures are now compiled and the subsidy is the overage of the expenses for the season. Page 19 Packet Page 333 of 364 Prepared By:Deb Sharp Department: Debt Service Fund Description on Budget Amendment Summary LID Receipts Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund # Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 211 LID Fund Control Interfund Transfer 211.000.320.597.213.550.00 58,000.00 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease) 58,000.00$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount 213 LID Guaranty Fund Interfund Transfer 213.000.000.397.211.000.00 (58,000.00) Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease (58,000.00)$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount 211 LID Fund Control 211.000.320.508.000.000.00 (58,000.00) 213 LID Guaranty Fund 213.000.320.508.000.000.00 58,000.00 Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) -$ The LID bonds were paid off in 2009. The receipts received from LID customers is receipted into the LID Fund. Per our bond council, the funds are the City's and should be transferred into the LID Guaranty Fund for future debt payments. Due to paying off the bonds in 2009, we exceeded our expenditure authority last year. The auditor told us since it was a biennial budget, we could increase our expenditure authority in 2010 to cover last year. Page 20 Packet Page 334 of 364 Prepared By:Brian McIntosh Department:Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Description on Budget Amendment Summary 125 Fund Budget Amendment Detailed Description Expenditure Increase (Decrease) Fund #Fund Title Object BARS Number Amount 125 Real Estate Excise Tax 2 Construction Projects 125.000.640.594.750.650.00 200,000.00 Total Expenditure Increase (Decrease)200,000.00$ Revenue (Increase) Decrease Fund Fund Title Revenue Source BARS Number Amount Total Revenue (Increase) Decrease -$ Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease) Fund Fund Title Ending Fund Balance BARS Number Amount 125 Real Estate Excise Tax 2 125.000.640.508.000.000.00 (200,000.00) Total Ending Fund Balance Increase (Decrease)(200,000.00)$ Funding to complete 2010 construction projects (primarily Haines Wharf Park) and final engineering for 2011 construction projects (primarily Interurban Trail). Page 21 Packet Page 335 of 364 AM-3508 Item #: 2. J. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Councilwoman Petso Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee:Finance Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion of Mayor discretionary pay increases for vacant positions. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action Previous Council Action: 2/26/2008 adopted Ordinance 3680, paragraph 1.4, authorizing the Mayor to pay an additional 5% to non-represented employees who are covering for a vacant position. Attachment 1: Feb. 26, 2008 Council Minutes Councilmember Petso has requested that the 9/14/2010 Finance Committeee consider rescinding paragraph 1.4 of Ordinance 3680 authorizing an additional 5% pay for employees covering for a vacant position. Rescinding the policy may encourage the City to fill vacant positions, resulting in a higher level of service to Citizens and a reduced workload for the employees. In the event the City determines that a position need not be filled because the duties can be covered by other employees, the position could be eliminated. Attachment 2: Ordinance 3680 The Finance Committee took the following action: D. Discussion of Mayor discretionary pay increases for vacant position Debi Humann discussed the history and the supporting ordinance, which gives the Mayor this discretion. The committee will keep the issue pending further discussion. The Finance Committee discussed this item again on October 12, 2010 and took the following action: A. Discussion of Mayor discretionary pay increases for vacant position Councilmember Petso presented her concerns with the current authority of the Administration in regards to this matter. Debi Humann discussed the history and the supporting ordinance (Ordinance 3680), which gives the Mayor this discretion. The committee will work with Ms. Humann and the city attorney to revise current law in this matter to make the authority more specific and limiting. Narrative This has been placed on the Finance Committee for discussion. Attachments Attach 1 - Feb 26 2008 CM Attach 2 - Ord. 3680 Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/04/2010 08:28 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:28 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Packet Page 336 of 364 Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/04/2010 Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 337 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2008 Page 5 CHAPTER 84.55 RCW? THIS PROPOSITION IS NOT AN EXCESS LEVY AND IS SUBJECT TO OTHERWISE APPLICABLE STATUTORY LIMITS. SHOULD THIS PROPOSITION BE APPROVED? YES OR NO *PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE RECEIVED BOTH PRO AND CON REGARDING THIS PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT Mayor Haakenson invited public comment. There were no members of the public present who wished to provide comment. COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1167. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The resolution approved reads as follows: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, REQUESTING THE VOTERS SUPPORT A PROPOSITION TO RESTORE THE CITY’S EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES LEVY TO $.50 PER $1,000 OF ASSESSED VALUATION. 6. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE SALARY RANGES FOR NON-REPRESENTED AND EXEMPT PERSONNEL FOR BUDGET YEAR 2008. Human Resources Manager Debi Humann reviewed the four areas covered by the Annual Compensation Ordinance: 1. Section 1.1 details the updated 2008 Hourly Employee Wage Schedule and accompanying pay grade and title sheets (Exhibit A). She advised the Hourly Employee Wage Schedule was updated annually based on the Washington State minimum wage law. In addition, the titles of hourly positions were reviewed annually and minor changes made. 2. Section 1.2 of the ordinance includes the updated 2008 Non-Represented Employee Pay Schedule (Exhibit B). She recalled non-represented compensation had been the subject of much debate over the past three years. Last year the Council approved a new Non-Represented Employee Policy (NRC). Per the NRC policy, the pay schedule was updated annually through a survey process. The proposed 2008 non-represented employee pay schedule reflects the results of the survey as well as a 3.5% COLA. 3. Section 1.3 of the ordinance authorizes the Mayor to approve merit increases for non-represented employees based on anniversary dates within the band established in compliance with the NRC compensation policy. She noted although this was not a new practice, the ordinance establishes the method by which merit increases are provided. 4. Section 1.4 gives authority to the Mayor to provide additional compensation to non-represented employees who were doing their job along with the duties of an additional vacant position for a period exceeding 30 days. Ms. Humann advised the ordinance was reviewed by the Finance Committee at their February 12 meeting and was recommended for review by the full Council. Council President Plunkett asked whether the provision that allowed the Mayor to provide additional compensation under certain circumstances was reviewed by the Finance Committee. Ms. Humann answered yes. Finance Committee member Councilmember Wambolt recalled Mayor Haakenson informed the Committee he would make the proposal to the Council. Ms. Humann agreed it was not included in the ordinance considered by the Finance Committee but it was discussed. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised he drafted the section last week. Res# 1167 – Support EMS Levy Lid Lift – May 20, 2008 Special Election Establish Salary Ranges for Non Represented and Exempt Personnel Packet Page 338 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2008 Page 6 Councilmember Bernheim asked whether the Finance Committee members felt that issue had been adequately discussed. Councilmember Wambolt did not recall there was any discussion; the concept was introduced but there was no discussion between Committee members. Mayor Haakenson recalled there was a reporter in the audience and it was decided not to go into detail so that it was not reported in the newspaper before the Council had an opportunity to consider it. Mr. Snyder explained both the union contracts and the City’s personnel manual had a similar process when an employee was covering two jobs or working out of class; however, there was nothing similar at the director level. Ms. Humann advised the current City policy and collective bargaining allowed for an additional increase for a staff member working in their position who took on a supervisory role or duties of higher pay grade. She noted at the non-represented level, it was becoming more common that staff were doing their full-time job as well as taking on additional positions that may not be at a higher salary level with no way to provide any compensation. She commented the proposed additional compensation was intended to reward employees performing two jobs in excess of 30 days. Mr. Snyder commented the Economic Development Director position had been vacant for a substantial period of time and Stephen Clifton had been covering that position as well as Community Development Director. As a non-represented employee, he did not receive overtime and worked a substantial number of hours. He noted a public employee could not be provided a bonus and could not be compensated retroactively. Ms. Humann pointed out repeated efforts to fill the Economic Development Director position had been unsuccessful. Councilmember Bernheim observed currently directors who worked additional hours were not compensated. Ms. Humann agreed. Mr. Snyder explained for employees covered by collective bargaining that issue was addressed by the contract. A non-represented employee not at a director level was covered by the City’s personnel policies; director’s compensation was established in bands in the annual salary ordinance. Absent Council authorization, there was no way to provide additional compensation. Councilmember Bernheim asked about comp time. Mr. Snyder answered comp time was applicable only to those covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act and receive additional compensation. At a director level the individual works as much or as little as necessary to perform his job; in this situation the person is covering two jobs, working in excess of 40 hours per week and there was no way to compensate him. Councilmember Bernheim clarified his questions were in no way related to the specific staff member, only the ordinance which could apply in other instances. Mayor Haakenson clarified this situation had only arisen twice in the past ten years, both in the last two months. Ms. Humann reiterated this would only apply to a person doing their own job plus another position for a period of over 30 days. Council President Plunkett observed the policy exists in concept but not for directors. Mr. Snyder agreed. Mayor Haakenson clarified it existed for union bargain units but not non-represented employees. Councilmember Wambolt referred to the comment that a director was not being compensated for working additional hours and not receiving comp time. Ms. Humann advised directors did not accumulate comp time. Mr. Snyder advised exempt employees’ salaries could not be docked; they performed their job or were subject to discharge. Councilmember Wambolt did not object to compensating a person temporarily assuming a higher level position. In this instance, if the person in question were provided an additional 5%, they would be the second highest paid employee in the City, above the Police Chief. He noted the Economic Development Director position and Community Services Director position had only one person reporting to it. Packet Page 339 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2008 Page 7 Observing that the additional 5% would result in a salary of over $130,000/year, he found that inappropriate and he would not support it. Ms. Humann pointed out an advantage was the City was not paying a salary for both positions. Councilmember Wambolt assured he had nothing against the individual, noting there was likely not a finer employee, but there were only 24 hours in a day to perform his job duties. Councilmember Bernheim commented if the City could not afford an Economic Development Director, that position should be eliminated and if the position was essential, the City should find the money to fund it. He was willing to approve the ordinance, referring Section 1.4 to the Finance Committee for further vetting such as regarding the issue of comp time. He suggested the Council could also approve Section 1.4 with a 3-month sunset provision and in the meantime refer the issue to the Finance Committee. Councilmember Wilson commented according to the pay grade and title, an Intern was paid more than a Crime Prevention Officer Assistant and the Chief Information Officer and Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor were included in the same band. He observed the City did not seem to have a good sense of what the market paid and based on feedback from staff, the City was not keeping pace with private industry and was doing more with less such as the Community Services Director doing his job as well as the Economic Development Director duties. He asked whether this was a symptom of a larger problem that needed to be addressed. Mayor Haakenson commented he was amazed at the amount of time spent discussing the non-represented employees’ pay when there were 43 non-represented employees compared to 282 total employees. He noted approximately 240 of City employees were covered by union contracts which the Council approves. Staff has developed different ways over the years of conducting salary surveys to ensure the City was paying comparable salaries which he believed the City was, and the Council’s policy had been to pay in the mid-range. With regard to Councilmember Bernheim’s comment regarding whether an Economic Development Director was needed, Mayor Haakenson explained the Council made a decision to fill the Economic Development Director position, it was a budgeted position, and there was no argument that the City could not afford the position; it was simply that a satisfactory candidate had not been identified and the approximately $100,000 salary had not been paid for the past two years. The proposal was to pay an already overworked employee approximately $5,000 to do a second job. He noted last week the Council allocated that much to fund the 2-1-1 call center. Mayor Haakenson emphasized those 43 people were dedicated, quality employees who were doing their job for far less than they could get if they worked elsewhere. The approximately $5,000 increase for the period of time that person did both jobs was well worth the savings of not filling the position and he did an amazing job. It was a temporary situation; if it were to become permanent, the job description would need to be rewritten. He summarized the position was funded in the budget and having the employee do both jobs saved the taxpayers approximately $90,000 a year. He agreed the City’s employees did more than employees in other cities, noting Lynnwood had 150 more employees and 10,000 fewer citizens. He emphasized the employees were the City’s most valuable commodity and they deserved to be paid fairly; without them, nothing would be accomplished. Councilmember Wilson assured there was no question of the value of Mr. Clifton to the City and $5,000 was well worth the cost, noting hiring someone would cost much more than the proposed 5%. He was supportive of the ordinance, but had underlying concerns. For example although he had participated in Executive Session regarding contract negotiations, he felt what was presented was fait accompli. He acknowledged the City’s staff was the best, did more with less and deserved to be paid adequately and if the administration felt they needed to be paid more, he would support that including working to pass the EMS levy. He noted even if the EMS levy passed, the City would not have sufficient revenue to fund Packet Page 340 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2008 Page 8 services beyond the next biennium which likely would require a general property tax increase, utility tax increases or service reductions. With regard to comp time, Mayor Haakenson explained if a Director worked 48-50 hours one week and asked to take Friday off, he approved it. He acknowledged that could be considered comp time but he considered it a balancing act. Councilmember Bernheim commented the proposal was not an increase for Mr. Clifton; if that was the intent, it should be worded in that manner. The proposal was a blanket authorization to the Mayor to provide additional compensation when multiple jobs were performed. He noted he voted against the funding for 2-1-1 and regretted he did not vote against the $250,000 for a consultant on the Transportation Comprehensive Plan. He wanted to ensure this blanket power was adequately vetted by Council Committee. He did not recall any Council discussion when Mr. Clifton assumed the duties of the Economic Development Director nor was it conditioned on a pay increase. Mayor Haakenson answered there was little point referring the matter to committee when all seven Councilmembers were present and staff was available to discuss the matter. He pointed out although Councilmember Bernheim was not comfortable with providing the Mayor that power in an unusual circumstance, that was the Mayor’s responsibility and the Council should be confident he would use it as intended. Councilmember Bernheim noted his question regarding comp time had been answered two different ways. Mayor Haakenson answered although it was not called comp time, it worked like comp time. Mr. Snyder advised compensatory time under the Fair Labor Standards Act had a very technical meaning; it was money in the bank that could be cashed out at any time and was subject to taxation. What Mayor Haakenson and Councilmember Wambolt were discussing was an exempt employee not entitled to overtime being given flexibility in their hours. He noted an employee could not be paid retroactively outside a union contract. One of the reasons this arose was the situation was unanticipated because it has been assumed the Economic Development Director position would have been filled by now. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3680. Councilmember Dawson commented there were two items in the ordinance; the first was approval of the pay grades for non-represented employees. The information provided indicated the rates were comparable to other organizations and she found it appropriate for the Council to approve those pay rates. With regard to the second issue, allowing the Mayor to provide a 5% interest to a director working out of class, she found it appropriate to institute such a policy rather than acting on a case-by-case basis. She noted represented positions working out of class were paid for the position they were performing. The current situation was unusual in that the employee was performing two jobs, one of which paid less than his current salary. She noted there were two ways to address the situation, 1) the work of the Economic Development Director was not done, noting the Council has agreed they wanted the work of the Economic Development Director done, or 2) eliminate the Economic Development Director position. She found it appropriate the additional 5% would not be paid until the person was performing the additional job for 30 days, noting employees at the executive level often helped out with other positions; however, it was appropriate to compensate an employee expected to perform two jobs for an extended period of time. She summarized the Economic Development Director was an important position for the City to fund and it was appropriate to compensate someone in the interim for doing two jobs. Councilmember Olson commented on the importance of someone doing the Economic Development Director job, acting as the liaison between businesses and the City and new businesses resulted in increased revenues. Packet Page 341 of 364 Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes February 26, 2008 Page 9 For Councilmember Wambolt, Mayor Haakenson assured Mr. Clifton had not requested the additional compensation and in fact knew nothing about it as he was on vacation. Mayor Haakenson explained although Mr. Clifton may benefit from the policy, the reason it was proposed was to provide additional compensation when appropriate. Councilmember Wambolt commented there was nothing more emotional for employees than the fairness of their compensation. He noted the amount of Council discussion regarding this issue was not the amount of money but the principle. He pointed out a person earning $130,000 a year was not paid for the hours they worked; they were paid for their skills. He could support the proposal if it was to compensate a person performing a higher level position such as when the Assistant Police Chief performed the duties of the Police Chief. Councilmember Wilson commented their may be some broader policy issues related to personnel and fairness that the Finance Committee may want to discuss. He found the proposed policy sufficiently narrow, empowering the Mayor with another tool, noting he trusted Mayor Haakenson and a majority of the citizens trusted him. Councilmember Dawson commented she was not suggesting that an executive level employee be paid by the hour; she was recognizing that it would take an executive doing two jobs longer to do both jobs well and therefore additional compensation was appropriate. She noted few people could do two executive positions well or do them at the same time. For those who could, it was appropriate to provide them additional compensation. She noted the City had the tools to pay an employee working above their level but not for an employee performing two separate jobs at the same time for over 30 days. Council President Plunkett observed since neither of the two Finance Committee members indicated the process violated the responsibilities of the Committee, he would support the motion. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PLUNKETT AND COUNCILMEMBERS OLSON, WILSON AND DAWSON IN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, ORVIS AND WAMBOLT OPPOSED. The ordinance approved reads as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 3680 OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE SALARY RANGES FOR NON-REPRESENTED AND EXEMPT PERSONNEL FOR BUDGET YEAR 2008, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE. 7. VERIZON FRANCHISE - CONSORTIUM City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City’s franchise with Comcast for cable television expired in three years; therefore, under federal statute the City was entering the three year negotiation period, a process that could be formal or informal. Comcast is a Section 6 cable provider under the Telecommunications Act that also offers Section 2 phone services as part of their triple-play service. Verizon is in the process of installing fiber throughout the region and the nation to offer the same triple- play service and will be a Section 2 telephone company offering Section 6 cable communication service. Under new FCC regulations, cities are required to have in place a 90-day process for competitive franchises. When Verizon files an application the City will have 90 days to consider their application; therefore, any decisions regarding process were extremely time sensitive. He noted a competitive situation was one in which there was already an existing cable franchisee, in this case Comcast. Under level playing field requirements, when Verizon files an application, they are entitled to a franchise. Therefore, although the City was about to renegotiate their franchise with Comcast, Verizon would get the same franchise. He noted this was occurring in a very unstable setting; every year over the past three years the Telecommunications Act has been under scrutiny in Congress and cynics believe it would have Ord# 3680 Salary Ranges for Non- Represented & Exempt Personnel Verizon Franchise - Consortium Packet Page 342 of 364 Packet Page 343 of 364 AM-3485 Item #: 2. K. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted By:Debi Humann Department:Human Resources Committee:Finance Type:Action Information Subject Title 2011 Hourly Employee Wage Schedule. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Staff respectfully requests that the Finance Committee, after thorough review, approve the attached Hourly Employee Wage Schedule and allow it to move forward to full Council. Previous Council Action The Hourly Employee Wage Schedule comes before Council on an annual basis updated to reflect changes made by the Department of Labor and Industries to the State's minimum wage. Narrative As previously stated, the attached Hourly Employee Wage Schedule is updated each year to reflect changes to the State of Washington's minimum wage. As the attached "L&I News" states, this year the minimum wage was increased 1.4% moving H1/Step 1 from the previous minimum wage of $8.55 to $8.67 for 2011. Please note that the minimum wage held steady at $8.55 for years 2009 and 2010. Attachments 2011 Wage Schedule Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date Parks and Recreation Brian McIntosh 10/27/2010 01:01 PM Public Works Phil Williams 11/01/2010 07:08 AM Finance Lorenzo Hines 11/04/2010 10:20 AM City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/04/2010 10:31 AM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:28 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 10/26/2010 05:58 PM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 344 of 364 Packet Page 345 of 364 Packet Page 346 of 364 AM-3498 Item #: 2. L. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Councilmember Buckshnis Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Review Committee: Finance Committee Action: Type:Information Information Subject Title Discussion regarding a policy for a general fund reserve. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action During the April 21, 2009 Councilman Peterson placed a resolution to create a general fund reserve on the agenda. Narrative This item is now being brought back by Councilwoman Buckshnis for discussion at the Finance Committee. The 2011 Budget Draft Report Exhibit 4 indicates a reserve requirement of two months expenses which was a recommendation from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The City of Edmonds does not have an established policy and the Levy Committee has requested that Finance Committee discuss the establishment of a reserve for City Council to consider and establish. While GFOA has this recommended reserve, the City of Edmonds in the past has utilized a one-month reserve. The cities of Lynnwood and Redmond maintain a one-month reserve requirement whereas the City of Mukilteo maintains a two month requirement. Councilwomen Buckshnis will continue research in this area and supply information for the November 2009 Finance Meeting. Attachment: General Fund Reserve Resolution Attachments General Fund Resolution Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/03/2010 12:54 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:28 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/01/2010 Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 347 of 364 RESOLUTION NO ___ RESOLUTION OF THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL TO CREATE A GENERAL RESERVE FUND WHEREAS, it is sound budgetary policy to have a one month expenditure as a reserve to the City’s general fund, and WHEREAS, the recent economic situation has illustrated the importance of having such a reserve fund, and WHEREAS, the reserve fund would have a positive effect on the City’s bond ratings, and WHEREAS, it is important to have transparency in call matters of financial disclosure in the City government, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council directs staff to prepare an ordinance creating a specific General Fund Reserve, separate from the General Fund and the Emergency Finance Reserve Fund, to be funded at a level of one month expenditure. THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this newly created General Reserve Fund is exclusive of the Emergency Finance Reserve Fund (natural calamity) and would be a financial emergency plan. This reserve would be a required contingency plan for sudden or severe decreases in locally collected revenue or intergovernmental aid and unexpected major capital maintenance requirement. THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any funds spent are to be restored beginning no later than six months after their first use in order to maintain the integrity of the fund. RESOLVED this day ____ of November 2010 Approved: ______________________ Mayor Mike Cooper Packet Page 348 of 364 AM-3507 Item #: 2. M. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman Department:City Council Committee:Finance Type:Action Information Subject Title 2011 Contract for Edmonds City Council Sr. Executive Assistant. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff The City Council President Steve Bernheim recommends this contract be put on the November 16, 2010 Consent Agenda for approval. Previous Council Action The Edmonds City Council has approved the contract for the Sr. Executive Council Assistant for the previous 15 years. Narrative The Council President has put this on the Finance Committee Agenda and recommends this be put on the November 16, 2010 Consent Agenda for approval. Attachments Sr. Ex. Assistant 2011 Contract Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/03/2010 12:54 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:28 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/03/2010 10:11 AM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 349 of 364 Packet Page 350 of 364 Packet Page 351 of 364 Packet Page 352 of 364 Packet Page 353 of 364 Packet Page 354 of 364 Packet Page 355 of 364 Packet Page 356 of 364 AM-3514 Item #: 3. A. City Council Committee Meetings Date: 11/09/2010 Time:10 Minutes Submitted By:Stephen Clifton Department:Community Services Committee:Public Safety Type:Action Information Subject Title Review City of Edmonds Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda. Recommendation from Mayor and Staff Previous Council Action On November 1, 2010, the Edmonds City Council referred the attached Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda to the Community Services/Development Services, Finance and Public Safety Committees in order to give each committee an opportunity to review and discuss agenda items related to each committee. Narrative The attached proposed Draft 2011 legislative agenda outlines prioritized items which, if approved by the City Council, will serve as a scope of work for Mike Doubleday and staff during the 2011 Washington State legislative session/year. Mr. Doubleday attended the November 1, 2010 City Council meeting to present an overview of the legislative agenda. During the meeting, City Council members expressed the following: Council member Wilson: • Asked for clarification on Tax Increment Financing • Asked about legislative priorities related to transportation • Expressed removing Secondary Priority Agenda Item 6 "Red Light Cameras" from the agenda • Discussed the possibility of proposing a Lake Ballinger funding request agenda item Council member Bernheim: • Asked about the City’s past support to add lobbying for making marijuana criminal offenses into an infraction. Council member Peterson: • Asked about Phase 2 Storm water funding and toxics tax and whether this is coming back before the legislature. Council member Buckshnis: • Asked about WRIA 8 and Cap and Trade • Asked about "Product Stewardship Program" which is the return/disposal of unused prescription drugs (2009 HB1165) • Asked about the Puget Sound Partnership. During the November 2, 2010 City Council meeting, I provided Sandy Chase with a copy of a Legislative Priorities for Puget Sound Watershed Health and Salmon Habitat Recovery which was an attachment to an e-mail sent to me by Council member Buchshnis. I asked Sandy Chase to provide each City Council member with a copy. Council member Petso: • Asked about Top Priority Agenda Item 1 and whether the heading Edmonds Crossing reflects language of the agenda item. Additionally, Council member Petso asked whether supporting this item would encourage Washington State Ferries (WSF) to keep or expand service at the Main Street Terminal. Related to this, Mayor Cooper requested inserting language about the existing Washington State Ferry Terminal located in Edmonds, and language about the Packet Page 357 of 364 City's opposition to reassignment of the Mukilteo/Clinton Ferry route to Edmonds. In response, Top Priority Agenda Item 1 has been modified for your review and consideration. NEW ITEM: Extension of Public Facilities District sales and use tax credit This item relates to the City of Spokane Public Facilities District (PFD) requesting the legislature to extend the PFD sales tax credit (.033) from 2027 to 2037. The Spokane PFD wants to "do new things" with the extension. Having heard about this request, other PFD's want to use the extension, if authorized, to refinance debt and lower annual debt payments. If the legislature authorizes an extension, a PFD and/or City would have the choice to utilize this provision. As such, the City may want to add this to the 2011 legislative agenda and express support the Spokane PFD request as this could give the Edmonds PFD and City an opportunity to refinance existing debt and lower monthly/annual debt payments. Attachments Attachment 1: City of Edmonds Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda Form Review Inbox Reviewed By Date City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/04/2010 01:05 PM Mayor Mike Cooper 11/04/2010 02:30 PM Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/05/2010 07:22 AM Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 11/04/2010 11:29 AM Final Approval Date: 11/05/2010 Packet Page 358 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 1 DRAFT Edmonds 2011 State Legislative Agenda (Includes revisions based on comments from Council members during November 2, 1010 City Council meeting) 11.3.2010 TOP PRIORITY 1. Washington State Ferries • Existing Edmonds Main Street WSF Terminal Public Private Partnership and Safety Support a continued partnership with the DOT Public Private Partnership Office to develop a workable safety solution at the Edmonds waterfront for pedestrian ferry riders. No Expansion – Request legislative assistance in preventing Washington State Ferries from expanding the existing Edmonds Main Street WSF Terminal. • Mukilteo Multimodal Terminal Project – Request legislative assistance in preventing the reassignment of the Mukilteo/Clinton Ferry route to Edmonds. 2. Protect State-Shared and State-Committed Revenues Protect state-shared and committed revenues such as: • Liquor profits and taxes, • The municipal criminal justice account, • The Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF), • The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP). Packet Page 359 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 2 3. Local Fiscal Flexibility Support a package of local fiscal flexibility measures such as: • Unifying the uses of the first and second quarters of the local Real Estate Excise Tax (REET), including flexibility to use the local REET for parks maintenance and operations, • Additional flexibility with lodging taxes, • Reduce matching requirements for state grants, • Review statutory update schedules for land use and environmental planning updates, such as GMA, SMA, water systems and sewer plans, to determine if streamlining is possible or updates can be delayed. In addition, oppose temporary suspension of local impact fee authority. 4. Public Records Requests Support legislation to provide some relief for cities and other governmental agencies from overly burdensome public records requests. 5. Street Maintenance Utility Authority Support the Street Maintenance Utility Authority legislation as both a management tool and a funding source for local transportation systems. 6. Transportation Revenue Package Support the advancement of a statewide transportation revenue package to address infrastructure projects in Edmonds. • Edmonds’ highest transportation funding priority is the 228th/SR99 safety project. We recently were selected to receive grant funding for design and ROW acquisition for this project. Packet Page 360 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 3 • Seek support for an engineering pre-design, detailed traffic study, and ROW plan for a signature, five-legged round-a-bout at Five Corners. This project will address a significant but correctable congestion problem on the primary corridor leading into downtown Edmonds. 7. Edmonds Main Street Rebuilding Project Seek capital budget funding for the Edmonds Main Street Rebuilding Project (from 5th Avenue North to 6th Avenue North); this includes incorporating Low Impact Development (LID) techniques. 8. Phase II Storm Water Funding • Seek state funding for cities, including Edmonds, so they can continue to meet Phase II storm water requirements. • Seek a delay of further storm water requirements now scheduled for 2012. 9. LEOFF 1 Medical Costs - Oppose any further expansion of LEOFF 1 retiree medical benefits without an alternative funding source. Cities and towns are not in a position to take on any additional costs. Look for opportunities to fund ongoing LEOFF 1 retiree health care costs. SECONDARY PRIORITY 1. Airport Siting Monitor legislation that seeks to site a new commercial airport in the Puget Sound region. 2. Aerospace Industry Support the Washington Aerospace Partnership and other stakeholder groups in developing a unified strategy (e.g., Packet Page 361 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 4 training & education, research & development, Office of Aerospace and Defense, unemployment insurance tax, worker’s compensation, transportation infrastructure) to ensure that Washington State remains the leading location in the world for aerospace. Led by The Boeing Company, the aerospace industry within Snohomish County employs as many as 45,000 people, while one out of every three to six Washington State jobs is supported either directly or indirectly by the aerospace industry 3. Economic Development Support “tax-increment financing (TIF)”, a tool used by most other states to foster economic and community development to allow cities to proactively implement their comprehensive plans and to ensure local, regional and national competitiveness. 4. Driving While License Suspended Monitor legislation that reduces DWLS 3 to an infraction which will reduce the large number of DWLS 3 cases in municipal court. 5. Public Safety Authority Monitor discussion of a Public Safety Authority, a separate taxing district dedicated to police services in a city or region that could be governed by the Mayor and City Council. 6. Red Light Cameras Preserve the authority for cities to implement red light camera technology. 7. Gang Activity Packet Page 362 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 5 Support additional tools for combating gang activity including intervention and prevention activities. • Support local tools and innovation for gang prevention and intervention; seek sustainable, ongoing funding for gang prevention and intervention, graffiti removal programs, and law enforcement suppression activities. • Support the creation of new offenses for criminal gang intimidation and school criminal gang intimidation and sentence enhancements for gang-related offenses. • Support new tools for nuisance abatement and protection orders related to criminal street gang activity. 8. Vehicle Prowling Support additional penalties for vehicle prowling. 9. Business License Streamlining Monitor the discussion around local government business license streamlining. 10. Additional Revenue Authority for Transit Agencies Monitor transit agencies (including Community Transit) legislation, which likely will request additional revenue authority in order to avoid large cuts in service. 11. Preserve local government’s current ability to purchase health care insurance. Oppose any requirement to mandate participation in state-wide health insurance pools. Advocate for maintaining current authority for selecting health insurance programs. 12. Pensions Support level/stable contribution rates for cities that do not fluctuate with economic “boom/bust” cycles. In addition, Packet Page 363 of 364 Edmonds DRAFT 2011 Leg Agenda October 12, 2010 Page 6 consider pursuing a deferral of any increase in employer contributions from July 2011 to January 2012. 13. Lake Ballinger capital funding request ? Packet Page 364 of 364