2010.11.16 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
Edmonds City Council
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
NOVEMBER 16, 2010
6:00 p.m. - Executive session regarding pending threatened and potential litigation, and real estate
negotiations.
6:45 p.m. - Meeting with Architectural Design Board candidate.
7:00 p.m. - Call to Order and Flag Salute
1.Approval of Agenda
2.Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B. AM-3541 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2010.
C. AM-3536 Approval of claim checks #122136 through #122275 dated November 4, 2010 for
$333,645.30, and claim checks #122276 through #122357 dated November 10, 2010 for
$143,710.56. Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #49917 through #49950 for
the period October 16, 2010 through October 31, 2010 for $643,574.73.
D. AM-3538 Acceptance of Washington State Liquor Control Board October 2010 list of businesses
renewing liquor licenses.
E. AM-3544 Interlocal Agreement for SNOCOM Internet Access. (Reviewed by the Finance
Committee on 11-09-10.)
F. AM-3527 2011 Contract for Edmonds City Council Sr. Executive Assistant. (Reviewed by the
Finance Committee on 11-09-10.)
G. AM-3539 Approve Contract for Professional Services - City of Edmonds Prosecutor. (Reviewed by
Packet Page 1 of 482
G. AM-3539 Approve Contract for Professional Services - City of Edmonds Prosecutor. (Reviewed by
the Finance Committee on 11-09-10.)
H. AM-3524 Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir
Upgrade Project. (Reviewed by the CSDS Committee on 11-09-10.)
I. AM-3530 Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the 2010 Waterline Replacement
Project. (Reviewed by the CSDS Committee on 11-09-10.)
J. AM-3528 Authorization for Mayor to sign a Supplement Agreement with Murray, Smith and
Associates, Inc. for updating the City's Water System Comprehensive Plan. (Reviewed
by the CSDS Committee on 11-09-10.)
K. AM-3525 Interlocal Agreement with the Snohomish Conservation District. (Reviewed by the
CSDS Committee on 11-09-10.)
L. AM-3465 Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code by repealing and
reenacting the provisions of Title 20, to wit, Chapter 20.01, Types of Development
Project Permits; Chapter 20.02 Type I - IV, Development Project Permit Applications;
Chapter 20.03, Public Notice Requirements; Chapter 20.04, Consistency with
Development Regulations and SEPA; Chapter 20.06, Open Record Public Hearings;
Chapter 20.07, Closed Record Appeals; and Chapter 20.08, Development Agreements;
are hereby amended in order to provide for the reinsertion of the City Council as an
appeal body and making technical corrections, and fixing a time when the same shall
become effective.
M. AM-3534 Ordinance amending the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code by
repealing and reenacting Chapter 20.15A relating to Environmental Review (SEPA),
amending Chapter 20.03 Public Notice Requirements, to add a new section relating to
SEPA noticing requirements, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective.
3. (15 Minutes)
AM-3543
Public hearing on the Planning Board recommendation regarding an amendment to
the Edmonds Community Development Code requiring that interior lot lines not
overlap PRD perimeter buffers.
4. (30 Minutes)
AM-3535
Public hearing on residential fire sprinklers.
5.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
6. (15 Minutes)
AM-3529
Adoption of proposed Ordinance providing for the annual tax levy by increasing
the regular property tax levy by the current 101% levy limit, thereby levying an
estimated regular property tax levy of $9,535,938, EMS levy of $3,533,529 and
levying $877,984 for voted indebtedness for the Public Safety Complex.
7. (15 Minutes)
AM-3526
2010 Third Quarter Budget Update.
8. (10 Minutes)
AM-3533
Authorization to advertise for construction bids for the Interurban Trail
Improvements.
9. (10 Minutes) Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program (2011-2016).
Packet Page 2 of 482
9. (10 Minutes)
AM-3532
Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program (2011-2016).
10. (15 Minutes)
AM-3505
Annual Non-Represented Compensation Update.
11. (90 Minutes)
AM-3540
Open discussion of possible budget amendments.
12. (15 Minutes)
AM-3542
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of November 9, 2010.
13. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
14. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
Adjourn
Packet Page 3 of 482
AM-3541 Item #: 2. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
11-01-10 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 11/10/2010 12:13 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 4 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
Special Monday Meeting
November 1, 2010
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Cooper announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
labor negotiation strategy, and pending and threatened litigation. He stated that the executive session was
scheduled to last approximately one hour and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the
Public Safety Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session.
Elected officials present at the executive session were: Mayor Cooper, and Councilmembers Bernheim,
Plunkett, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Wilson. Others present were City Attorney Scott Snyder,
Attorney Mark Bucklin, Human Resources Director Debi Humann, Police Chief Al Compaan, City
Engineer Rob English, Public Works Director Phil Williams, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 6:58 p.m.,
City Clerk Sandy Chase announced the executive session would be extended until 7:30 p.m. The
executive session concluded at 7:32 p.m.
The regular City Council meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Mayor Cooper in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Mike Cooper, Mayor
Steve Bernheim, Council President
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Strom Peterson, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Peter Gibson, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Lorenzo Hines, Finance Director
Debi Humann, Human Resources Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Carl Nelson, CIO
Rich Lindsay, Park Maintenance Manager
Gina Coccia, Planner
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items
approved are as follows:
Packet Page 5 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 2
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 2010.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #121988 THROUGH #122135 DATED OCTOBER 28,
2010 FOR $203,707.12.
D. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM LESLIE
CHANDLER ($317.55).
E. CONFIRMATION OF MICHELLE VAN TASSELL AND MATTHEW MOORE TO THE
SISTER CITY COMMISSION.
3. DISCUSSION AND POTENTIAL ACTION ON A PROPOSED DRAFT CITY OF EDMONDS 2011
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton introduced Lobbyist Mike
Doubleday who provided highlights of the 2010 State Legislative Session:
• $250,000 was provided in the Supplemental Transportation Budget for the Shell Valley
Emergency Road Access project.
• The supplemental capital budget contains one-time funding for cities’ stormwater mandates.
• The Transportation Benefit District statute was amended to clearly state that city projects are an
allowed use for TBD funding.
• Comprehensive Plan updates for cities were pushed back from 2011 to 2014.
• Upgrade the 911 system to allow text messages to work with the system.
He reviewed Edmonds’ 2011 State Legislative Agenda:
Top Priority
1. Edmonds Crossing – 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.
2. Protect State-Shared and State-Committed Revenues such as:
• Liquor profits and taxes
• The municipal criminal justice account
• The Public Works Trust Fund
• The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program
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.
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
riders.
6. Transportation Revenue Package – Support the enhancement of a statewide transportation
revenue package to address infrastructure projects in Edmonds.
• Edmonds’ highest transportation funding priority is the 228/SR99 safety project.
Packet Page 6 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 3
• Seek support for an engineering pre-design, detailed traffic study and ROW plan for a
signature, five-legged roundabout at Five Corners.
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).
8. Phase II Stormwater Funding – Seek state funding for cities including Edmonds so they
can continue to meet Phase II stormwater requirements. Seek a delay of further stormwater
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.
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 to ensure Washington State remains the leading
location in the world for aerospace.
3. Economic development – Support tax-increment financing (TIF).
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
authority dedicated to police services.
6. Red Light Cameras – Preserve authority for cities to implement red light camera
technology.
7. Gang Activity – Support additional tools for combating gang activity including intervention
and prevention activities.
8. Vehicle Prowling – Support additional penalties for vehicle prowling.
9 Business License Streamlining – Monitor discussion around local government business
license streamlining.
10. Additional Revenue Authority for Transit Agencies – Monitor transit agencies, including
Community Transit, legislation that will likely request additional revenue authority in order
to avoid large cuts in service.
Councilmember Wilson thanked Mr. Clifton for drafting the legislative agenda earlier this year. He
requested additional time to suggest changes to the agenda. He inquired about tax increment financing
(TIF). Mr. Doubleday explained typically a specific area is selected for a TIF. A base level of property tax
or sales tax is established; in Washington it is required to be sales tax. A public structure/amenity is
constructed and funded via bonds to attract private sector business. The sales tax is increased once the
public structure/amenity is constructed and the funds generated by the sales tax between the base amount
and the increase used to pay the bonds. Councilmember Wilson asked if it would require a vote of the
property owners in the district. Mr. Doubleday answered it usually requires a vote of the Council to form
the district and may require a vote of the people.
Councilmember Wilson asked if a TIF was similar to a local improvement district (LID). Mr. Doubleday
answered in a LID, the funds are raised directly from property owners. With a TIF, the funds are raised
via the increase in the sales tax above the base rate.
Councilmember Wilson asked how staff identified the priority projects in the Top Priority #6,
Transportation Revenue Package. Public Works Director Phil Williams responded the City was recently
selected to receive grant funding for design and right-of-way acquisition for the 228th/SR99 project.
Receiving a grant for those two phases allows the City to compete well in the same source of funds for
construction. Construction of the 228th/SR99 project is not envisioned until 2014. With regard to the
Packet Page 7 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 4
roundabout at Five Corners, the City applied for a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) grant for the roundabout. There were six applications and funding was awarded to four projects;
Edmonds’ project was sixth. However two of the projects are not going forward, making it possible that
the City will receive funds from that source for the first phases of the Five Corners roundabout. He agreed
with supporting a transportation revenue project to ensure funds were available for later phases of those
projects.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the Public Safety Authority legislation and how it compared to a
Regional Fire Authority (RFA). Mr. Doubleday answered the legislation has not yet been written. He
envisioned it as a separate taxing authority/district to fund police services outside the General Fund
budget. He envisioned the governance would include members of the City Council to ensure there was
direct authority. He doubted it would be approved this year but would be discussed. Councilmember
Wilson expressed his support for Public Safety Authority legislation and preferred it be modeled similar
to a Fire District and less like a Transportation Benefit District (TBD). Mr. Doubleday envisioned it
would be modeled after the Regional Fire Protection Services Authority that has been established in Kent.
With regard to Additional Revenue Authority for Transit Agencies (#10 in the secondary priority),
Councilmember Wilson commented at some point the City would be competing with other agencies
regarding the total amount of property tax. Because Edmonds has such a low property tax rate compared
to other agencies, he did not want Community Transit to consume the City’s ability to fully fund itself.
Mayor Cooper agreed, explaining transit authorities rely primarily on sales tax; a bill that made it through
the House but did not get out of committee in the Senate last year gave transit authorities the ability to do
vehicle license fees which would have competed with cities with TBDs. Snohomish County did not
support that legislation unless the legislature could ensure it would not compete with TBDs.
Councilmember Wilson suggested striking Red Light Cameras (#6 in the secondary priority) from the list.
He advised the Lake Ballinger Forum is working on its capital funding request.
Councilmember Petso referred to #1 on the top priorities, Edmonds Crossing. She asked whether that was
only in regard to moving the ferry terminal to the location south of downtown. Mr. Doubleday suggested
that item be renamed Washington State Ferries (WSF). Councilmember Petso asked what the project was
and where it would be located. Mr. Clifton responded it was unknown at this time what the project will
be. Earlier this year WSDOT issued a RFQ to attract developers to build an overpass over the railroad
tracks in exchange for the WSF parking lot south of the Skippers property. There were no submittals from
the private sector for that project. In 2009 the legislature set aside $200,000 specifically to address safety
issues at the Edmonds terminal. He hoped to retain those funds to allow the City to work with WSF
regarding a pedestrian safety improvement.
Councilmember Petso questioned whether the City would provide WSF an incentive to expand routes if
the City pursued improvement projects at the Main Street terminal. Mr. Clifton answered not in this case.
Councilmember Petso asked whether a pedestrian overpass to the terminal would encourage WSF to
expand service at the Edmonds site rather than moving to the location to the south. Mr. Clifton answered
most everyone wanted a safer pedestrian crossing across the railroad tracks than currently exists.
Councilmember Petso asked why WSF chose to accomplish the overpass via a private-public partnership.
Mr. Clifton answered it was WSF’s way of creatively financing the pedestrian crossing using private
sector dollars.
Council President Bernheim advised next week’s committee agendas will include discussion of the
legislative priorities. He recalled the Council has passed the legislative priorities in January in the past.
Packet Page 8 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 5
Mr. Doubleday preferred the Council approve the list sooner than January to allow him to meet with the
City’s delegation prior to the start of the session on January 10.
Council President Bernheim recalled on January 19 the Council voted to add lobbying to make marijuana
criminal offenses an infraction but that was not included on this legislative agenda. He asked Mr.
Doubleday if he had lobbied on that topic last year. Mr. Doubleday answered by the time he received
direction from the Council, the hearing had passed and the bill was not proceeding.
Councilmember Peterson referred to Phase II Stormwater funding (#8 in the top priority) and asked
whether the toxic tax or other funding would be pursued this year. Mr. Doubleday anticipated it would
return this year. If the 2/3rds initiative passes, it was unlikely to progress. There is an effort by the
environmental community to take it to a ballot next year.
Councilmember Peterson inquired about the delay of further stormwater requirements now scheduled for
2012. Mr. Doubleday explained the Department of Ecology (DOE) is scheduled to add new rules in 2012;
there is some concern with that timeline due to the cost. DOE is not inclined to agree to a delay.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested a meeting with Mr. Doubleday to discuss WRIA 8’s efforts. She
asked if there had been discussion regarding bills to protect Puget Sound and having pharmacists accept
leftover prescription drugs rather than the current practice of citizens flushing them. Mr. Doubleday
responded HB1165 did not move forward last year; he anticipated it would be returned this year.
Mayor Cooper encouraged the Council to consider scheduling approval of the legislative agenda on the
November 23 meeting. The legislature meets for committee days on December 1-3 and that is when bills
are introduced and a great deal of planning is done in preparation for the session. November and
December is the time to meet with the delegation and inform them of the City’s agenda. The first 2-3
weeks of calendaring is done before the session starts. With regard to the projects Councilmember Wilson
inquired about, Mr. Doubleday is organizing a field trip for the City’s delegation of those projects to
educate them regarding the City’s capital requests. With regard to the priorities in #6 of the top priority
list, he asked Mr. Williams to identify projects that the City has the ability to partner with the State and
Federal government for funding; Five Corners and 228th/SR99 are well suited to partnerships.
Anticipating the election would result in a Republican majority, Councilmember Wilson asked how City
issues would fare with a republican versus democratic caucus. Mr. Doubleday answered they would not
fare as well. Councilmember Wilson asked about public records requests and taping of executive sessions.
Mr. Doubleday answered that was an issue with newspapers and was not necessarily a partisan issue.
Mr. Clifton suggested Councilmembers forward additional legislative agenda items to him. Mayor
Cooper suggested consideration also be given to including stronger language in the transportation budget
regarding the Main Street ferry terminal.
Mr. Clifton distributed a copy of the Puget Sound Watershed Health and Salmon Recovery legislative
agenda forwarded to him by Councilmember Buckshnis.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 17.105 ECDC TO
DEFINE EMERGENCY TEMPORARY INDOOR SHELTERS AND IDENTIFY ZONING
DISTRICTS WHERE THEY ARE PERMITTED.
Planner Gina Coccia explained there is an interim ordinance in place. This ordinance expresses support
for public or nonprofit agencies to safely provide temporary emergency indoor shelters to indigent
persons and allow for a building compliance permitting process. This dovetails with the new ECDC
Packet Page 9 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 6
19.00.040. She provided an example of a church that is non-conforming because it does not have fire
sprinklers that wants to house homeless persons when the temperature drops below 32 degrees. This
ordinance would also them to do so through a building compliance permit process which requires review
by the City’s Building Official and Fire Marshal. It would be a temporary change of use for no more than
180 days. The ordinance adopts the following State requirements:
1. The change of use does not impose a threat to the public’s safety, health and welfare
2. Administration of the building is by a nonprofit or public agency
3. The change of use is no more hazardous than the existing use, and
4. The use is temporary in nature.
The Planning Board reviewed the matter and held a public hearing where two citizens spoke in favor. The
Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance.
Councilmember Petso asked if temporary emergency indoor shelters would be allowed everywhere in the
City. Ms. Coccia replied yes, it relates to all zones where local public facilities or churches are a primary
or secondary use. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the ordinance mirrors the State’s requirements.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Ilene Hansen, Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church, Lynnwood, thanked the Council for its past support
of churches and nonprofits to address the increasing need for temporary emergency indoor shelters and
invited the Council’s present and future support. This winter is expected to be very cold, similar to the
first year they operated an emergency cold weather shelter when they provided 474 beds over 34 nights.
She expected to provide at least that much this year. The shelter engages not only people within the faith
communities but also a number of private citizens who assist with serving those in need
Mark Walden, Trinity Lutheran Church, explained he and his wife are co-coordinators for the
church’s cold weather shelter. There are many in the community who are interested in volunteering their
time and efforts with regard to the shelter. He thanked the Council for adopting the interim ordinance and
the City’s efforts to get the Jeremiah Center approved as one of their shelters along with a couple in
Lynnwood. He noted it was difficult to find facilities that meet the R1 codes and they are working
diligently to address the life safety issues associated with the variance to the building code.
Dorothy Sax, Edmonds, explained she has been involved with the Trinity Lutheran Neighbor in Need
program on Saturday mornings. She thanked the Council for their support of the cold weather shelter,
explaining there are a number of churches in Edmonds as well as private citizens who assist with the cold
weather shelter and the Neighbors In Need program.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Wilson thanked Pastor Hansen and Keri Walsh-Ayers who helped the Council research
options. He noted this has been a contentious issue in some cities but has not been in Edmonds. He was
proud to have an opportunity to approve this ordinance.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE ORDINANCE 3814, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 17.105 ECDC TO DEFINE
EMERGENCY TEMPORARY HOMELESS SHELTER AND INDENTIFY ZONING DISTRICTS
WHERE THEY ARE PERMITTED, REPEALING ORDINANCE NOS. 3730, 3769 AND 3794.
Student Representative Gibson asked how many homeless people live in Edmonds. Mayor Cooper
explained Snohomish County conducts an annual count of the homeless people in the County. Pastor
Packet Page 10 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 7
Hansen commented it was difficult to count people versus beds. The first year they were in operation they
provided 474 beds; last year they provided 240. The Saturday morning Neighbors In Need program serves
approximately 110-120 people every week. That includes not only people living outdoors and cars but
people who are living below the poverty line.
Councilmember Wilson explained Snohomish County conducts an annual count. Mayor Cooper recalled
the count last year was 1200; the number varies depending on the weather; the homeless may be in
shelters on the night the count is done. He noted most of the homeless are in urban areas in South
Snohomish County and Everett; there are a fair number of homeless camps in south Snohomish County
near Edmonds’ borders.
Councilmember Wilson encouraged citizens to volunteer with the Neighbors In Need program at Trinity
Lutheran Church. He and his 3-year old son have assisted with that program.
Councilmember Peterson thanked Councilmember Wilson who spearheaded this effort and brought it to
the Council’s attention last year. He agreed this has not been a contentious issue in Edmonds; everyone he
has spoken with has been very supportive. He expressed thanks to the Planning Board, City staff and
citizens who developed the ordinance. He agreed this was one of the most important things the Council
could do.
Council President Bernheim asked when the ordinance would be scheduled on the Consent Agenda for
approval. Mr. Snyder advised the Council would be approving the ordinance tonight. City Clerk Sandy
Chase advised the ordinance would be published on Sunday and it would be effective five days later, the
following Friday.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 17.20 RELATING TO
TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT PERMITS AND FREQUENCY, DURATION, AND
CONDITIONS.
Planner Gina Coccia explained this ordinance is intended to respect Edmonds neighborhoods by
establishing a process for permitting temporary encampments like a tent city. The City Attorney has
researched other jurisdictions’ codes and provided the Planning Board those ordinances for review. The
proposed ordinance would provide a code should a tent city choose to establish itself in Edmonds; there is
currently no code. The ordinance would provide for public notice, an opportunity for public comment and
ability to negotiate the terms of the permit via a public hearing process with a decision by the Hearing
Examiner as a Type IIIA permit. The City cannot prohibit a tent city from locating within the city limits
but can establish a code to impose reasonable conditions with regard to safety, health and welfare for use
of the property.
The proposed standards are contained in page 3 of Attachment 1 and would be contained in a new chapter
of the ECDC, 17.20.030. Ms. Coccia reviewed highlights of the proposed standards:
• No more than one permit for the same location more frequently than once in a 365 day period.
• The site must be restored to its pre-encampment condition within one week from the permit
expiration.
The permit requirements for a tent city are contained in ECDC 17.20.050 (Attachment 1) which includes
public notice and a community informational meeting. The Planning Board held a public hearing and did
not receive any public testimony. The Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the
ordinance.
Packet Page 11 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 8
Councilmember Petso asked if the Planning Board discussed the distance a homeless encampment should
be to transit service. City Attorney Scott Snyder answered the ordinance specified ½ mile.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the Planning Board discussed that distance. Council President
Bernheim referred to page 7 of the Planning Board’s February 24 minutes.
Councilmember Wilson asked why a duration of 90 days out of 365 days was selected. Mr. Snyder
answered there has been extensive litigation in Woodinville to the State Supreme Court. The duration of
90 days was one of the conditions that has been upheld. These are temporary encampments typically by
host cities as an adjunct to their exercise of religious practice.
Councilmember Wilson referred to page 3 of the ordinance where it states that the encampment should
not be located in a critical area. He noted gentle slopes in the City often trigger the Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO). Mr. Snyder answered an encampment could not be located in a steep slope
environment. There is a difference between the Meadowdale landslide hazard area and specific critical
area and environments within that area. For example an encampment could be located in the Meadowdale
area but not in a wetland or a steep slope. Ms. Coccia explained there were two types of geologically
hazardous areas, erosion hazard areas which is any slope between 15% and 39% and landslide areas that
are slopes upward of 40%.
Councilmember Wilson questioned if the CAO would be triggered for use of the church property at 9th &
Caspers due to the gentle slope. He did not want that regulation to be an impediment to a church hosting
an encampment. Ms. Coccia answered she would need to consider the exact slope on that property. The
ordinance allows case-by-case consideration; it will be up to the host to provide a site plan. She did not
envision an encampment would be proposed on a steep slope due to logistics. Mr. Snyder pointed out that
if the goals of the ordinance can be met, the Hearing Examiner has the authority to waive the standards in
Chapter 17.20.030 with the exception of R, S, T and U.
Councilmember Wilson clarified his concern was not camping on a steep slope; his concern was a
property that had a drop in the first few feet and the remainder of the site is flat which may trigger the
CAO. It is the Council’s intent to be as flexible as possible and not have a strict reading of the ordinance
to become an obstacle to siting an encampment. Ms. Coccia clarified his concern was related to erosion
hazard areas which have a slope of 15-39%.
Councilmember Peterson referred to Item H in 17.20.030, that does not permit children under the age of
18 to stay overnight in the temporary homeless encampment and asked whether that was typical of other
jurisdictions’ regulations. Ms. Coccia answered some jurisdictions established an age limit, others did not.
Mr. Snyder recalled this requirement was contained in Bellevue’s ordinance and was added to the draft
ordinance at the Planning Board’s specific request.
Councilmember Peterson relayed his understanding that tent cities created a safer atmosphere for families
that may have children under the age of 18 compared to living under a bridge or in a car. He agreed an
attempt should be made to find alternative shelter and asked what happened if no alternate shelter was
available. Mr. Snyder answered if no alternative could be identified, children under 18 could be permitted
with a parent or guardian; children under 18 that are not accompanied by a parent or guardian are not
allowed in the temporary homeless encampment.
Councilmember Peterson relayed his concern that a 16-year old would be turned away if another
alternative could not be identified. Ms. Coccia recalled the Planning Board discussed that issue and
decided the host should be responsible for addressing that situation and not the City. Mr. Snyder advised
Packet Page 12 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 9
standards A-Q in 17.20.030 were subject to modification or waiver at the request of the host in the
Hearing Examiner process.
Councilmember Wilson commented many of the homeless are under the age of 18. He understood the
rationale of not allowing children under 18 that are not accompanied by a parent or guardian. He
suggested restating the last sentence in Item H so that the managing agency has some expressed
responsibility for the safety of unaccompanied children; that they serve in a guardian capacity for anyone
under the age of 18 in lieu of the presence of a parent. Mr. Snyder explained this is an enabling ordinance;
it would be up to the managing agency to adopt their own rules. The City could establish that children
under the age of 18 were not prohibited.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about the possession of firearms. Mr. Snyder advised a tent or homeless
shelter is an individual’s place of abode and they have constitutional protections in their place of abode.
There are constitutional limitations on the City’s ability to regulate weapons as a municipality and the
City could not impose that as a rule of conduct.
Councilmember Peterson asked if the host agency could impose that as a rule of conduct. Ms. Coccia
answered they could. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the City could require in the application
process that the host agency prohibit firearms. Mr. Snyder answered no. Councilmember Wilson asked if
the City could be creative in ensuring there were no guns in a tent city. Mr. Snyder reiterated there were
constitutional rights with regard to firearms. Councilmember Wilson suggested the City regulate the
buffer around a tent city and not permit guns in that area. Mr. Snyder responded the City’s ability to
regulate guns on public streets and parks for citizens with a valid permit was beyond its authority
according to the Washington State Attorney. The legislature has exempted the City and Councilmembers
from liability for what occurs in a tent city. Councilmember Wilson suggested including a value statement
as one of the ordinance’s whereas clauses.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the right to protect oneself, rich or poor, could not be taken away in
one’s home. He asked how the hosting agency could do that. Mr. Snyder answered every private property
owner has the ability to exclude weapons of any kind from his/her property. Councilmember Plunkett
asked whether that would apply to an owner of an apartment complex. Mr. Snyder answered the
constitutional provisions restricts governmental limitations on a person’s’ right to bear arms under the
Second Amendment. It does not apply to private property owners who have the ability to exclude.
Student Representative Gibson recognized tent cities have been a big deal in other cities. He asked how
far a tent city could be located from a school in the event there were sex offenders living there. Mr.
Snyder answered that was a separate regulatory issue. The ordinance allows for screening to determine
whether an individual can be in the location. Edmonds does not have a law that restricts where sex
offenders can reside and the State has preempted communities’ ability to regulate that.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of
the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Cooper closed the public participation
portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Petso referred to page 7 of the Planning Board’s February 24 minutes, advising the
Planning Board did discuss the distance from a transit stop; the minutes only state that the City is allowed
to regulate the distance from a transit stop. She objected to the ½ mile distance from a transit stop,
relaying her experience with a transit-dependent population locating in her neighborhood during the day.
Because of the distance to a transit stop, unforeseen problems emerged that would not have existed had
the facility been located on a transit corridor. She suggested Item G in 17.20.030 be revised to read, “The
temporary homeless encampment shall be located within ½ mile of transit service on a transit route.” She
Packet Page 13 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 10
was uncertain how many churches would then be required to seek a variance via the Hearing Examiner
but preferred to have that protection in place. She acknowledged a church located within a neighborhood
such as the Presbyterian Church between Westgate Elementary and SR104 would be required to make
their case to the Hearing Examiner. Most churches in Edmonds are located on a transit corridor and would
not be affected by this change.
Council President Bernheim asked whether the proposed ordinance would be implemented in the same
manner as the previous ordinance. Mr. Snyder answered if it is given a number, it passes tonight and is
effective in the timeline described by the City Clerk.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE, NO. 3815, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 17.20 ECDC RELATING TO
TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT PERMITS AND FREQUENCY, DURATION, AND
CONDITIONS.
Councilmember Wilson explained as work began on the temporary homeless shelter ordinance, staff
realized if a tent city wanted to locate in Edmonds, the City had no regulations in place. Because the City
cannot prohibit a tent city, it was preferable to create regulations. Adopting the proposed regulations
provides the ability to regulate tent cities and shape how they impact the community. This is the only way
to provide some protections for the City and its citizens.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
AMEND ITEM G TO READ, “THE TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT SHALL BE
LOCATED ON A TRANSIT ROUTE.”
Councilmember Peterson did not support the proposed amendment, noting flexibility was paramount. He
found ½ mile distance to transit service to be a reasonable distance.
Councilmember Plunkett expressed support for the amendment, noting a great deal can happen in ½ mile.
During his first year on the Council in 1998, a facility that wreaked havoc on Councilmember Petso’s
neighborhood was the first big issue he addressed. That facility was within ½ mile of transit service but
that distance was too far. He noted a facility could seek a variance from that requirement from the
Hearing Examiner.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether there were any legal impacts of the proposed amendment. Mr.
Snyder answered no, the Hearing Examiner has the ability to waive the requirement for appropriate cause.
Planning Manager Rob Chave pointed out Item G in 17.20.030 is not the only provision that addresses
transit. Item F requires the sponsor to have a transportation and parking plan in place.
Councilmember Wilson commented there were few facilities on a transit corridor if the definition of
transit corridor was whether transit alternatives exist. There are arterials and high use streets in the City
without transit and Community Transit reducing rather than expanding service. Westgate Chapel’s
parking lot may be the only example of a facility on a transit corridor. If requested by the host, he
envisioned the Hearing Examiner would remove the requirement and thus there would be no distance
from a transit stop. He viewed the ½ mile distance as a workable regulation.
Councilmember Wilson commented he was not familiar with the experience in Councilmember Petso’s
neighborhood. The majority of people who are advocates for the homeless are good people doing God’s
work; however, some like to make poster children out of municipalities who are obstructionists. Adding
inflexibility to a proposal and inviting the Hearing Examiner to overturn it makes the City a target for that
type of activism. He recalled the intent when developing this ordinance was to create a policy that could
Packet Page 14 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 11
not be used as poster child for the greater Puget Sound activists that would take the City to court. The
more inflexible the City’s regulations are, the more it invited tent city activists. The intent of the
ordinance was not to invite but to regulate a potential tent city.
With regard to Mr. Chave’s reference to Item F, Councilmember Petso explained when a person has the
ability to park onsite, they lose the temptation to cause problems in route to and from the transit stop. She
did not find a change was necessary to Item F. Nearly every church in Edmonds is located on a transit
route except for Holy Rosary and the Presbyterian Church between Westgate Elementary and SR104. She
did not envision this amendment would impair the ability for the community to serve a tent city; it would
simply require them to be located near transit service.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT FAILED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO, BUCKSHNIS,
AND PLUNKETT VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM AND
COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND ITEM G TO READ, “THE TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT SHALL BE
LOCATED WITHIN ¼ MILE OF TRANSIT SERVICE.”
Council President Bernheim commented his first priority was the homeless shelter and issues related to
transportation could be addressed as they arose.
UPON ROLL CALL, AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON,
BUCKSHNIS, PETSO AND PLUNKETT VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM AND COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON VOTING NO.
In response to Councilmember Wilson’s earlier request for a value statement regarding firearms, Mr.
Snyder proposed the following whereas: “Whereas the City Council strongly recommends that hosts limit
and/or prohibit firearms and weapons within homeless encampments.”
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING WHEREAS IN THE ORDINANCE,
“WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL STRONGLY RECOMMENDS THAT HOSTS LIMIT
AND/OR PROHIBIT FIREARMS AND WEAPONS WITHIN HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS.”
Councilmember Plunkett commented people have a God-given right to protect themselves in their homes.
The State has no right to tell a poor person they cannot protect themselves. He did not support the
proposed amendment as it would impinge on the personal liberties and rights of an individual to protect
themselves.
Councilmember Wilson responded the proposed whereas did not impinge on a person’s right to protect
themselves nor did it declare that some people had more right to protect themselves; it was simply a value
statement.
Council President Bernheim commented although he strongly supported gun control and did not believe
that guns kept people safe, he would not support the amendment because he did not want to add
unenforceable and distracting value statements.
MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBER WILSON
VOTING YES.
Packet Page 15 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 12
Councilmember Wilson expressed concern with the last sentence in Item H of 17.20.030 “No children
under 18 that are not accompanied by a parent or guardian are allowed in the temporary homeless
encampment,” suggesting either striking the sentence or changing the age to 14. He suggested the host
could have its own rule with regard to children under 18 and by deleting that requirement, the host would
not be required to go through the Hearing Examiner process. Mr. Snyder responded that was not the
direction most cities have taken; he would need to research it further.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
AMEND TO STRIKE THE LAST SENTENCE OF ITEM H (NO CHILDREN UNDER 18 THAT
ARE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A PARENT OR GUARDIAN ARE ALLOWED IN THE
TEMPORARY HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT.)
Councilmember Wilson clarified his intent if the amendment passed was for Mr. Snyder to conduct
further research.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested additional statistics, noting this raised the issue of runaways in
homeless encampments. She agreed an age under 18 may be more appropriate but questioned how that
age would be determined. Councilmember Wilson responded in most cases the managing agency/host do
a great job of maintaining law and order within tent cities and many of the issues are not problems
because they manage themselves. To Councilmember Buckshnis’ point, if someone who is 14, 15 or 16
runs away, they are not running away to a tent city, they are running away due to other issues. He wanted
to create as safe a place for them to land as possible. He wanted to avoid a tent city being closed down for
a code violation for allowing a 16-year old to stay.
Council President Bernheim did not support the amendment as he did not believe children unaccompanied
by an adult should be in a temporary homeless encampment. He also preferred to defer the expense of
further research until next year as legal expenses are already over budget.
Councilmember Peterson commented it would be ideal if children under 18 were not homeless. A
member of the community accepted a job in downtown Seattle working with homeless youth. The issue is
not just runaways who might be homeless for a few nights; there are many kids under the age of 18 who
are permanently homeless. He preferred to give the managing agency flexibility with regard to homeless
children under the age of 18. He assumed the host would contact whatever State agency or permanent
shelter to find a better situation for a child under the age of 18; if there was no alternatives, that child
needed a safe place to stay. He supported striking the last sentence of Item H and not having Mr. Snyder
conduct any research.
Councilmember Petso commented her family experienced a runaway situation several years ago; the idea
that the Council would be encouraging that was frightening to her. Councilmember Wilson clarified he
was not encouraging runaways by the proposed amendment.
Mayor Cooper clarified the proposed amendment was to strike the language and did not specifically
address Mr. Snyder conducting further research.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION TIED (3-3), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, PETERSON AND
BUCKSHNIS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND PLUNKETT AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper commented while all Councilmembers expressed very important points about what
happened to homeless minors, a family member of his has dealt extensively with runaways on the streets
Packet Page 16 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 13
of Denver, Colorado. He suggested removing the limitation was a dangerous place for the Council to
proceed as the police must deal with runaways in very specific ways.
MAYOR COOPER BROKE THE TIE BY VOTING NO AND THE MOTION FAILED (3-4).
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED 6-0.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2011 REGULAR PROPERTY TAX, EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES (EMS), AND DEBT SERVICE LEVY: PROPOSED ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR
THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE
CURRENT 101% LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR
PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $9,535,938, EMS LEVY OF $3,477,741 AND LEVYING $877,984 FOR
VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained the City’s property taxes consist of a regular property tax,
EMS property tax and bonds; the three combined total approximately $13.891 million in 2011. In
response to Council President Bernheim’s question regarding when the City last had a property tax
increase, he explained the regular property tax is increased approximately 1% per year. When possible,
the City also increases the EMS property tax by 1%. He explained the EMS levy is limited to 50 cents per
$1000. As the assessed value of property increases and decreases, the EMS levy increases and decreases.
The City began 2009 with an assessed value of $7.7 billion; by 2010 it was $6.955 billion. Based on
conversations with Snohomish County, the projected assessed value in 2011 will decrease to
approximately $6.4 billion. As the City’s assessed value drops, the EMS levy also decreases.
He provided an overview of how the increase in the regular property tax was calculated. The 2010 levy
was $9.383 million. An estimate for new construction is added to the 1% increase the City is allowed by
law which results in the 2011 amount of $9,359,380. Calculation of the EMS levy is similar to the regular
property tax levy; however, because the assessed value for 2011 has decreased to $6.4 billion, the amount
expected to be collected based on the levy amount is approximately $3.2 million. Given that amount is
lower than the amount already levied, he made a decision to leave the EMS levy at $3.477 because he
only expected to collect $3.2-$3.2 million in 2011. The $3.2 million is based on 50 cents per $1000 of the
assessed value.
With regard to bonds issued to pay for the Public Safety Complex, he explained the property tax related to
the bonds increase each year according to the bond repayment schedule. The bonds were $839,000 in
2009, $853,000 in 2010 and $877,000 in 2011 and scheduled at $895,000 the following year.
Mr. Hines summarized the regular property tax, and EMS property tax and bonds comprise the City’s
property tax levy. The proposed ordinance includes a 1% increase in regular property tax plus
construction and refunds, a zero increase over last year’s EMS property tax levy, and the increase in the
bonds per the schedule. He advised the slides he displayed would be provided to the Council tomorrow.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the Public Safety Complex bond was one of the bonds that could be
refinanced. Mr. Hines recalled that refinancing of the Public Safety Complex bond was not feasible but he
would need to verify that. Councilmember Petso asked if that bond had been refinanced in the past. Mr.
Hines responded the 1996 issue was refunded in 2003. Councilmember Petso asked what interest rate was
obtained in 2003. Mr. Hines answered he did not have that information with him. Councilmember Petso
asked whether the amount of property tax was reduced when a bond was refunded. Mr. Hines assumed so
but would need to check with Snohomish County.
Packet Page 17 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 14
If the City’s total assessed value is declining and property tax receipts increase by 1% per year, Council
President Bernheim asked whether the tax rate was skyrocketing. Mr. Hines agreed the tax rate was
increasing but not in excess of the lawful amount. The historical tax rates have been:
• 2009 - $1.81/$1000 AV
• 2010 - $1.98/$1000 AV
• 2011 - $2.11/$1000 AV
Council President Bernheim asked what the statutory maximum was. Mr. Hines responded as the property
tax is increased by 1%, the resultant dollars per $1000 AV is the lawful amount.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the voters could approve an increase above 1% via a special levy.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, commented the 1% increase did not even cover the increase in costs. He
questioned why the total property tax in the ordinance was $283,000 more than the Mayor’s budget. The
total in the ordinance is $13,982.000; the budget is only $13,609,000. He asserted the number in the
budget was more realistic. In 2009 the amount in the ordinance for EMS was $3,865,000; the actual was
$3,855,000. In 2010 the amount in the ordinance for EMS was $3,911,000; the following February the
County Assessor’s report was $3,478,000 because property values had dropped 11%. He asserted there
was no way the City would collect $3,478,000 in EMS property taxes as he doubted property values
would increase by 10% by the end of the year and even if they did, the value EMS taxes are based on was
established January 2010.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Mr. Hines explained the numbers in the budget represent a conservative estimate of what the City expects
to collect. The number in the ordinance represents a ceiling; in the event property values improve,
Snohomish County will not limit the City’s collection of EMS taxes to $3.2 million. The difference
between the amount in the budget and the ordinance is a cushion in the event collections exceed the
amount in the budget. Mayor Cooper clarified the ordinance reflects the maximum allowable rate that
Snohomish County would allow the City to collect. Mr. Hines expected the City to collect $3.2 million in
EMS taxes; however, if that figure were included in the ordinance, the City could not collect over that
amount. He advised he worked closely with the Snohomish County Assessor in drafting the ordinance.
Councilmember Wilson asked why the EMS levy was at 0%. Mr. Hines answered because he included
last year’s EMS amount. The City collected $3.477 million last year; given that the projection was $3.2
million in 2011, he left the amount at $3.477 million.
Councilmember Wilson asked why the EMS levy was not increased by the allowable 1%. Mr. Hines
answered it could be increased by 1% to approximately $3.5 million. However he expected the City to
collect approximately $3.2 million.
Councilmember Wilson observed typically the City’s assessed value has increased and the EMS
percentage goes down. City Attorney Scott Snyder pointed out the 50 cents per $1000 limit was
established by the voters. Mr. Hines explained the $6.4 billion of assessed value is a preliminary estimate
provided by Snohomish County; they will release final numbers in approximately a month.
Packet Page 18 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 15
Councilmember Wilson observed the $3.2 million for the EMS levy correlates to the 50 cents per $1000
at the reduced assessed value. He asked how the City could exceed that amount. Mr. Hines answered it
was possible if the preliminary estimate is low.
Councilmember Wilson asked the total amount a citizen can be levied in property taxes. Mr. Hines
answered in Edmonds it was $8 – 8.50; that amount includes City taxes, Port, School District, and other
taxing districts. Mayor Cooper recalled the State maximum for property taxes was approximately $10.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the actual total was approximately $12.50 because voter approved
levies that can be outside the maximum. Mayor Cooper offered to provide a chart created by the
Department of Revenue regarding maximum property tax rates.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the EMS and property tax was included in the property tax levy
in Exhibit 4A. Mr. Hines agreed they were.
Mayor Cooper advised the slides Mr. Hines displayed would be included in a packet of information
regarding the budget that will be forwarded to the Council tomorrow following his review. That
information is the first installment on the questions the Council raised at the October 26 Council meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3816, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX
LEVY BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE CURRENT 101%
LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF
$9,535,938, AN EMS LEVY OF $3,477,741 AND LEVYING $877,984 FOR VOTED
INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX.
Councilmember Petso commented she knew the City needed the money but she could not support the
motion as she had not had an opportunity to review the slides and information that Mr. Hines presented
tonight. She wanted an opportunity to review the information as well as the answers to her questions
about the bonds for the Public Safety Complex.
Council President Bernheim commented he liked to get materials before the Council meeting so that it
was his choice whether to review it. He did not like making decisions based on information that was not
included in the Council packet. He supported the motion because he pledged his confidence in the
finances to the Mayor. He relied on Mayor Cooper’s pledge next year to accommodate the Council more
completely with regard to the City’s accounting system. He acknowledged the City had been in a
financial transition due to the sale of the Fire Department.
Mayor Cooper clarified the slides that Mr. Hines displayed were in response to the question Council
President Bernheim asked at the October 26 Council meeting regarding when the Council last raised
property taxes. That information was not intended to be part of this agenda item but as part of the
response to Council questions. Council President Bernheim suggested not showing the Council
information unrelated to the agenda item.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the necessary information was included in the packet. He did not
object to additional information, particularly associated with a question. He asked Councilmember Petso
what other information she wanted included in the packet. Councilmember Petso responded although it
had now been explained that the information Mr. Hines displayed was not about this agenda item, she still
did not have answers to her questions about the Public Safety Complex bond.
Councilmember Plunkett inquired about the deadline to approve the ordinance. Mr. Snyder advised it
must be submitted to the Snohomish County Assessor by November 30. Although he believed the
Packet Page 19 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 16
information necessary was included in the packet, Councilmember Plunkett said he would give deference
to Councilmembers who felt they needed additional time and would not support the motion.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the December 31, 2009 unaudited statements that show EMS at
$3,806,497, the budget as $3,856,851; the proposed ordinance shows it as $3,477,000. Mr. Hines
suggested she send him a PFD of the report she was referring to and they could discuss it.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM WITHDREW HIS MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Council President Bernheim agreed to reschedule the ordinance on the November 16 agenda. He was
hopeful all the questions raised by the Council could be addressed by that meeting and the answers
included in the November 16 agenda packet. He requested Councilmembers contact Mr. Hines with any
specific questions.
Councilmember Peterson stated the information pertaining to the ordinance is contained in the packet.
Questions about refinancing the Public Safety bonds or the end of the year 2009 financials could have
been asked in advance of the meeting. He was frustrated with the questions asked of staff tonight when
this ordinance was a relatively simple process; the 1% property tax increase that the Council approves
annually. He urged Councilmembers to contact staff with questions prior to the meeting.
Councilmember Wilson directed the following comments to Mayor Cooper: last week Mr. Hines did as
sharp a job as he has done in his capacity as Finance Director and Mayor Cooper’s management
relationship was improving the Council’s communication issues with the administration. He agreed with
Councilmember Peterson that this was a standard ordinance and everyone should have had time to
prepare. Although the information Mr. Hines presented was useful and informative, it would have been
helpful to have it in the packet or at least distributed to the Council at tonight’s meeting. The questions
Mr. Wambolt raised are appropriate and he was annoyed that those questions exist. The Council may be
making a fundamental strategic mistake by not increasing the EMS levy by 1%. Because of the potential
of an RFA or reverse annexation, that number needs to be as high as possible.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented the report she referred to was the same report that she quoted the
Fire overtime of $795,707 and later learned not all the cost centers had been pulled. She agreed with Mr.
Wambolt’s questions regarding EMS. She relayed that Councilmember Petso has been asking questions
about the bond refinancing since she was appointed.
Mayor Cooper assured the information and answers to questions relevant to this issue would be included
in the November 16 agenda packet. He reminded the Council that the agenda memos must be completed
in enough time to allow him to approve them by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday. He urged Councilmembers not to
wait until Thursday morning to submit questions.
Mayor Cooper declared a brief recess.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE UPDATE TO THE STREET TREE PLAN
Parks and Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained in response to City Council concerns regarding
the removal and replacement of street trees, particularly in the downtown, City Council requested a
Packet Page 20 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 17
review of the Street Tree Plan element of the Streetscape Plan. This review was conducted May 26, 2009
and concluded with Council recommending changes to better reflect current practices in removing and
replanting trees, especially the caliper of replacement trees.
Subsequent to the May 26 meeting, the question of replacing or retaining the mature trees at 5th &
Dayton was discussed several times at City Council throughout the late summer and fall. At the
suggestion of the Public Works Director it was agreed to review the entire Street Tree Plan in 2010. The
procedure to accomplish this has been:
• Incorporation of Council recommendations
• Staff review
• Review with the Planning Board
• Two public hearings with the Planning Board forwarding the recommended plan with
amendments to City Council for a public hearing
While reviewing plan changes please keep in mind the following that will likely have bearing or future
influence on this plan:
1. The City does not have a dedicated City Arborist. However, Parks and Public Works staff have
been and are willing and able to provide assistance to citizens, Planning, Engineering, and the
ADB when needed.
2. A Citizens Tree Advisory Board is being formed and issues mentioned such as incentives for tree
preservation, significant & landmark trees, etc., may be appropriate for the new Board to review.
3. The Streetscape Plan, of which the Street Tree Plan is an appendix, will start its review
(completed every 6 years) in late 2011.
Mr. McIntosh highlighted the following changes:
• Page 117 – addition of street tree pruning guidelines
• Page 118 – The vision has been revised as follows: The Edmonds Street Tree Plan exists to
benefit the local community and business climate through enhancement of the identity and
character of the downtown, gateways, neighborhoods and primary routes of travel. Street trees
provide seasonal interest, summer shade, and a transition between the street and adjacent
buildings and properties as well as the ecological services of providing habitat for wildlife, storm
water management, and cleaning pollution from the air. Often this is through preservation of
mature and significant trees. The plan recommends species which provide these benefits and are
hardy, relatively easy to maintain, and tolerant of urban conditions. Whenever possible consider
the use of native trees and new technologies in tree and sidewalk restoration and construction
such as pervious sidewalks that drain naturally to provide water for street trees.
Street tree planting or replacement creates opportunities to consider drainage techniques such as
bio swales and other natural storm drainage methods in new corner parks and bulb outs or by
retrofitting existing facilities.
The plan recommends species which provide these benefits and are hardy, relatively easy to
maintain, and tolerant of urban conditions. The City may modify or amend tree species selection
in the future.
The City may modify or amend tree species selection in the future.
• Page 119 – changes were made to the Context paragraph of the Introduction section to include
that Edmonds is a certified Community Wildlife Habitat city, reference the Sustainability
Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and state that street trees provide a stronger sense of
place and city edge definition.
Packet Page 21 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 18
• Page 120 – added to species selection that street trees should tolerate air and water pollution and
provide air/water quality benefits through absorption of oils and other toxins.
• Page 121 – maintenance techniques are identified
• Page 121 – strengthened the Implementation paragraph
• Page 123 – removed reference to a minimum 3” tree caliper
• Page 125 – tree planting procedures
• Page 126 – added language regarding spacing
• Page 128 – added tree pruning guidelines
• Page 129 – added language regarding the use of effective and environmentally sensitive
integrated pest management principals in the approach to pest management and disease. And
example is the use of ladybugs to control aphids.
• Pages 130 & 131 – revised the street tree list
• Page 132 – added language regarding street trees approved with reservations and prohibited
• Page 134 – tree pruning guidelines
• Page 135 – single tree planting guidelines
Staff recommends the Council review and accept the revisions as recommended by the Planning Board.
He advised the Street Tree Plan is part of the Streetscape Plan in the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed compliments of Mr. McIntosh and Park Maintenance Manager Rich
Lindsay at a recent Engaging the Environment gathering.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the removal of trees at 5th & Dayton during the past year where staff
and the Council had a difference of opinion. Although it was the Council’s position that the trees should
remain, at a Council meeting where he left early due to illness, then-Mayor Haakenson broke a tie vote
regarding removal of the trees and the trees were subsequently removed. Although the current staff
assured that would not happen, Councilmember Wilson wanted to ensure it would not happen in the
future under different staff. He asked if language could be included that required a 1-2 week delay before
trees were removed in intersections of special designation such as 5th & Dayton and 5th and Main. City
Attorney Scott Snyder explained the Mayor administers the City on a day-to-day basis under the
guidelines the Council provides.
Councilmember Wilson asked if a separate ordinance would be required or could language be included in
this plan that requires a 1-2 week waiting period before tree removal could occur in special intersections.
He referred to the designated special intersections identified in the plan. Mr. Snyder answered it could be
added to the plan; the Mayor retains emergency authority to address public safety situations.
Councilmember Wilson recalled the argument then-Mayor Haakenson gave was the trees had not been
maintained and that was in part why they had become a danger. He asked if the Plan required the Council
to commit and fund as a priority maintenance of trees of special significance. Mr. McIntosh anticipated
the Tree Board would identify legacy and landmark trees. Neighbors are responsible for trees in the right-
of-way adjacent to their homes. The City maintains the 260 trees in the downtown core area. Maintenance
may get behind such as last year when budget constraints eliminated seasonal park staff.
Councilmember Wilson clarified he did not want what happened at 5th & Dayton to happen again. Mr.
McIntosh explained the trees at 5th & Main are a different variety and are much more appropriate for that
area than the trees at 5th & Dayton. Those trees are currently healthy and robust; someday it may be
necessary to remove them.
Packet Page 22 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 19
Councilmember Wilson clarified there was nothing in the Plan that protected trees of significance other
than good staff. Mr. McIntosh anticipated the Tree Board would address that. The proposed amendment is
an update to the Street Tree Plan which will be reviewed again at the end of 2011.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was familiar with people who want to participate on the Tree
Board. They plan to consider legacy trees as well as have Edmonds designated as a Tree City USA.
Council President Bernheim suggested the following be considered during a future revision:
• Page 118 – Include a stronger statement regarding the importance of mature street trees to
enhancing the pedestrian shopping experience. A number of studies correlate economic activity
with mature shaded streets.
• Page 118 – Add criteria related to the last sentence of the vision statement. (The City may modify
or amend tree species selection in the future.)
• Page 119 – Add to Context that street trees are an important aspect of encouraging and attracting
pedestrians and shoppers to the downtown area.
• Page 120 – Next to the last bullet, add consideration of moving the sign.
• Page 120 – Species Selection bullets – providing shade and conform to pedestrians and tourists
should be identified as a criteria.
• Page 122 – Add criteria to be satisfied before a small tree is planted in a space where a larger tree
would be appropriate.
• Page 130 – Top of page – he preferred the use of native trees.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of
the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Cooper closed the public participation
portion of the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
BERNHEIM, TO APPROVE THE STREET TREE PLAN AS RECOMMENDED BY THE
PLANNING BOARD.
Councilmember Peterson referred to page 119 and suggested the statement “The Sustainability Element
of the Climate Action Plan” should be “Comprehensive Plan.” Mr. Snyder agreed.
Councilmember Peterson inquired about the City’s policy with regard to fertilizer. Mr. McIntosh
answered that had not been a topic of discussion related to this item. Mr. Lindsay commented tree
planting is typically done by a landscape contractor and fertilizer is typically not an issue. Councilmember
Peterson suggested consideration be given to guidelines regarding the use of fertilizer. Mr. Lindsay
commented on the purchase of 4,000 ladybugs that were used to conquer an aphid infestation at Frances
Anderson Center. Councilmember Peterson complimented staff on the document particularly the tree
pruning guidelines.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER WILSON VOTING NO.
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSAL TO ALLOW DOGS ON LEASHES AT HUTT PARK.
Parks and Recreation Director Brian McIntosh explained at the April 20, 2010 public hearing in regard to
allowing on-leash dogs at Hickman, Haines Wharf, and Sunset Overlook parks, a member of the public
suggested that the 4.7 acre Hutt Park also be considered as an additional site for an on-leash park. Staff
was not opposed but since this was a new suggestion it was thought that it was necessary to go through
the same process as the previously mentioned parks being considered. This suggestion was discussed at
the CS/DS Committee meeting August 10, 2010 and recommended to a public hearing.
Packet Page 23 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 20
Staff feels that this is an appropriate amendment given that the Hutt Park trails provide good connectivity
and a great local natural park experience for walkers and their dogs in the neighborhood.
There are two proposed ordinances attached to the staff report. Staff and the Mayor recommend that dogs
on leashes be allowed at Hutt Park. If Council concurs, the ordinance identifying Hickman, Sunset,
Haines and Hutt Park should be approved. If the Council does not wish to include Hutt Park as an on-
leash park, the ordinance identifying only Hickman, Sunset and Haines should be approved.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members of
the public present who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Cooper closed the public participation
portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported Jack Bevans and she have adopted Hutt Park. She has received
numerous calls regarding this issue and everyone is supportive of including Hutt Park as an on-leash park.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON,
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3816, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE EDMONDS CITY CODE SECTION 5.05.060, SUBSECTION
(B) TO ADD NEW SUBPARAGRAPHS (9), (10), (11) AND (12) DESIGNATING THE
WALKWAYS WITHIN THE PAVED AND WOODED PATHS OF HICKMAN PARK, AT THE
SUNSET AVENUE OVERLOOK, HAINES WHARF PARK AND HUTT PARK TO PERMIT
DOGS TO BE WALKED ON LEASH, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL
BECOME EFFECTIVE.
City Clerk Sandy Chase advised the Council was provided emails from Ruth Arista and Janis Johnson,
both in favor of Hutt Park being an on-leash park.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Wilson relayed that Council President Bernheim had asked staff last week why the signs
prohibiting on-leash dogs on Sunset Avenue had not been removed when the Council took action several
months ago directing staff to remove the signs. Mr. McIntosh responded that the signs had not been
removed because all four of the parks could be done together and that the Council had not yet passed an
ordinance allowing on-leash dogs at Sunset Avenue Overlook. Council President Bernheim subsequently
issued a press release stating he planned to remove the signs himself. Although that may be great political
gimmickry, Councilmember Wilson asserted it was not appropriate behavior for a citizen or the Council
President. Removing the signs was a violation of the law; a citizen called 911 and a police report was
filed.
As a result the Police Chief must now determine whether a citizen who breaks the law should be
punished. When a citizen who also serves as Council President breaks the law, the City removes itself
from a conflict of interest and refers the matter to the Snohomish County Prosecutor. If the Chief refers
the matter to the Snohomish County Prosecutor, some may view it as political gimmickry. If he does not,
some will view it as granting a favor to a Councilmember. In both circumstances the Chief is put in a
terrible position. At a minimum he requested Council President Bernheim apologize to the community as
well as staff.
9. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no members of the public present who wished to provide comment.
Packet Page 24 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 21
10. MAYOR'S REPORT ON AUGUST 24, 2010 COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING CITY
ATTORNEY REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ).
Mayor Cooper explained the RFQ was completed today and was issued either late this afternoon or will
be tomorrow. He explained there were two people assigned to the Human Resources Department. When
the Council directed the Mayor to do a RFQ for the Hearing Examiner and City Attorney, those requests
were queued with the other tasks Human Resources was involved in which included research into a
change in healthcare, collective bargaining preparations for the Teamsters, SEIU and Police Association,
advertising for Mr. McIntosh’s replacement, review and renewal of the Prosecuting Attorney’s contract,
review and renewal of the Public Defender’s contract, rewriting the Emergency Operations Center
Manual in addition to budget preparations and questions from the Citizens Levy Committee. Typically the
City Attorney reviews RFQs; because it is anticipated the City Attorney will respond to the RFQ, Human
Resources had to identify other resources to review the RFQ.
Mayor Cooper assured the delay was not because staff was ignoring the request for an RFQ, it was simply
queued with other tasks. He anticipated there would be plenty of time for responses to the RFQ to be
submitted and a City Attorney contract negotiated prior to the end of the year.
Mayor Cooper reported the Hearing Examiner RFQ has closed; only two qualified firms responded. He
will review them and recommend one for confirmation by the Council. The Park & Recreation Director
position has closed. Staff has narrowed the applicants to seven candidates who will be interviewed.
Following interviews, three finalists will interviewed by the Council before he makes his selection for
confirmation by the Council.
Mayor Cooper explained the delay is a reflection of economic times when staff is reduced to the point
where some departments only have a director and one person compared to neighboring cities that have 4-
6 people assigned to Human Resources.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Human Resources Director Debi Humann has been helpful with
the Citizens Levy Committee. Senior Executive Council Assistant Jana Spellman and she have surveyed
five cities regarding an in-house versus external City Attorney. She also plans to interview staff in two
cities that recently changed from an external City Attorney to an in-house City Attorney. Mayor Cooper
suggested the Council make a decision with regard to an in-house versus external City Attorney before he
conducts a lengthy interview process for an external City Attorney law firm. He is proceeding with the
understanding that at least for 2011 the City will utilize an external City Attorney. Councilmember
Buckshnis explained the intent of her research is to ensure both options have been considered.
Mayor Cooper advised when the RFQ for the City Attorney closes, he will be in contact with Council
President Bernheim with regard to the schedule because the City’s ordinances suggest the Council be
involved in the selection process.
Council President Bernheim commented no one doubted there was a lot of work to do. He referred to the
motion that stated the City issue an RFQ for City Attorney services and Hearing Examiner services with
all deliberate speed. He noted the Council did not typically state “all deliberate speed” as it was assumed
the action would be accomplished promptly in all due course. He suggested to avoid the Council writing a
policy such as it shall be the policy of the City Council to expect responses to ordinances and motions that
are passed within 60 days or less, staff inform the Council if their direction could not be carried out within
a month. He commented this was not simply an exercise; there are a lot of people who want a new City
Attorney and this is the first step in accomplishing that. He was not satisfied with the timeline for
preparing the City Attorney RFQ.
Mayor Cooper appreciated the criticism, reiterating there were items queued up that had a higher priority.
He assured there was time for the RFQ process and selection of a City Attorney before the end of the
Packet Page 25 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 22
year. He emphasized tasks must be prioritized and that was part of his responsibility as the Chief
Executive Officer of the City. He assured the delay was not an attempt to avoid or slow the process but
was the result of other tasks in the priority list.
With regard to Council President Bernheim’s statement that a lot of people want a new City Attorney,
Councilmember Plunkett explained he voted in favor of an RFQ not because he wanted a new City
Attorney but simply to see what costs and possibilities were available.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Cooper reported Mr. Clifton and he spoke at the WSF scoping meeting that was attended by
approximately 30-40 people. At the beginning of the meeting the WSF representative asked how many in
the room were opposed to improvements at the Main Street terminal; nearly everyone raised their hand.
When they asked how many were from Edmonds, nearly everyone raised their hand. He overheard the
WSF representative say that approximately 70% were opposed when it was really 90%. The scoping
meeting is being televised at 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. daily. Representative Marko Liias spoke at the
meeting as well as a representative from the Port of Everett who spoke in opposition to the ferry terminal
in Everett.
Mayor Cooper reported Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh is retiring and tonight was his last
City Council meeting. His last date of work is November 10. He wished Mr. McIntosh well and thanked
him for his 27 years of service to the City.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked everyone who has been scheduling meetings with her to review the
budget. She also relayed comments received stating that she needed to stand up for herself especially
when Councilmember Wilson states he does not believe the Citizen Levy Committee (CLC) is doing what
it should be doing. She reported Lake Forest Park’s levy committee met for 6-8 months before they made
a decision regarding a levy and it took Shoreline’s levy committee 16 months to reach a decision. She
referred to information for the 2009 Levy Committee that she participated on, noting there was no
discussion regarding financials because expenses were not deemed to be an issue. She summarized if
there is a revenue problem there are expense problems. The CLC is moving forward; they still have not
received accurate and current financial information. For example, the six month budget report included
amendments that had not been approved by the Council and there are still numerous questions that have
yet to be answered.
Councilmember Petso reported 10:45 p.m. was too late for public comment. She recalled in the past,
public comment followed the Consent Agenda. As a Councilmember who participated in moving public
comment later on the agenda, she suggested Councilmembers consider restoring it to the beginning of the
agenda.
Councilmember Wilson commented his criticisms of the CLC were not flip; the months of the CLC’s
effort do not appear to have moved any closer to a decision on the size and shape of a levy or whether a
levy is needed. Although he was familiar with Lake Forest Park and Shoreline’s efforts, neither were
analogous to the CLC’s work. He questioned whether the work the CLC is doing was ever envisioned or
endorsed by the Council when they gave support for forming the CLC. He agreed the CLC’s work had
value but it was not moving any closer to a decision regarding a levy.
With regard to last year’s Levy Committee, Councilmember Wilson explained one of the four meetings
addressed how $4-5 million could be cut from the budget. He met with each Director to identify expenses
that could be cut. He concluded the 60+ volunteers involved in the 2009 Levy Committee in a 3 hour
meeting, a total of 180 volunteer hours, accomplished what the CLC has yet to accomplish.
Packet Page 26 of 482
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 1, 2010
Page 23
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINTUES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Peterson congratulated Mr. McIntosh on his years of service and stated he would be
sorely missed. He reported when passing by the ballot box at the Edmonds Library in the pouring rain at
about 10:00 this morning, there were 10-12 people waiting to deposit their ballots. He anticipated
Edmonds would again lead the state in voter turnout.
With regard to the sign removal, Council President Bernheim reported in February 2009 a woman
complained to the Council that she was unable to walk her dog and sit on a park bench on Sunset Avenue
due to a sign that stated it was illegal to sit with a leashed dog on the west side of Sunset Avenue. In April
2010 the Council voted to include the west side of Sunset Avenue as a park that allowed on-leash dogs.
Immediately thereafter the City Attorney informed the Council he would return with an ordinance for
approval on the Consent Agenda.
In September 2010, after many other inquiries, he sent an email to Mr. McIntosh asking why the signs
had not been removed; he did not receive an answer. At the October 26 Council meeting, he again asked
Mr. McIntosh why the signs were still up. Mr. McIntosh told him they were still up because there were
other parks that might be opened to on-leash dogs in the future and they could all be handled via one
ordinance.
Within 36 hours he sent an email to the Mayor requesting the signs on Sunset Avenue be removed and
said if the signs were not removed he would do it himself in front of a newspaper photographer. On
October 29 Mr. McIntosh emailed him to say the signs would be taken down after ordinances were
considered regarding other parks. Council President Bernheim then sent an email to Mayor Cooper on
October 29 stating if the signs were removed and the ordinance placed on the Consent Agenda he would
forget about it. The agenda memo regarding the ordinance to allow on-leash dogs in Hutt Park states on
April 20 the Council recommended amendments to the City code. He questioned the truth of that
statement, finding it legally false. He asserted the Council voted on April 20 to open sunset Avenue to on-
leash dogs.
Council President Bernheim acknowledged issuing a press release on October 30 stating that he would be
removing the signs on Sunset Avenue. While he was removing the signs, a police car drove up and an
officer approached him. He gave the officer the sign he had removed and the officer drove away. He
removed another sign after the officer left which he left in front of City Hall. He spray painted out the
word “no” on another sign that he was unable to remove so that the sign now reads “dogs allowed in
park.” He has been questioned by the police and has answered their questions fully and truthfully. As
Council President he has done his best in this matter to exercise leadership and those efforts failed. As a
citizen he has seen government take a stand and seen the administrative structure ignored. He has
cooperated fully with the police and reviewed the public record to ensure that the law expressed in the
signs was wrong. He took the most limited possible action by removing signs that incorrectly informed
the public that they are not permitted to use a public park. He summarized he had done nothing wrong and
was proud of everything he had done.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m.
Packet Page 27 of 482
AM-3536 Item #: 2. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Lorenzo Hines Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #122136 through #122275 dated November 4, 2010 for $333,645.30, and claim
checks #122276 through #122357 dated November 10, 2010 for $143,710.56. Approval of payroll direct
deposit and checks #49917 through #49950 for the period October 16, 2010 through October 31, 2010 for
$643,574.73.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks and payroll direct deposit and checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2010
Revenue:
Expenditure:1,120,930.59
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $477,355.86
Payroll $643,574.73
Attachments
Claim Checks for 11-04-10
Claim Checks for 11-10-10
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Debra Sharp 11/10/2010 10:43 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/10/2010 12:12 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 11/10/2010 08:26 AM
Packet Page 28 of 482
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 29 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122136 11/3/2010 001702 AWC EMPLOY BENEFIT TRUST Delilla AWC SUPPLEMENTAL BILL FOR DELILLA
Supplemental bill for M Delilla
811.000.000.231.510.000.00 1,641.23
Total :1,641.23
122137 11/4/2010 072627 911 ETC INC 171562 OCT-10 911 DATABASE MAINT
October-10 911 database maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 101.50
Total :101.50
122138 11/4/2010 070322 A&A LANGUAGE SERVICES INC NOV-09 / DEC-09 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 2,224.25
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 145.40
Total :2,369.65
122139 11/4/2010 068806 AABCO BARRICADE COMPANY 87514 Traffic Control - 36" Men Sorking
Traffic Control - 36" Men Sorking
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 980.00
48" Men Working Symbol Roll-up Signs
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 249.00
Roll-up Sign Stands (Non Spring)
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 1,074.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 218.79
Total :2,521.79
122140 11/4/2010 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 287077 RODENT CONTROL
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 82.12
RODENT CONTROL287124
CITY WIDE RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 93.08
Total :175.20
1Page:
Packet Page 30 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122141 11/4/2010 070963 ACTION FLAG CO 10415 Mayors Flag
Mayors Flag
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 115.00
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 16.81
Total :131.81
122142 11/4/2010 071234 ACUREN INSPECTION INC 0000296874 24-0155019
INCINERATOR INSPECTION
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 1,189.00
Total :1,189.00
122143 11/4/2010 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 10-509 JANITORIAL SERVICE
JANITORIAL SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00
FLOOR MAINTENANCE10-510
FLOOR MAINTENANCE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 273.33
Total :607.33
122144 11/4/2010 069157 AIONA, CYNDI AIONA13173 HULA
ADULT HULA #13173
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 487.68
Total :487.68
122145 11/4/2010 069803 AIRVAC 12206 FS 16 - 4 Stage Filter Packs
FS 16 - 4 Stage Filter Packs
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1,420.00
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 160.00
Total :1,580.00
122146 11/4/2010 069829 AMIDO, BENJAMIM AMIDO13099 UKULELE CLASSES
UKULELE #13099
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 400.40
Total :400.40
2Page:
Packet Page 31 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122147 11/4/2010 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC RQ07 NPDES SAMPLING
NPDES SAMPLING
411.000.656.538.800.410.31 130.00
Total :130.00
122148 11/4/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5196416 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 31.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.96
Total :34.10
122149 11/4/2010 069751 ARAMARK 21580001 655-5196421
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 67.28
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.39
Total :73.67
122150 11/4/2010 073481 ATMAJIAN, RITA GRACE ATMAJIAN1027 REFUND
RETURN OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 1.00
Total :1.00
122151 11/4/2010 064807 ATS AUTOMATION INC 047149 alerton system-PW~
alerton system-PW~
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 2,550.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 242.25
Total :2,792.25
122152 11/4/2010 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 57587 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 124.04
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 124.04
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
3Page:
Packet Page 32 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122152 11/4/2010 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 399.72
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 11.78
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 11.78
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 12.15
UB Outsourcing area #400 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 127.80
UB Outsourcing area #400 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 399.72
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS57680
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 88.53
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 88.53
UB Outsourcing area #200 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 91.22
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 284.44
UB Outsourcing area #200 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 284.43
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 8.41
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 8.41
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 8.67
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS57681
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 22.94
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 22.94
UB Outsourcing area #700 Printing
4Page:
Packet Page 33 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122152 11/4/2010 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 23.64
UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 96.80
UB Outsourcing area #700 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 96.80
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 2.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 2.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 2.24
Total :2,343.39
122153 11/4/2010 073035 AVAGIMOVA, KARINE 1164 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 100.00
INTERPRETER FEE1167
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 100.00
Total :200.00
122154 11/4/2010 073075 BAILEY DUSKIN PEIFFLE &8366-001 102044 OCTOBER-10 BOND ISSUE LITIGATION LEGAL
October-10 Bond Issue Litigation Legal
001.000.310.518.870.410.00 25.00
Total :25.00
122155 11/4/2010 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON BAILEY12895 TAEKWON DO CLASSES
TKO #12895
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 829.50
TKO #12899
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 389.90
TKO: TOT #12910
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 245.70
Total :1,465.10
5Page:
Packet Page 34 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122156 11/4/2010 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 011680412 RENTAL OF COPIER
RENTAL OF COPIER
001.000.230.512.500.450.00 154.40
Total :154.40
122157 11/4/2010 070992 BANC OF AMERICA LEASING 011680413 Canon 5870 copier lease (12/1- 12/31/10)
Canon 5870 copier lease (12/1- 12/31/10)
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 101.35
Canon 5870 copier lease (12/1- 12/31/10)
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 101.32
Canon 5870 copier lease (12/1- 12/31/10)
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 101.33
Supply charge - same period
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 25.01
Supply charge - same period
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 25.00
Supply charge - same period
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 24.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 12.01
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 12.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 11.99
Total :415.00
122158 11/4/2010 002170 BARTON, RONALD 80 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 300.40
Total :300.40
122159 11/4/2010 073464 BEL-RED HEATING & AC BLD20100754 Refund on BLD2010.0754 - On-line
Refund on BLD2010.0754 - On-line
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 20.00
Total :20.00
6Page:
Packet Page 35 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122160 11/4/2010 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC 364 Lender added to Inspection Card
Lender added to Inspection Card
001.000.620.524.100.410.00 36.25
Total :36.25
122161 11/4/2010 073482 BOL, TRINA BOL102810 REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 10.00
Total :10.00
122162 11/4/2010 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN0910 BIRD NATURALIST CLASSROOM VISITS
BIRD NATURALIST CLASSROOM VISITS AS
001.000.640.574.350.410.00 84.00
Total :84.00
122163 11/4/2010 071434 BRUNETTE, SISSEL BRUNETTE12936 PRENATAL YOGA
PRENATAL YOGA #12936
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 277.20
Total :277.20
122164 11/4/2010 003255 CANINE COLLEGE CANINECOLLEGE13167 DOG OBEDIENCE 1
DOG OBEDIENCE 1 #13167
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 252.00
Total :252.00
122165 11/4/2010 067446 CEM CORPORATION 381410 466915
SERVICE ON CEM
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 673.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 7.03
Total :680.03
122166 11/4/2010 068484 CEMEX 9420338068 Roadway - Asphalt
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 455.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 43.23
7Page:
Packet Page 36 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122166 11/4/2010 (Continued)068484 CEMEX
Storm - Dump Asphalt & Concrete Fees9420345619
Storm - Dump Asphalt & Concrete Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 160.41
Roadway - Asphalt9420377035
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 942.04
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 89.50
Roadway - Asphalt9420384535
Roadway - Asphalt
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 491.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 46.70
Total :2,228.44
122167 11/4/2010 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT12955 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #12955
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 39.20
Total :39.20
122168 11/4/2010 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 27079485 INV#27079485 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD
FUEL FOR NARCOTICS VEHICLE
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 209.01
Total :209.01
122169 11/4/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8210 INV#8210 CUST#47 - EDMONDS PD
NARCOTICS SGT JULY-SEPT 2010
104.000.410.521.210.510.00 9,771.63
Total :9,771.63
122170 11/4/2010 073480 CLUGSTON, TAMMI CLUGSTON1027 REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 20.00
Total :20.00
122171 11/4/2010 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2244310-1 FAC - 20" Pads
8Page:
Packet Page 37 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122171 11/4/2010 (Continued)004095 COASTWIDE LABS
FAC - 20" Pads
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 176.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 16.76
Fac Maint - Cleaner, Stipper, Finish,W2245955
Fac Maint - Cleaner, Stipper, Finish,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 505.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 48.01
Total :746.62
122172 11/4/2010 073292 COBURN, KAI COBURN102810 VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT
VOLLEYBALL GYM ATTENDANT @ EDMONDS CC
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 140.00
Total :140.00
122173 11/4/2010 070323 COMCAST 8498310300721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES
CEMETERY OFFICE BUNDLED SERVICES
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 113.36
Total :113.36
122174 11/4/2010 065891 CONLEY, LISA CONLEY0929 MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUBSTITUTE
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUB
001.000.640.575.560.410.00 80.00
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL SUBSTITUTECONLEY1101
SUB @ MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL 11/1/10
001.000.640.575.560.410.00 30.00
Total :110.00
122175 11/4/2010 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3240871 ADVERTISEMENT FOR WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT
Legal advertisement for website
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 111.60
Total :111.60
122176 11/4/2010 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2011-WA0024058 WA0024058
WASTEWATER PERMIT
9Page:
Packet Page 38 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122176 11/4/2010 (Continued)006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 30,683.74
Total :30,683.74
122177 11/4/2010 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY CERT#3972 GRP OIT WASTEWATER OPERATOR CERT 2011 ANNUAL
WASTEWATER OPERATOR CERT 2011 ANNUAL
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 30.00
Total :30.00
122178 11/4/2010 068734 DEPT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES Y000392 Refund of overpayment to Sokhom Long
Refund of overpayment to Sokhom Long
411.000.655.535.800.110.00 142.50
Total :142.50
122179 11/4/2010 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS October 2010 DRS OCTOBER 2010 DRS
October 2010 DRS
811.000.000.231.540.000.00 138,346.06
Total :138,346.06
122180 11/4/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3144 MINUTETAKER FOR ECON DEV COMM MTGS
Economic Dev Commission Minutetaker for
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 627.00
Total :627.00
122181 11/4/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3146 MINUTE TAKING
10/26 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 348.00
Total :348.00
122182 11/4/2010 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 10312010 STATE LOBBYIST FOR OCTOBER 2010
State lobbyist charges for October 2010
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 2,585.00
Total :2,585.00
122183 11/4/2010 071596 EBORALL, STEVE EBORALL13087 ART CLUB
ART CLUB #13087
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 245.00
10Page:
Packet Page 39 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :245.0012218311/4/2010 071596 071596 EBORALL, STEVE
122184 11/4/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001294/1 COUPLER/PLUG SET
COUPLER/PLUG SET
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.62
LACQUER, ETC.001298/1
THINNER LACQUER, CONTAINER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 18.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.80
Total :27.88
122185 11/4/2010 073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE 001258/1 FAC MAINT
Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Ties Cables, Wire
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 35.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 3.37
FAC MAIN001260/1
FAC - Delta Repair Kit
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.38
FAC MAINT1252/1
City Hall - Stainless Nails, Adhesive
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.63
FAC MAINT1261/1
Fac Maint - Faucet Hole Cover
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.24
FAC MAINT1263/1
PS - Fasteners
11Page:
Packet Page 40 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122185 11/4/2010 (Continued)073037 EDMONDS ACE HARDWARE
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.13
FAC MAINT1265/1
Museum - Masking Tape, Frog Tape,
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.09
FAC MAINT1268/1
PS - D-Con
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.76
FAC MAINT1270/1
Fac Maint Unit 5 - Oiler
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.22
Total :101.50
122186 11/4/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 28355 Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Tubes
Fac Maint - Unit 5 - Tubes
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.56
Total :6.48
122187 11/4/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-25150 9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 40.95
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)2-25175
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 51.93
SPRINKLER2-28275
SPRINKLER
12Page:
Packet Page 41 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122187 11/4/2010 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 69.50
MINI PARK2-37180
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 35.65
820 15TH ST SW7-05276
820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 105.24
Total :303.27
122188 11/4/2010 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 52.09
Total :52.09
122189 11/4/2010 070676 EFFICIENCY INC 1201102 FTR GOLD RECORD ANNUAL MAINT
FTR GOLD RECORD ANNUAL MAINT
001.000.230.512.500.490.00 373.76
FTR GOLD RECORD ANNUAL MAINT AGREEMENT
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 373.76
FTR GOLD RECORD ANNUAL MAINT AGREEMENT
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 373.76
Total :1,121.28
122190 11/4/2010 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 059616 MK0653
COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 170.26
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 16.17
Total :186.43
122191 11/4/2010 073455 ELPAC 24540 INCINERATOR CONTROL PANEL
INCINERATOR CONTROL PANEL
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 8,500.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 782.00
13Page:
Packet Page 42 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :9,282.0012219111/4/2010 073455 073455 ELPAC
122192 11/4/2010 067945 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 10-81668-RDU-J5 INV#10-81668-RDU-J5 - EDMONDS PD
REPORT - SILVA #10-3326
001.000.410.521.110.410.00 5.94
Total :5.94
122193 11/4/2010 008969 ENGLAND, CHARLES ENGLAND13183 SATURDAY NIGHT DANCE CLASSES
#13183
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 320.00
#13185
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 224.00
#13186
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 512.00
Total :1,056.00
122194 11/4/2010 008975 ENTENMANN ROVIN CO 0065741-IN INV#0065741-IN, ACCT#0011847 EDMONDS PD
FLAT BADGE-RETIRED SGT.
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 81.00
PLAIN BADGE CASE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 19.00
EXPEDITING FEE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 50.00
HANDLING FEE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 4.50
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 25.40
Total :179.90
122195 11/4/2010 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 103110 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 8,210.00
Total :8,210.00
122196 11/4/2010 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 164989 October 2010 - Section 125 & Section
October 2010 - Section 125 & Section
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 78.30
14Page:
Packet Page 43 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :78.3012219611/4/2010 070855 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC
122197 11/4/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-206-1108 TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 145.47
TELEMETRY LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 270.16
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR425-206-1137
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 26.50
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-1141
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.53
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.41
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION425-206-4810
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 42.32
TELEMETRY LIFT STATION
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 78.58
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE425-712-8347
PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 55.63
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 111.90
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST425-778-3297
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.84
VACANT PW BLDG 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 35.00
Total :837.34
122198 11/4/2010 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER13071 QIGONG & TAI CHI CLASSES
TAI CHI #13034
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 252.00
15Page:
Packet Page 44 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122198 11/4/2010 (Continued)068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA
QIGONG #13071
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 336.00
TAI CHI #13036
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 245.00
TAI CHI #13032
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 894.60
QIGONG #13073
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 364.00
Total :2,091.60
122199 11/4/2010 012199 GRAINGER 9373849828 FAC - Elect Timer
FAC - Elect Timer
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 77.31
9.2% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 7.12
Total :84.43
122200 11/4/2010 073483 GREEN, KARA GREEN102810 REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 198.00
Total :198.00
122201 11/4/2010 069733 H B JAEGER COMPANY LLC 117647/1 Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 497.24
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 25.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 49.61
Total :571.85
122202 11/4/2010 012560 HACH COMPANY 6963998 112830
POWER SUPPLY
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 568.95
9.5% Sales Tax
16Page:
Packet Page 45 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122202 11/4/2010 (Continued)012560 HACH COMPANY
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 54.06
Total :623.01
122203 11/4/2010 068011 HALLAM, RICHARD 79 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 151.80
Total :151.80
122204 11/4/2010 068450 HARBORVIEW MEDICAL CENTER 10-26-10 MEDICAL RECORDS - WERTS
Medical Records 10-3772
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 65.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 6.19
Total :71.39
122205 11/4/2010 071368 HEFFERAN, BRIGITTE HEFFERAN13133 CALLIGRAPHY CLASSES
CALLIGRAPHY #13133
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 546.00
CALLIGRAPHY #13114
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 273.00
Total :819.00
122206 11/4/2010 070042 IKON 83509407 C/A 467070-1003748A4
Finance Copier Rental 10/22/10 -
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 454.07
Color copies 8/24/10 - 9/14/10
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 77.77
B/W copies 8/24/10 - 9/24/10
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 11.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.450.00 51.60
Total :594.69
122207 11/4/2010 070042 IKON 83483155 COPIER LEASE
COPIER LEASE: IRC5870U
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 857.18
17Page:
Packet Page 46 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122207 11/4/2010 (Continued)070042 IKON
COPIER LEASE83509410
PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 25.89
Total :883.07
122208 11/4/2010 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2936026 PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00
Total :15.00
122209 11/4/2010 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 486364 54278825
HYPOCHLORITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,166.06
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 322.94
54278825486857
CAUSTIC SODA
411.000.656.538.800.310.52 1,905.30
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.52 181.00
Total :5,575.30
122210 11/4/2010 071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER KLS13218 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER CLASSES
#13218
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,096.20
#13219
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 642.60
#13220
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 793.80
#13221
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 793.80
#13222
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 453.60
#13213
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 378.00
18Page:
Packet Page 47 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122210 11/4/2010 (Continued)071137 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER
#13214
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 302.40
#13215
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 453.60
#13216
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 718.20
#13217
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 529.20
Total :6,161.40
122211 11/4/2010 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 10222010-01 INV#10222010-01 - EDMONDS PD
26 CAR WASHES @$5.03 FOR 9/10
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 130.78
INV#10222010-03 - EDMONDS PD10222010-03
1 CAR WASH @$5.03 FOR 9/10
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 5.03
Total :135.81
122212 11/4/2010 073136 LANG, ROBERT LANG1030 DANCE CLASS MONITOR
GYM MONITOR FOR DANCE CLASSES
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 36.00
Total :36.00
122213 11/4/2010 073136 LANG, ROBERT Lang, Robert Monitor for City Hall Lobby for 2010
Monitor for City Hall Lobby for 2010
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
122214 11/4/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105284 BUSINESS CARDS FOR PD
Business cards-Alan Hardwick250-00252
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.87
Steve Morrison250-00252
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.87
Michael Richardson250-00252
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 16.87
19Page:
Packet Page 48 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122214 11/4/2010 (Continued)018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS
A.J. Frausto250-00252
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 16.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 4.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.310.00 1.60
Total :73.89
122215 11/4/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105161 Calendars for Dev. Serv. Dept.
Calendars for Dev. Serv. Dept.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 42.67
Office Supplies - Dev Serv Dept105295
Office Supplies - Dev Serv Dept
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 422.53
Audio Cassettes for Planning/DSD105299
Audio Cassettes for Planning/DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 41.61
Total :506.81
122216 11/4/2010 061900 MARC 0428065-IN 00-0902224
DEGREASER
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 68.50
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 6.38
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.59 7.11
Total :81.99
122217 11/4/2010 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 4613 INV#4613 - EDMONDS POLICE
INTERPRETER #10-3969
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 80.00
Total :80.00
122218 11/4/2010 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 966 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
20Page:
Packet Page 49 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122218 11/4/2010 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 87.50
Total :87.50
122219 11/4/2010 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 68097891 123106800
FITTING/SEALANT/SOLENOID VALVE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 284.42
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.02
Total :291.44
122220 11/4/2010 072010 MEISER, GARLAND MEISER1102 PICKLE BALL LEAGUE SUPERVISOR
PICKLEBALL LEAGUE SUPERVISOR @ ANDERSON
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 108.00
Total :108.00
122221 11/4/2010 069631 METROTECH 451149 Water - Repair Supplies
Water - Repair Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 125.95
Repairs Labor
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 100.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 19.92
Total :245.87
122222 11/4/2010 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER102710 GYM MONITOR
GYM MONITOR FOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 120.00
Total :120.00
122223 11/4/2010 073462 MILLER, ERIC MILLER102710 REFUND/CEMETERY
REFUND FOR CEMETERY MARKER
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 175.20
Total :175.20
122224 11/4/2010 072492 MOLINA, NILDA MOLINA12928 ZUMBA CLASSES
ZUMBA #12928
21Page:
Packet Page 50 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122224 11/4/2010 (Continued)072492 MOLINA, NILDA
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 945.00
Total :945.00
122225 11/4/2010 071378 MYTANA 159245 Sewer - Reel for 11/16" & 3/4" Cable
Sewer - Reel for 11/16" & 3/4" Cable
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 180.00
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 26.07
Total :206.07
122226 11/4/2010 064570 NATIONAL SAFETY INC 0282722-IN Sewer - Gas Meters
Sewer - Gas Meters
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 1,251.00
Gas for Meters
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 220.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 118.85
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 20.90
Sewer - Gas Meter0283206-IN
Sewer - Gas Meter
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 625.50
Filters and Sensor Cover for Meter
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 80.00
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 9.98
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 1.28
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.350.00 60.38
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 7.72
Total :2,395.61
122227 11/4/2010 064024 NAT'L ASSOC FOR COURT MNGMNT 152428 COURT ADMINISTRATOR'S MEMBERSHIP TO
22Page:
Packet Page 51 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122227 11/4/2010 (Continued)064024 NAT'L ASSOC FOR COURT MNGMNT
COURT ADMINISTRATOR'S MEMBERSHIP TO
001.000.230.512.500.490.00 125.00
Total :125.00
122228 11/4/2010 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S3371754.001 2091
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 81.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 7.74
Total :89.22
122229 11/4/2010 066391 NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL INC 15831 260
SODIUM BISULFITE
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 852.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.54 81.00
Total :933.60
122230 11/4/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-206989 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HICKMAN PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 305.16
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-207228
MADRONA ELEMENTARY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 101.20
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-207313
YOST PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 222.89
Total :629.25
122231 11/4/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 481089 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 143.13
Total :143.13
122232 11/4/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 320086 CALENDARS, POST IT, LEAD, ERASER
Calendars, post it, pencil lead, eraser
23Page:
Packet Page 52 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122232 11/4/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 165.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 15.69
DRAWER ORGANIZER333242
Drawer organizer
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -31.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -2.98
WALL CALENDAR365072
Wall Calendar
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -9.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -0.95
MONTHLY DESK PAD365084
Monthly Desk Pad
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -22.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -2.10
Total :111.28
122233 11/4/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 366420 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 143.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 13.66
OFFICE SUPPLIES378540
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 68.03
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 6.46
OFFICE SUPPLIES423737
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 36.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 3.49
24Page:
Packet Page 53 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122233 11/4/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
OFFICE SUPPLIES487922
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 128.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 12.23
Total :413.26
122234 11/4/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 333132 Sewer - Ink
Sewer - Ink
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 69.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.62
Sewer - Photo Paper333231
Sewer - Photo Paper
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 21.10
Admin - Wall Planner
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 30.72
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 2.93
PW Admin - Returns399818
PW Admin - Returns
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 -30.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 -2.93
Admin - Ink399824
Admin - Ink
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 73.30
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.96
Sewer - Returns399975
Sewer - Returnsg
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 -21.10
9.5% Sales Tax
25Page:
Packet Page 54 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122234 11/4/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 -2.00
Storm - Ink424228
Storm - Ink
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 116.32
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 11.05
Fac Maint - Wall Planner459286
Fac Maint - Wall Planner
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.98
Water - Wall Planners, Calendars
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 52.27
Street - Calendars
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 46.84
Storm - Desk Planner
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 13.44
Sewer - Desk Planner
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 20.15
PW Admin - Wall Calendar
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 11.52
Sewer - Wall Planner
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 4.97
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.310.00 4.45
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 1.28
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.86
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 1.09
PW - Office Supplies497071
26Page:
Packet Page 55 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122234 11/4/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
PW - Office Supplies
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 49.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 4.66
Total :517.47
122235 11/4/2010 073463 OLEG, VAKULCHIK bld2010.0769 Refund of Bld2010.0769 - site not in
Refund of Bld2010.0769 - site not in
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 125.00
Total :125.00
122236 11/4/2010 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 108342 Storm Dump Fees
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 60.00
Storm Dump Fees108644
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 45.00
Storm Dump Fees108661
Storm Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 70.00
Total :175.00
122237 11/4/2010 066817 PANASONIC DIGITAL DOCUMENT COM 011680410 COPIER CONTRACT
COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 145.22
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 13.45
Total :158.67
122238 11/4/2010 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 95370 INV#95370 - EDMONDS PD
TOWING TOYOTA CAMRY #621YKV
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
Total :173.01
27Page:
Packet Page 56 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122239 11/4/2010 069944 PECK, ELIZABETH PECK12915 PILATES & PRE-SCHOOL CLASSES
LITTLE FISHES PRESCHOOL PREP #12915
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 537.60
TINY FEET PLAYTIME #12913
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 380.80
PILATES RELAXED MAT #12922
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 303.80
PILATES ENERGY MAT #12918
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 217.70
Total :1,439.90
122240 11/4/2010 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC PCASH1103 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
ENVELOPES FOR CEMETERY MAILING
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 24.08
PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES: FABRIC MARKER
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 3.82
PRESCHOOL / MIRRORS
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 4.38
PRESCHOOL/BULLETIN BOARD
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 4.38
WRITE ON THE SOUND SUPPLIES
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 57.18
REPLACEMENT TIRE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 38.33
GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 11.65
WRITE ON THE SOUND SUPPLIES
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 9.72
SISTER CITY PIZZA FOR WELCOME DINNER
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 47.41
PRESCHOOL/COOKING PROJECT
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 9.07
GYMNASTICS CLEANING SUPPLIES
001.000.640.575.550.310.00 10.54
PARKING/SISTER CITY
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 9.00
28Page:
Packet Page 57 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :229.5612224011/4/2010 008350 008350 PETTY CASH - PARKS & REC
122241 11/4/2010 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ13078 FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP
FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP #13078
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 227.50
Total :227.50
122242 11/4/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 152.90
Total :152.90
122243 11/4/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
411.000.656.538.800.472.63 299.19
Total :299.19
122244 11/4/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 0101874006 LIBRARY
LIBRARY
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 93.41
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP0230757007
PARK & BUILDING MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 139.40
LIFT STATION #71916766007
LIFT STATION #7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.81
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCIL2753166004
PUBLIC SAFETY-POLICE,CRT & COUNCEL
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 339.36
Public Works2776365005
Public Works
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 11.51
Public Works
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 43.73
Public Works
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 43.73
Public Works
29Page:
Packet Page 58 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122244 11/4/2010 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 43.73
Public Works
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 43.73
Public Works
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 43.71
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE5254926008
MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 175.31
Fire Station # 165322323139
Fire Station # 16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 147.51
SEWER LIFT STATION #95672895009
SEWER LIFT STATION #9
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 37.35
FLEET5903085008
Fleet 7110 210th St SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 146.56
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION6439566008
PUBLIC SAFETY-FIRE STATION
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 239.19
ANDERSON CENTER6490327001
ANDERSON CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 1,020.47
LIFT STATION #88851908007
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.94
FIRE STATION #209919661109
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 108.60
Total :2,766.05
122245 11/4/2010 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 10-717 COURT SECURITY
COURT SECURITY
001.000.230.512.500.410.00 2,220.63
30Page:
Packet Page 59 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :2,220.6312224511/4/2010 070809 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE
122246 11/4/2010 062657 REGIONAL DISPOSAL COMPANY 002071 Storm - Street Sweeping Dump Fees
Storm - Street Sweeping Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 249.26
Total :249.26
122247 11/4/2010 073443 ROHDE, DAVID 002 PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst
PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,416.00
City Wide Tech Hours
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 34.00
Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,327.50
Water
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 354.00
Street
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 1,563.50
PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst003
PW (Storm, Engineering) GIS Analyst
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 2,006.00
City Wide GIS / Tech Hours
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 164.50
Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,239.00
Water
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 826.00
Total :8,930.50
122248 11/4/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-6395-3 131 SUNSET AVE
131 SUNSET
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 137.61
23202 EDMONDS WAY2009-4334-8
23202 EDMONDS WAY
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 150.69
50 RAILROAD AVE2010-5432-7
31Page:
Packet Page 60 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122248 11/4/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
50 RAILROAD AVE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 93.58
100 RAILROAD AVE2021-3965-5
100 RAILROAD AVE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 42.29
24000 78TH AVE W2026-2041-5
24000 78TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.04
Total :455.21
122249 11/4/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 150060544 2030-9778-7
WWTP SNO PUD
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 24,038.86
Total :24,038.86
122250 11/4/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202547 SIGNAL LIGHT 21930 95TH AVE W
SIGNAL LIGHT 21930 95th AVE W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
SCHOOL LIGHT 20829 76TH W200202562
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
BEACON LIGHT CROSS WALK 23602 76TH AVE W200274959
BEACON LIGHT CROSS WALK~
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 36.19
SIGNAL LIGHT 84TH & 220TH200348233
Signal Light at 84th & 220th
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 70.04
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN200865202
LIFT STATION #3
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 102.94
SIGNAL LIGHT 20408 76TH201192226
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 43.31
STREET LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W201582152
STREET LIGHT 19600 80th Ave W
32Page:
Packet Page 61 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122250 11/4/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 40.36
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20801 76TH W201611951
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 42.40
TRAFFIC LIGHT 7133 212TH SW201907862
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 39.52
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St202087870
Lift Station #6 100 Pine St
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 203.90
SIGNAL LIGHT 22400 HWY 99202289096
SIGNAL LIGHT - 22400 Hwy 99
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 103.68
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99202289120
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 104.02
Total :848.44
122251 11/4/2010 038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC 305 OCT-10 RECREATION SERVIES CONTRACT FEE
Oct-10 Recreation Servies Contract Fee
001.000.390.519.900.410.00 5,000.00
Total :5,000.00
122252 11/4/2010 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4173127-01 Street - Steel Toed Rubber Boots - P
Street - Steel Toed Rubber Boots - P
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 89.95
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 8.55
Street - Steel Toed Rubber Boots - D4173326-01
Street - Steel Toed Rubber Boots - D
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 89.95
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 8.55
Total :197.00
33Page:
Packet Page 62 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122253 11/4/2010 038413 SOUND TRACTOR IN79720 SUPPLIES
SPINDLE, TIRE, HUB, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 353.68
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 34.65
Total :399.43
122254 11/4/2010 068439 SPECIALTY DOOR SERVICE 29630 FS 20 - 100' Roll White Reverse Angle
FS 20 - 100' Roll White Reverse Angle
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 150.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.25
Total :164.25
122255 11/4/2010 067148 STERNBERG LANTERNS INC 12389 Street - 2nd & Main Light Replacement -
Street - 2nd & Main Light Replacement -
111.000.653.542.630.310.00 2,661.00
Total :2,661.00
122256 11/4/2010 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2332200 PS - Elect Supplies
PS - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 23.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.27
City Hall - Elect Supplies2334607
City Hall - Elect Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 46.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.39
Total :76.79
122257 11/4/2010 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 10074146 Roadway - Square Point Razor Back
Roadway - Square Point Razor Back
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 274.39
34Page:
Packet Page 63 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122257 11/4/2010 (Continued)040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 26.07
Total :300.46
122258 11/4/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1714451 NEWSPAPER ADS
11/01 Hearing (Shelters)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 57.40
NEWSPAPER ADS1714452
11/01 Hearing (Encampment)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 57.40
NEWSPAPER AD1714453
11/01 Hearing (prop. Tax)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 70.84
NEWSPAPER ADS1714503
11/01 Hearing (Street Trees)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 52.36
NEWSPAPER ADS1714504
11/01 Hearing (Hutt Park)
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 88.60
Total :326.60
122259 11/4/2010 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 295751 PS - Lower Metering Cartridges, Mixing
PS - Lower Metering Cartridges, Mixing
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 96.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.20
Total :106.04
122260 11/4/2010 071119 THERMO ENVIRONMENTAL INST INC 239617 5257600
SERVICE FOR CO ANALYZER
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 3,150.00
Total :3,150.00
122261 11/4/2010 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 17233 Fac Maint - Shackles
Fac Maint - Shackles
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 26.00
35Page:
Packet Page 64 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122261 11/4/2010 (Continued)042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.47
Total :28.47
122262 11/4/2010 073474 UMPQUA BANK 8-29600 RE:#NCS-457371-WA1 UTILITY REFUND
RE:#NCS-457371-WA1 UTILITY REFUND
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 5.53
Total :5.53
122263 11/4/2010 073475 UMPQUA BANK 8-29525 RE:#NCS-457371-WA1 UTILITY REFUND
RE:#NCS-457371-WA1 UTILITY REFUND
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 5.53
Total :5.53
122264 11/4/2010 073476 UMPQUA BANK 8-29550 RE:#NCS-457371-WA1 UTILITY REFUND
RE:#NCS-457371-WA1 UTILITY REFUND
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 5.53
Total :5.53
122265 11/4/2010 073477 UMPQUA BANK 8-29625 RE:#NCS-457371-WA1 UTILITY REFUND
RE:#NCS-457371-WA1 UTILITY REFUND
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 5.53
Total :5.53
122266 11/4/2010 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8572316 Water - Supplies - Meter Boxes and
Water - Supplies - Meter Boxes and
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2,838.14
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 244.08
Water Supplies - Meter Boxes, Brass8575717
Water Supplies - Meter Boxes, Brass
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1,052.94
Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 90.55
Total :4,225.71
36Page:
Packet Page 65 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122267 11/4/2010 073484 VAN KAMPEN, CORRIE VAN KAMPEN1027 REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 22.54
Total :22.54
122268 11/4/2010 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 0917697479 C/A 571242650-0001
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Bld Dept
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 99.80
Blackberry Cell Phone Service City Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 56.79
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Court
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 113.58
Blackberry Cell Phone Service
001.000.620.558.800.420.00 56.79
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Planning
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 56.79
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Econ
001.000.610.519.700.420.00 56.79
Blackberry Cell Phone Service
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 347.33
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Facilities
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 119.14
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Finance
001.000.310.514.230.420.00 56.79
Blackberry Cell Phone Service HR
001.000.220.516.100.420.00 56.79
Blackberry Cell Phone Service IT
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 278.75
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Mayor's
001.000.210.513.100.420.00 156.59
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Parks Dept
001.000.640.574.100.420.00 58.10
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Police
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,026.99
Blackberry Air Cards Police Dept
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 607.43
37Page:
Packet Page 66 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122268 11/4/2010 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Admin
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 56.79
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW St Dept
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 69.63
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Fleet
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 61.46
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water/
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 51.66
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water/
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 51.65
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Sewer Dept
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 101.78
Blackberry Cell Phone Service WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 115.03
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 142.81
Total :3,799.26
122269 11/4/2010 064649 VERMEER NW SALES INC W01335 Water - Tool Repair
Water - Tool Repair
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 463.57
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 43.11
Total :506.68
122270 11/4/2010 047665 WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION 2011 DUES WEF MEMBERSHIP DUES - J WAITE
WEF 2011 MBR DUES & LOCAL 2011 MBR
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 160.00
Total :160.00
122271 11/4/2010 026510 WCIA 100703 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS WWTP 001926843
Underground Storage Tanks WWTP Policy
411.000.656.538.800.460.00 610.00
SR CENTER FLOOD INS POLICY AB00072098100704
Senior Center Flood Insurance Policy
38Page:
Packet Page 67 of 482
11/03/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
3:54:40PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122271 11/4/2010 (Continued)026510 WCIA
001.000.390.519.900.460.00 1,511.00
Total :2,121.00
122272 11/4/2010 073187 WEAVER PUBLICATIONS SE21202 AD IN SEA OFFICIAL VISITORS GUIDE
Advertisement in Seattle Official
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 1,500.00
Total :1,500.00
122273 11/4/2010 063008 WSDOT RE 41 JA6953 L002 E9DA.WSDOT REVIEW/APPROVE PLANS
E9DA.WSDOT Review/Approve Plans
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 127.68
Total :127.68
122274 11/4/2010 073479 WU, THOMAS 102810 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 157.70
Total :157.70
122275 11/4/2010 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 923 OCT-10 RETAINER
Oct-10 Retainer
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 11,330.00
Total :11,330.00
Bank total :333,645.30140 Vouchers for bank code :front
333,645.30Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report140
39Page:
Packet Page 68 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122276 11/10/2010 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 040706-100801PBM $360 for planning board membership and
$360 for planning board membership and
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 400.00
Total :400.00
122277 11/10/2010 069751 ARAMARK 655-5212548 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 31.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.96
Total :34.10
122278 11/10/2010 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM
PARKS FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 40.66
Total :40.66
122279 11/10/2010 073481 ATMAJIAN, RITA GRACE ATMAJIAN1104 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO INSUFFICIENT REGISTRATION
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 13.00
Total :13.00
122280 11/10/2010 001801 AUTOMATIC WILBERT VAULT CO 15703 BURIAL SUPPLIES
BURIAL SUPPLIES: BROWN
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00
BURIAL SUPPLIES15964
BURIAL SUPPLIES: JOHNSON
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 388.00
Total :776.00
122281 11/10/2010 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC 829536 INV#829536 - EDMONDS PD - STRONG
BELT, BW/BLACK
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 14.42
DUTY BELT
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 45.22
1Page:
Packet Page 69 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122281 11/10/2010 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORM CO INC
HEAVY WEIGHT HAND TRAINER
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 6.45
MOUTH GUARD - SINGLE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.25
SIDEBREAK ASP F-26 CASE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 40.00
CUFF CASE, BW, HIDDEN SNAP
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 63.90
PICKET TRAFFIC TEMPLATE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 6.13
TACTICAL BATON W/FOAM GRIP
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 73.13
BELT KEEPERS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 13.35
HANDCUFFS, CHAIN/NICKLE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 57.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 30.51
INV#829540 - EDMONDS PD - EQUIPMENT829540
HANDCUFFS, CHAIN/NICKLE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 57.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.44
INV#837156-01 - EDMONDS PD - LAVELY837156-01
WOOL/DAC UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 189.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 18.00
Total :621.82
122282 11/10/2010 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN10101033 HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS
HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS BIRTHDAY PARTIES
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 8.30
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 0.79
2Page:
Packet Page 70 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :9.0912228211/10/2010 003510 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY
122283 11/10/2010 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT12956 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #12956
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 81.20
Total :81.20
122284 11/10/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8213 INV#8213 CUST#45 - EDMONDS PD
NEXTEL PHONES - NARCS - 10/10
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 56.31
Total :56.31
122285 11/10/2010 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 8214 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
411.000.655.535.800.472.00 13,800.83
Total :13,800.83
122286 11/10/2010 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE 2-533584-460571 WATER USEAGE FOR THE MONTH
Water Useage for the Month of Oct 2010
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 420.00
Total :420.00
122287 11/10/2010 062891 COOK PAGING WA 8110266 PAGERS
pagers-water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 3.95
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 0.29
Total :4.24
122288 11/10/2010 005965 CUES INC 314969 Sewer TV Truck - Coiler
Sewer TV Truck - Coiler
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 666.47
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 23.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 65.56
Sewer - Camera repaird (Shipping315790
3Page:
Packet Page 71 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122288 11/10/2010 (Continued)005965 CUES INC
Sewer - Camera repaird (Shipping
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 66.06
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 6.28
Sewer - Pigtail316716
Sewer - Pigtail
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 172.44
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.21
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 16.88
Sewer - 8" Rubber Tires (6)318785
Sewer - 8" Rubber Tires (6)
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 245.59
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 6.59
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 23.96
Sewer - TV Truck supplies319796
Sewer - TV Truck supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 31.88
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 26.96
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.58
Sewer TV Truck - Cables, Poles. Bulbs,330001
Sewer TV Truck - Cables, Poles. Bulbs,
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 418.26
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 45.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 44.05
Sewer TV Truck - Pigtail330321
Sewer TV Truck - Pigtail
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 338.98
4Page:
Packet Page 72 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122288 11/10/2010 (Continued)005965 CUES INC
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 8.16
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 32.98
Sewer TV Truck - Xenon Bulbs330363
Sewer TV Truck - Xenon Bulbs
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 89.44
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 5.21
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 9.00
Sewer TV Truck - Cable Kit331115
Sewer TV Truck - Cable Kit
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 479.93
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 45.87
Sewer TV Truck - Repair Parts331155
Sewer TV Truck - Repair Parts
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 163.19
Service and Repairs
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 200.00
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 136.24
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 11.83
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 16.61
Sewer TV Truck - Parts331748
Sewer TV Truck - Parts
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 294.95
Service
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 100.00
5Page:
Packet Page 73 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122288 11/10/2010 (Continued)005965 CUES INC
Freight
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 110.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 38.54
Sewer TV Truck - Service Contract and333287
Sewer TV Truck - Service Contract and
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 1,800.00
Sewer TV Truck - Returns from 10/30/09MC000306
Sewer TV Truck - Returns from 10/30/09
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 -690.07
Sewer - Returns from 11/17/09MC000353
Sewer - Returns from 11/17/09
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 -160.40
Sewer ReturnsMC001635
Sewer Returns
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 -143.68
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 -13.60
Sewer - Returns from 11/17/09MO000374
Sewer - Returns from 11/17/09
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 -1,365.00
Sewer - ReturnsMO001530
Sewer - Returnsg
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 -110.61
Total :3,272.09
122289 11/10/2010 072189 DATASITE 67350 INV#67350 - EDMONDS PD
SHREDDING 10/21/10 - 64 GAL TOTE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 40.00
Total :40.00
122290 11/10/2010 072189 DATASITE 67320 SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS
Doc Shred Services City Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 25.00
Doc Shred Services Finance
6Page:
Packet Page 74 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122290 11/10/2010 (Continued)072189 DATASITE
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 25.00
Total :50.00
122291 11/10/2010 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2010100109 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for October 2010
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 199.37
Total :199.37
122292 11/10/2010 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 10-3150 MINUTE TAKING
11/01 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 372.00
Total :372.00
122293 11/10/2010 061384 DRIFTWOOD PLAYERS DRIFTWOOD2010 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
123.000.640.573.100.410.00 2,000.00
Total :2,000.00
122294 11/10/2010 007675 EDMONDS AUTO PARTS 28578 SPARK PLUGS
SPARK PLUGS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 11.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.12
Total :12.96
122295 11/10/2010 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 188060 INV#188060 CLIENT #308 - EDMONDS PD
MEDICINE-RIMADYL-ROCKY
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 45.20
E-COLLAR-ROCKY
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 17.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 5.95
INV#188535 - CLIENT#3713 - EDMONDS AC188535
EUTHANASIA-IMPOUND#8255
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 26.00
7Page:
Packet Page 75 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :94.6512229511/10/2010 008688 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL
122296 11/10/2010 069878 EDMONDS-WESTGATE VET HOSPITAL 146701 INV#146701 CLIENT #5118 - EDMONDS AC
NEUTER CAT - IMPOUND #8207
001.000.410.521.700.490.01 44.75
Total :44.75
122297 11/10/2010 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 091465 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENT
Radix Monthly Maint Agreement -~
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 152.00
Total :152.00
122298 11/10/2010 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 154754 Copier Repairs
Copier Repairs
001.000.210.513.100.480.00 125.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.480.00 11.88
Total :136.88
122299 11/10/2010 072544 EVERGREEN REFRIGERATION BLD20100749 Duplicate permit.
Duplicate permit.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 85.00
Total :85.00
122300 11/10/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 40.88
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 58.32
Total :99.20
122301 11/10/2010 011900 FRONTIER 425-640-8169 PT EDWARDS SEWER PUMP STATION MONITOR
Phone line for Sewer Lift Station at Pt
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 36.40
LIFT STATION #1425-673-5978
Lift Station #1
8Page:
Packet Page 76 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122301 11/10/2010 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 50.11
FS # 16425-771-0158
FS #16
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 163.73
LIFT ST 7425-775-2069
Lift St 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 54.58
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-6829
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 111.90
Total :416.72
122302 11/10/2010 073491 FUHRIMAN, BETH FUHRIMAN110510 SISTER CITY REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT FOR SISTER CITY
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 121.31
Total :121.31
122303 11/10/2010 011910 GEOLINE BELLEVUE 307792 JUNO PURCHASE
Juno Purchase for Engineering
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 741.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 70.40
Total :811.40
122304 11/10/2010 071391 GRAY & OSBORNE INC 09555.00-6 E9FE.SERVICES 9/19-10/16/10
E9FE.Services 9/19-10/16/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,456.34
Total :1,456.34
122305 11/10/2010 072647 HERRERA ENVIRONMENTAL 23387 E0FD.SERVICES THRU 10/29/10
E0FD.Services thru 10/29/10
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,954.27
Total :1,954.27
122306 11/10/2010 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8941 Fac Maint - Towels, Latex Work Gloves
Fac Maint - Towels, Latex Work Gloves
9Page:
Packet Page 77 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122306 11/10/2010 (Continued)070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 337.85
Total :337.85
122307 11/10/2010 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 21586 76TH/MBR.SERVICES THRU 10/30/10
76th/MBR.Services thru 10/30/10
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 1,527.50
Total :1,527.50
122308 11/10/2010 070042 IKON 83532904 Rent on reception copier for billing
Rent on reception copier for billing
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 30.66
Total :30.66
122309 11/10/2010 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD13196 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 101 #13196
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 147.00
Total :147.00
122310 11/10/2010 072650 KCDA PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 3441205 INV#3441205 - EDMONDS PD
MULTI USE PAPER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 233.40
HANDLING FEE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 35.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 22.17
Total :290.57
122311 11/10/2010 070285 KPLU-FM IN-1101023445 RADIO AD FOR WEEK OF 10/11/10 OCT EVENTS
Radio ad for week of 10/11/10
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 1,135.00
Total :1,135.00
122312 11/10/2010 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC CRA20100033 3rd Party Review
3rd Party Review
001.000.000.245.900.620.00 3,186.08
10Page:
Packet Page 78 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :3,186.0812231211/10/2010 017135 017135 LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC
122313 11/10/2010 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 11010-120 THROTTLE CABLE
THROTTLE CABLE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 10.58
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.11
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.49
Total :17.18
122314 11/10/2010 069634 LEXISNEXIS 1201641-20101031 INV #1201641-20101031 EDMONDS PD
SEARCHES & REPORTS OCT 2010
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 50.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 4.77
Total :54.97
122315 11/10/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105325 #10 ENVELOPES
#10 ENVELOPES W/PARKS AND RECREATION
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 92.64
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 8.80
Total :101.44
122316 11/10/2010 018760 LUNDS OFFICE ESSENTIALS 105331 Misc. office supplies including Megan's
Misc. office supplies including Megan's
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 217.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 20.63
Total :237.80
122317 11/10/2010 073485 MACDONALD, ERIC STF20100020 Application withdrawn.
Application withdrawn.
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 140.00
Total :140.00
11Page:
Packet Page 79 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122318 11/10/2010 019583 MANPOWER INC 21170251 Receptionist coverage on Thurs.
Receptionist coverage on Thurs.
001.000.620.558.800.410.00 56.81
Total :56.81
122319 11/10/2010 072746 MURRAY SMITH & ASSOCIATES 09-1030-16 E8JB.SERVICES THRU SEPTEMBER 2010
E8JB.Services thru September 2010
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 3,051.00
Total :3,051.00
122320 11/10/2010 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-212960 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC FIELD
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 189.87
Total :189.87
122321 11/10/2010 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 173 Planning Board minutes on 10/27/10
Planning Board minutes on 10/27/10
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 320.00
Total :320.00
122322 11/10/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 520562 INV#520562 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
MANILA FOLDERS-LETTER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 29.66
OKI PRINTER RIBBON, BLACK
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 9.10
CORDLESS MOUSE
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 26.08
HP TONER C4096A
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 107.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 15.51
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.310.00 0.86
Total :188.70
122323 11/10/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 523433 YELLOW INK CARTRIDGE
YELLOW INK CARTRIDGE
12Page:
Packet Page 80 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122323 11/10/2010 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 35.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.34
TONER CARTRIDGE604281
TONER CARTRIDGE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 107.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 10.22
CALENDAR, PENS611536
2011 CALENDAR, PENS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 23.68
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 2.25
Total :182.08
122324 11/10/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 514099 PW Admin Office Supplies - Post its
PW Admin Office Supplies - Post its
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 52.24
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 4.97
Total :57.21
122325 11/10/2010 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 526351 Misc. office supplies including 2
Misc. office supplies including 2
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 65.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 6.20
Total :71.36
122326 11/10/2010 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER Oct-2010 OCT COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL
Emergency Medical Services & Trauma
001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,383.64
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.000.237.130.000.00 28,710.34
Building Code Fee Account
13Page:
Packet Page 81 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122326 11/10/2010 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
001.000.000.237.150.000.00 90.00
State Patrol Death Investigations
001.000.000.237.170.000.00 637.91
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.000.237.180.000.00 4,785.51
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.000.237.200.000.00 119.80
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.000.237.250.000.00 2,649.28
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.000.237.260.000.00 494.64
Total :38,871.12
122327 11/10/2010 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0000130 220TH ST SW & 84TH AVE W
WATER FOR 220TH ST SW & 84TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 40.38
820 15TH ST SW0001520
WATER FOR 820 15TH ST SW
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 29.48
820 15TH ST SW0001530
WATER FOR 820 15TH ST SW
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 84.23
5TH & ST RTE 104/SPRINKLER0002930
WATER: 5TH & ST RTE 104/SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 15.26
9803 EDMONDS WAY0005060
WATR: 9803 EDMONDS WAY
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 25.71
Total :195.06
122328 11/10/2010 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0021400 FIRE STATION #20
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 158.74
Total :158.74
14Page:
Packet Page 82 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122329 11/10/2010 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION B54220 B/W copy overage fee (1084)
B/W copy overage fee (1084)
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 5.41
B/W copy overage fee (1084)
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 5.41
B/W copy overage fee (1084)
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 5.41
B/W copy overage fee (1084)
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 5.42
Color copy overage fee (1712)
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 50.70
Color copy overage fee (1712)
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 50.70
Color copy overage fee (1712)
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 50.70
Color copy overage fee (1712)
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 50.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 5.33
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 5.33
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 5.33
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 5.33
Total :245.77
122330 11/10/2010 073489 PAYTON, JOHN SCOTT PAYTON13090 FISHING IN WASHINGTON
FISHING IN WASHINGTON #13090
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 780.00
Total :780.00
122331 11/10/2010 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 27096.000-24 E7CB.SERVICES THRU 9/26/10
E7CB.Services thru 9/26/10
112.200.630.595.440.410.00 9,143.77
15Page:
Packet Page 83 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :9,143.7712233111/10/2010 063951 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC
122332 11/10/2010 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 187634 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.25
Street - Tapco Return Postage187646
Street - Tapco Return Postage
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 32.69
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST187789
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.25
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST187948
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.24
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.25
Total :59.60
122333 11/10/2010 064088 PROTECTION ONE 31146525 24 HOUR ALARM MONITORING -CITY HALL
24 hour Alarm Monitoring-City Hall~
16Page:
Packet Page 84 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122333 11/10/2010 (Continued)064088 PROTECTION ONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 37.85
Total :37.85
122334 11/10/2010 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 3689976003 200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 141.63
Total :141.63
122335 11/10/2010 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 112481 INSCRIPTION
INSCRIPTION: UNDERHILL
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 89.00
MARKER113293
MARKER: GEBREMARIAM
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 2,026.00
Total :2,115.00
122336 11/10/2010 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 52931 E3JC.SERVICES THRU 10/24/10
E3JC.Services thru 10/24/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 594.80
E0IA.SERVICES THRU 10/24/1052932
E0IA.Services thru 10/24/10
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 12,888.46
Total :13,483.26
122337 11/10/2010 073490 RODGERS, PATTI RODGERS1108 REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 26.00
Total :26.00
122338 11/10/2010 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY 10/27/10 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS PD- ANIMAL DISPOSAL
#556477 - 12 NPC 10/04/10
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 128.16
#556286 18 NPC 10/25/10
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 192.24
Total :320.40
17Page:
Packet Page 85 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122339 11/10/2010 073487 SEATTLE HEIGHTS APARTMENTS BUS LIC REFUND LI Refund Cst #00209086
LI Refund Cst #00209086
001.000.000.257.310.000.00 75.00
Total :75.00
122340 11/10/2010 073486 SEATTLE KING CO CONVENTION &64545 2011 MEMBERSHIP SEA CONV & VISITOR BUREA
2011 Membership in Seattle Convention &
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 375.00
Total :375.00
122341 11/10/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-5085-1 600 3RD AVE S
600 3RD AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 52.23
PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP200651644
PARK & MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 458.47
PARK GAZEBO201383270
PARK GAZEBO
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.04
CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS & COVERED202114484
CITY PARK SOUTH RESTROOMS & COVERED
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 66.31
Total :608.05
122342 11/10/2010 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 200202919 LIFT STATION #8 113 RR AVE
LIFT STATION #8
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 199.39
TRAFFIC LIGHT 220TH 76TH200493153
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 56.60
4 WAY LIGHT 224TH 76TH200594885
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 78.77
SIGNAL LIGHT 9730 220TH200748606
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 30.02
18Page:
Packet Page 86 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122342 11/10/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
DECORATIVE LIGHTS 115 2ND AVE S200913853
deocrative lighting
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 43.16
SCHOOL LIGHT 21506 84TH W201151420
SCHOOL FLASHING LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.04
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH W201187895
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.56
Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger201427317
Ballinger Lift Station 7403 Ballinger
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 30.02
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW201501277
LIFT STATION #14
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 30.02
LIFT STATION 7201532926
Lift St 7
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 434.76
STREET LIGHTING (150 WATTS = 183 LIGHTS201711785
Street Lighting (150 Watts = 183 lights
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 1,429.64
FIRE STATION #20202077194
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 946.60
SCHOOL LIGHT 7801 212TH SW202191284
STREET LIGHT
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 30.02
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH202356739
SIGNAL LIGHT
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 36.96
LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS202499539
LIFT STATION #1
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 826.52
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES)202529186
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES)
19Page:
Packet Page 87 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122342 11/10/2010 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 2,649.74
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (400WATTS:13 LITES)202529202
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTING (400WATTS:13
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 184.24
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS:2029 LITE)202576153
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (100WATTS:2029 LITE)
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 13,735.39
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES)202579488
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES)
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 596.97
Total :21,402.42
122343 11/10/2010 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE OCT-10 11/3/10 INMATE DRUG COSTS - EDMONDS PD
INMATE MEDICATIONS OCT 2010
001.000.410.523.600.310.00 162.84
Total :162.84
122344 11/10/2010 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY I000256199 SOLID WASTE CHARGES 57058
SOLID WASTE CHARGES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 531.00
Total :531.00
122345 11/10/2010 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER Oct-2010 OCT- 10 CRIME VICTIMS COURT REMITTANCE
Oct-10 Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.000.237.140.000.00 881.34
Total :881.34
122346 11/10/2010 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 garbage & recycle for PS
garbage & recycle for PS
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 550.68
garbage & recycle for FAC103585
garbage & recycle for FAC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 674.47
garbage & recycle for Library103586
garbage & recycle for Library
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 555.23
20Page:
Packet Page 88 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122346 11/10/2010 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
garbage & recycle-City Hall103588
garbage & recycle-City Hall
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 459.89
Total :2,240.27
122347 11/10/2010 073488 ST PIUS X SCHOOL ST. PIUS1104 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO CANCELLED PROGRAM
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 112.50
Total :112.50
122348 11/10/2010 071585 STERICYCLE INC 3001157261 INV#3001157261 CUST#6076358 EDMONDS PD
MINIMUM MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.410.00 0.36
Total :10.36
122349 11/10/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1714997 LEGAL AD FOR WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT
Legal ad for website development
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 244.16
Total :244.16
122350 11/10/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 10312010 NEWSPAPER ADS
Council & Plan Bd Agendas
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,696.43
NEWSPAPER ADS1715354
Ordinance 3812
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 30.52
Total :1,726.95
122351 11/10/2010 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 101416 Sr Center - Contractor Invite to Bid
Sr Center - Contractor Invite to Bid
116.000.651.519.920.490.00 49.62
Total :49.62
122352 11/10/2010 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 10016485 YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION
21Page:
Packet Page 89 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122352 11/10/2010 (Continued)065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION
YEARLY 5-DAY SUBSCRIPTION FOR ANDERSON
001.000.640.574.100.490.00 168.00
Total :168.00
122353 11/10/2010 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 678365 FAC MAINT
monthly elevator maint-FAC
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 829.53
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 78.81
MONTHLY ELEVATOR MAINT-LIBRARY678366
Monthly elevator maint-Library
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 822.18
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 78.10
PUBLIC SAFETY MAINT678367
quarterly elevator maint-PS~
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 711.10
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 67.55
MONITORING-PS678368
monitoring-PS
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 41.90
MONTHLY ELEVATOR MONIT-LIBRARY678369
Monthly elevator moinitoring - Library
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 64.14
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE685871
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 154.98
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 14.71
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR MONITORING685872
SENIOR CENTER ELEVATOR Monitoring
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 12.61
Total :2,875.61
22Page:
Packet Page 90 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
122354 11/10/2010 071590 TOWEILL RICE TAYLOR LLC Oct2010-Edmonds Hearing Examinier service for month of
Hearing Examinier service for month of
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 3,600.00
Copies & postage for the month ofOct2010-EdmondsEXP
Copies & postage for the month of
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 28.22
Total :3,628.22
122355 11/10/2010 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I11003376 INV#I11003376 EDM301
BACKGROUND CHECKS 10/2010
001.000.000.237.100.000.00 115.50
Total :115.50
122356 11/10/2010 070796 WEED GRAAFSTRA & BENSON INC PS 12 C/A 4181-03M
Reidy/Theusen conflict matter
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 531.25
Total :531.25
122357 11/10/2010 071604 ZOHO CORPORATION 1036998 NEW LICENSES - HELP DESK & PATCH MGMT
ServiceDesk Plus Standard Edition310-00145
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 1,500.00
Desktop Central Professional Edition310-00145
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 1,995.00
Desktop Central Additional Users Annual310-00145
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 500.00
DESKTOP CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DISCOUNT1036998CM
Government Discount - Desktop Central
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 -500.00
Total :3,495.00
Bank total :143,710.5682 Vouchers for bank code :front
143,710.56Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report82
23Page:
Packet Page 91 of 482
11/09/2010
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
4:19:38PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
24Page:
Packet Page 92 of 482
AM-3538 Item #: 2. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Mike Cooper Submitted By:Kim Cole
Department:Mayor's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Acceptance of Washington State Liquor Control Board October 2010 list of businesses renewing liquor
licenses.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approved for clearance from City Clerk and Police Dept.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Please refer to the attached list.
Attachments
October 2010 WSLCB List
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/10/2010 12:12 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Kim Cole Started On: 11/10/2010 10:20 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 93 of 482
Packet Page 94 of 482
Packet Page 95 of 482
Packet Page 96 of 482
Packet Page 97 of 482
Packet Page 98 of 482
AM-3544 Item #: 2. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Carl Nelson
Department:Finance
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Interlocal Agreement for SNOCOM Internet Access. (Reviewed by the Finance Committee on
11-09-10.)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
City Council authorize Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with SNOCOM.
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 third.
The Finance Committee reviewed this agreement on 11-09-10 and recommended that it be placed on the
Consent Agenda for approval.
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
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Finance Lorenzo Hines 11/12/2010 10:37 AM
Packet Page 99 of 482
Finance Lorenzo Hines 11/12/2010 10:37 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 10:39 AM
Mayor Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 01:41 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 01:42 PM
Form Started By: Carl Nelson Started On: 11/10/2010
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 100 of 482
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 101 of 482
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 102 of 482
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 103 of 482
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 104 of 482
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 105 of 482
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 106 of 482
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 107 of 482
SNOCOM Interlocal Services Agreement
Page 8 of 13
Packet Page 108 of 482
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 109 of 482
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 110 of 482
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 111 of 482
SNOCOM Interlocal Services Agreement
Page 12 of 13
EXHIBIT A
Installation
NONE NEEDED
Packet Page 112 of 482
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 113 of 482
AM-3527 Item #: 2. F.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee:Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
2011 Contract for Edmonds City Council Sr. Executive Assistant. (Reviewed by the Finance
Committee on 11-09-10.)
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. The 2011 Sr. Executive Council Assistant Contract was placed on the November 9,
2010 Finance Committee Meeting by Council President Bernheim. The Committee put this contract on
the November 16, 2010 Consent Agenda for approval.
Narrative
The Finance Committee has placed this contract 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 11/10/2010 12:12 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/08/2010
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 114 of 482
Packet Page 115 of 482
Packet Page 116 of 482
Packet Page 117 of 482
Packet Page 118 of 482
Packet Page 119 of 482
Packet Page 120 of 482
Packet Page 121 of 482
AM-3539 Item #: 2. G.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Al Compaan
Department:Police Department
Committee:Finance Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approve Contract for Professional Services - City of Edmonds Prosecutor. (Reviewed by the Finance
Committee on 11-09-10.)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
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. Finance Committee again reviewed the item at its November 9,
2010 meeting and approved for Consent Agenda.
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
Packet Page 122 of 482
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/10/2010 12:12 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Al Compaan Started On: 11/10/2010
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 123 of 482
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 124 of 482
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 125 of 482
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 126 of 482
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 127 of 482
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 128 of 482
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 129 of 482
Packet Page 130 of 482
Packet Page 131 of 482
Packet Page 132 of 482
Packet Page 133 of 482
Packet Page 134 of 482
Packet Page 135 of 482
AM-3524 Item #: 2. H.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:Consent
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. (Reviewed by the CSDS Committee on 11-09-10.)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorization to advertise for construction bids.
Previous Council Action
On November 9, 2010, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the
November 16, 2010 consent agenda for approval.
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 11/10/2010 08:29 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 11/10/2010 02:43 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/10/2010 02:49 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:48 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 11/05/2010
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 136 of 482
AM-3530 Item #: 2. I.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:Consent
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. (Reviewed
by the CSDS Committee on 11-09-10.)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids for the 2010 Waterline Replacement Project.
Previous Council Action
On November 9, 2010, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the
consent agenda for approval at the November 16, 2010 Council meeting.
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 11/10/2010 08:53 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 11/10/2010 02:44 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/10/2010 02:49 PM
Packet Page 137 of 482
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 11/08/2010
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 138 of 482
AM-3528 Item #: 2. J.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Robert S. English Submitted By:Megan Cruz
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. (Reviewed by the CSDS Committee on
11-09-10.)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorization for Mayor to sign Supplement Agreement with Murray, Smith and Associates, Inc. for the
updating the City's Water System Comprehensive Plan.
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.
On November 9, 2010, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommended it be placed on the
consent agenda for approval at the November 16, 2010 Council meeting.
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.
Packet Page 139 of 482
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Supplement Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 11/10/2010 08:50 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 11/10/2010 02:44 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/10/2010 02:49 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 11/08/2010
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 140 of 482
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
1
o
f
4
8
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
2
o
f
4
8
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
3
o
f
4
8
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
4
o
f
4
8
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
5
o
f
4
8
2
AM-3525 Item #: 2. K.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Interlocal Agreement with the Snohomish Conservation District. (Reviewed by the CSDS Committee
on 11-09-10.)
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Authorization for the Mayor to sign the Interlocal Agreement with the Snohomish Coservation District.
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.
On November 9, 2010, the CS/DS Committee reviewed this item and recommened it be placed on
the consent agenda for approval at the November 16, 2010 Council meeting.
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.
Packet Page 146 of 482
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 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
Attachment 1-ILA
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 11/10/2010 08:47 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 11/10/2010 02:43 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/10/2010 02:49 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:48 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 11/05/2010
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 147 of 482
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 148 of 482
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 149 of 482
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 150 of 482
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 151 of 482
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 152 of 482
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 153 of 482
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 154 of 482
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 155 of 482
AM-3465 Item #: 2. L.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Michael Clugston
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance amending the Edmonds Community Development Code by repealing and reenacting the
provisions of Title 20, to wit, Chapter 20.01, Types of Development Project Permits; Chapter 20.02 Type
I - IV, Development Project Permit Applications; Chapter 20.03, Public Notice Requirements; Chapter
20.04, Consistency with Development Regulations and SEPA; Chapter 20.06, Open Record
Public Hearings; Chapter 20.07, Closed Record Appeals; and Chapter 20.08, Development Agreements;
are hereby amended in order to provide for the reinsertion of the City Council as an appeal body and
making technical corrections, and fixing a time when the same shall become effective.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve attached ordinance (Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
Council voted 5-1 to approve the code changes on September 21, 2010 (Exhibit 2).
Narrative
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Title 20 ordinance
Exhibit 2 - 9/21/10 excerpt minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/09/2010 02:17 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:48 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Michael Clugston Started On: 10/20/2010 08:54 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 156 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 1 -
WSS/gjz
nge0006.90000
9/16/10
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE BY REPEALING AND REENACTING
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20, TO WIT, CHAPTER
20.01 TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMITS;
CHAPTER 20.02 TYPE I - IV, DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PERMIT APPLICATIONS, CHAPTER 20.03 PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS; CHAPTER 20.04 CONSISTENCY WITH
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SEPA; CHAPTER
20.06 OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS; CHAPTER 20.07
CLOSED RECORD APPEALS; AND CHAPTER 20.08
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
ARE HEREBY AMENDED
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE REINSERTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL AS AN APPEAL BODY, MAKE TECHNICAL
CORRECTIONS AND REVISE REFERENCES, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, Title 20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code dealing
with the procedural structure for the processing of development project permits and their review,
were substantially revised and amended in 2009; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes it to be in the public interest to conclude
the Edmonds City Council as a final quasi-judicial review process on many project permits, and
WHEREAS, in the course of administering the new code, certain inconsistencies
have been found requiring technical correction, and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Planning Board has delivered its recommendation
following public hearing, and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing of its own, the Edmonds City Council
deems it to be in the public interest to amend the provisions of Title 20 to reestablish the City
Packet Page 157 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 2 -
Council as the final hearing body on many types of project permit applications and to make
certain technical corrections, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code, Title 20, Chapter
20.01 Types of Development Project Permit Applications
Chapter 20.01
TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMITS
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sections:
20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions.
20.01.001 Types of actions.
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type.
20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework.
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
20.01.007 Exempt projects.
20.01.000 Purpose and general provisions.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standard
procedures, decision criteria, public notification, and timing for
development project permit application decisions made by the City
of Edmonds. These procedures are intended to:
• Promote timely and informed public participation;
• Eliminate redundancy in the application, permit review, and
appeals processes;
• Process permits equitably and expediently;
• Balance the needs of permit applicants with neighbors;
• Ensure that decisions are made consistently and predictably;
and
• Result in development that furthers City goals as set forth in
the Comprehensive Plan.
These procedures provide for an integrated and consolidated land
use permit process. The procedures integrate the environmental
Packet Page 158 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 3 -
review process with land use procedures, decisions, and
consolidated appeal processes.
B. The provisions of this Title supersede all other procedural
requirements that may exist in other sections of the City Code.
When interpreting and applying the standards of this Title , its
provisions shall be the minimum requirements. Where conflicts
occur within provisions of this Title and/or between this Title and
other City Code provisions and regulations, the more restrictive
provisions shall apply. Where conflict between the text of this Title
and the zoning map ensue, the text of this Title shall prevail.
C. Unless otherwise specified, all references to days shall be
calendar days. Whenever the last day of a deadline falls on a
Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or
by a city ordinance, or any day when city hall or the City’s
Development Services Department is closed to the public by
formal executive or legislative action the deadline shall run until
the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday or closed
day.
20.01.001 Types of actions.
There are five main types of actions (or permits) that are reviewed
under the provisions of this chapter. The types of actions are based
on who makes the decision, the amount of discretion exercised by
the decision making body, the level of impact associated with the
decision, the amount and type of public input sought, and the type
of appeal opportunity.
A. Administrative Decisions. Type I and II decisions are
administrative decisions made by the Development Services
Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the “director”). Type I
permits are ministerial decisions are based on compliance with
specific, nondiscretionary and/or technical standards that are
clearly enumerated. Type II permits are administrative decisions
where the Director makes a decision based on standards and
clearly identified criteria, but where public notice is required.
Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions shall be
initiated as set forth in ECDC 20.07.004.
B. Quasi-judicial Decisions. Type III, Type IV and appeal of
Type II and Type III (B only) decisions are quasi-judicial decisions
that involve the use of discretionary judgment in the review of
each specific application. Quasi-judicial decisions are made by the
Hearing Examiner, the Architectural Design Board, and/or the city
council.
Packet Page 159 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 4 -
C. Legislative Decision. Type V actions are legislative
decisions made by the city council under its authority to establish
policies and regulations regarding future private and public
developments, and management of public lands.
1. Planning Board. The Planning Board shall hold a public
hearing and make recommendations to the city council on Type V
actions, except that the city council may hold a public hearing
itself on area-wide rezones to implement city policies, or
amendments to zoning code text, development regulations or the
zoning map. The public hearing shall be held in accordance with
the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC, RCW 36.70A.035 and
all other applicable law.
2. City Council. The city council may consider the Planning
Board’s recommendation in a public hearing held in accordance
with the requirements of Chapter 20.06 ECDC and RCW
36.70A.035 and all other applicable law. If the city council desires
to hold a public hearing on area-wide rezones to implement city
policies, or amendments to zoning code text, development
regulations or the zoning map, it may do so without forwarding the
proposed decision to the Planning Board for a hearing.
3. Public Notice. Notice of the public hearing or public
meeting shall be provided to the public as set forth in Chapter
20.03 ECDC.
4. Implementation. City council Type V decision shall be by
ordinance or resolution and shall become effective on the effective
date of the ordinance or resolution.
20.01.002 Determination of proper procedure type.
A. Determination by Director. The director shall determine the
proper procedure for all project applications. Questions concerning
the appropriate procedure shall be resolved in favor of the higher
numbered procedure.
B. Optional Consolidated Permit Processing. An application
that involves two or more procedures may be processed
collectively under the highest numbered procedure required for any
part of the application or may be processed individually under each
of the application procedures identified in ECDC 20.01.003. The
applicant may determine whether the application will be processed
collectively or individually. If the applications are processed
individually, the highest numbered type procedure shall be
Packet Page 160 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 5 -
undertaken first, followed by the other procedures in sequence
from the highest numbered to the lowest.
C. Decisionmaker(s). Applications processed in accordance
with subsection B of this section which have the same procedure
number, but are assigned to different hearing bodies, shall be heard
collectively by the highest decisionmaker; the city council being
the highest body, followed by the hearing examiner, Architectural
Design Board or Planning Board, as applicable, and then the
director. Joint public hearings with other agencies shall be
processed according to ECDC 20.06.001. Concurrent public
hearings held with the Architectural Design Board and any other
decisionmaker shall proceed with both decisionmakers present.
20.01.003 Permit Type and Decision Framework.
A. Permit Types.
TYPE
I
TYPE
II
TYPE
III-A
TYPE
III-B
TYPE
IV -A
TYPE
IV -B
TYPE
V
Zoning
Compliance
Letter
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Outdoor
Dining
Essential
Public
Facilities
Final formal
plats
Site
specific
rezone
Development
agreements
Lot Line
Adjustment
Formal
interpretation of
the text of the
ECDC by the
Director
Technological
impracticality
waiver for
amateur radio
antennas
Design
review (where
public hearing
by
Architectural
Design Board
is required)
Final
Planned
Residential
Development
Zoning text
amendments;
area-wide
zoning map
amendments
Critical Area
Determinations
SEPA
determinations
Shoreline
substantial
development,
shoreline
conditional
use, shoreline
variance
Comprehensive
plan
amendments
Shoreline
Exemptions
Preliminary short
plat
Conditional
use permits
(where public
hearing by
Hearing
Examiner is
required)
Annexations
Minor
Amendments
to Planned
Land
clearing/Grading
Variances Development
regulations
Packet Page 161 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 6 -
Residential
Development
Minor
Preliminary
Plat
Amendment
Revisions to
shoreline
management
permits
Home
Occupation
Permit (where
public hearing
by Hearing
Examiner is
required.)
Staff design
review,
including signs
Administrative
variances
Preliminary
formal plat
Final Short
Plat
Land Use Permit
Extension
Requests
Preliminary
Planned
Residential
Development
Sales
Office/Model
(17.70.005)
Guest House
B. Decision Table.
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT
APPLICATIONS
(TYPE I – IV) LEGISLATIVE
TYPE
I
TYPE
II
TYPE
III-A
TYPE
III-B
TYPE
IV-A
TYPE
IV -B
TYPE
V
Recommendation
by:
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning Board Planning Board
Final decision
by:
Director Director Hearing
examiner
Hearing
examiner
/ ADB
City
council
City
council
City
council
Notice of
application:
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Open record
public hearing or
open record
appeal of a final
decision:
No Only if
appealed,
open
record
hearing
before
hearing
examiner
Yes,
before
hearing
examiner
to render
final
decision
Yes,
before
hearing
examiner
or board
to render
final
decision
No Yes, before
Planning Board
which makes
recommendation
to council
Yes, before
Planning Board
which makes
recommendation
to council or
council could
hold its own
hearing
Closed record
review:
No No No Yes,
before
No Yes,
before
Packet Page 162 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 7 -
the
council
the
council
Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
20.01.006 Legislative enactments not restricted.
Nothing in this chapter or the permit processing procedures shall
limit the authority of the city council to make changes to the city’s
comprehensive plan, or the city’s development regulations as part
of the annual revision process.
20.01.007 Exempt projects.
A. The following projects are specifically excluded from the
procedures set forth in this Chapter: historic register designations,
building permits, street vacations, street use permits, encroachment
permits, and other public works permits issued under Title 18.
B. Pursuant RCW 36.70B.140(2), lot line or boundary
adjustments, building and/or other construction permits, or similar
administrative approvals categorically exempt from environmental
review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW and the city’s
SEPA/environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC), or
permits/approvals for which environmental review has been
completed in connection with other project permits, are excluded
from the requirements of RCW 36.70B.060 and 36.70B.110
through 36.70B.130, which includes the following procedures:
1. Notice of application (ECDC 20.03.002) unless an open
record hearing is allowed on the permit decision;
2. Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.140, optional
consolidated permit review processing (ECDC 20.01.002(B));
3. Joint public hearings (ECDC 20.06.001);
4. Single report stating all of the decisions and
recommendations made as of the date of the report that do not
require an open public record hearing (ECDC 20.06.002(C)); and
5. Notice of decision (ECDC 20.06.009).
Packet Page 163 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 8 -
Section 2. The Edmonds Community Development Code, Title 20, Chapter
20.02 Type I to IV Development Project Permit Applications
Chapter 20.02
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS
is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sections:
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference.
20.02.002 Permit application requirements.
20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application.
20.02.005 Referral and review of permit applications.
20.02.001 Optional preapplication conference.
A. Prior to filing applications for Type II actions requiring a
preliminary plat and Type III and IV actions, applicants are
encouraged to participate in a preapplication conference.
Preapplication meetings with staff provide an opportunity to
discuss the proposal in general terms, identify the applicable City
requirements and the project review process including the permits
required by the action, timing of the permits and the approval
process. Plans presented at the preapplication meeting are
nonbinding and do not “vest” an application.
B. The conference shall be held within 28 days of the request,
upon payment of applicable fee(s) as set forth in the city’s adopted
fee resolution.
C. The Development Services Director or his/her designee
(hereinafter the “director”) shall provide the applicant with the
following during the conference:
1 A form which lists the requirements for a completed
application;
2. A general summary of the procedures to be used to process
the application;
3. The references to the relevant code provisions or
development standards which may apply to approval of the
application; and
4. The city’s design guidelines.
Packet Page 164 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 9 -
D. Neither the discussions at the conference nor the
information on the form provided by the director to the applicant
under ECDC 20.02.001(C) shall bind the city in any manner or
prevent the city’s future application or enforcement of all
applicable codes, ordinances and regulations.
E. Requests for preapplication conferences for all other types
of applications will be considered on a time-available basis by the
director.
20.02.002 Permit application requirements.
An application shall consist of all materials required by the
applicable development regulations and shall include the following
general information:
A. A completed land use application form;
B. A verified statement by the applicant that the property
affected by the application is in the exclusive ownership of the
applicant, or that the applicant has submitted the application with
the consent of all owners of the affected property;
C. A property and/or legal description of the site for all
applications, as required by the applicable development
regulations;
D. The applicable fee; and
E. Cover letter describing how the proposal satisfies the
applicable standards, requirements and criteria in the development
regulations.
20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application.
A. Determination of Completeness. Within 28 days after
receiving an application, the director shall mail or personally
deliver to the applicant a determination which states that either:
1. The application is complete; or
2. The application is incomplete and what is necessary to
make the application complete.
B. Identification of Other Agencies with Jurisdiction. To the
extent known by the city, other agencies with jurisdiction over the
project shall be identified in the determination of completeness.
Packet Page 165 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 10 -
C. Additional Information. An application is complete for the
purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements
of ECDC 20.02.002 and the submission requirements of the
applicable development regulations. The determination of
completeness shall be made when the application is sufficiently
complete for review, even though additional information may be
required or project modifications may be undertaken subsequently.
The determination of completeness shall not preclude the director’s
ability to request additional information or studies whenever new
information is required, or when substantial changes are made to
the proposed project.
D. Incomplete Applications.
1. Whenever the applicant receives a determination from the
city pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003(A)(2) that the application is
incomplete, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the
necessary information. Within 14 days after an applicant has
submitted the requested additional information, the director shall
make a determination of completeness and notify the applicant in
the manner provided in subsection A of this section.
2. Whenever the applicant receives a notice that the contents
of the application, which had been previously determined under
ECDC 20.02.003(A)(1) to be complete, is insufficient, ambiguous,
undecipherable, or otherwise unresponsive of the information
being sought, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the
necessary information. If circumstances warrant, the applicant
may apply in writing to the director requesting a one-time 90-day
extension. The extension request must be received by the City
prior to the end of the initial 90-day compliance period.
3. If the applicant does not submit the additional information
requested within the 90-day period (or within the 90-day extension
period, as applicable), the director shall make findings and issue a
decision, according to the Type I procedure, that the application
has lapsed for lack of information necessary to complete the
review. The decision shall state that no further action will be taken
on the application, and that if the applicant does not make
arrangements to pick up the application materials from the
planning and/or public works/engineering departments within 30
days from the date of the decision, the application materials will be
destroyed.
Packet Page 166 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 11 -
4. When the director determines that an application has lapsed
because the applicant has failed to submit required information
within the necessary time period, the applicant may request a
refund of the application fee remaining after the city’s
determination of completeness.
E. Director’s Failure to Provide Determination of
Completeness. An application shall be deemed complete under this
section if the director does not provide a written determination to
the applicant that the application is incomplete as provided in
subsection A of this section.
F Date of Acceptance of Application. Permit applications
shall not be officially accepted until complete. When an
application is determined to be complete, the director shall note the
date of acceptance for continued processing.
G. After acceptance, the city shall begin processing the
application. Under no circumstances shall the city place any
application on “hold” to be processed at some later date, even if
the request for the “hold” is made by the applicant, and regardless
of the requested length of the “holding” period. This subsection
does not apply to applications placed on “hold” upon
determination by the city that additional information is required in
order to make a decision.
20.02.005 Referral and review of development project
permit applications.
Within 10 days of accepting an application, the director shall
transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the
application, to each affected government agency and city
department for review and comment, including those responsible
for determining compliance with state and federal requirements.
Section 3. The Edmonds Community Development Code, Title 20, Chapter
20.03 Public Notice
Chapter 20.03
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sections:
20.03.002 Notice of application.
20.03.003 Notice of public hearing.
20.03.004 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) notice.
20.03.005 Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) notice.
20.03.006 Optional public notice.
Packet Page 167 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 12 -
20.03.002 Notice of application.
A. Generally. A notice of application shall be provided by the
director to the public, all city departments and agencies with
jurisdiction of all Type II, III and IV development project permit
applications in accordance with Chapter 20.03 ECDC. The notice
of application for these permits shall also be provided to the public
by posting, publishing and mailing.
B. Issuance of Notice of Application.
1. A notice of application shall be issued within 14 days after
the city has made a determination of completeness pursuant to
ECDC 20.02.003.
2. If any open record predecision hearing is required for the
requested development project permit(s), the notice of application
shall be provided at least 14 days prior to the open record hearing.
C. Contents. The notice of application shall include the
following information in a format determined by the director:
1. The date of submission of the initial application, the date of
the notice of completion and acceptance of the application, and the
date of the notice of application;
2. A description of the proposed project and a list of the
development project permits requested in the application and, if
applicable, a list of any studies requested under Chapter 36.70B
RCW;
3. A description of other required permits not included in the
application, to the extent known by the city at that time;
4. A description of existing environmental documents that
evaluate the proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the
document providing notice of application, the location where the
application and any studies can be reviewed;
5. A statement setting forth: (a) the time for the public
comment period, which shall be not less than 14 days following the
date of notice of application; (b) the right of any person to
comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in
any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application;
and (c) any appeal rights;
Packet Page 168 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 13 -
6. The date, time, place and type of hearing, if a hearing has
been scheduled when the date of notice of application is issued;
7. Any other information determined appropriate by the
director such as the director’s threshold determination, if complete
at the time of issuance of the notice of application.
D. Mailed Notice. Notice of application shall be mailed to:
1. The owners of the property involved if different from applicant;
and
2. The owners of real property within 300 feet of the boundaries of
the property(ies) involved in the application. Addresses for a
mailed notice required by this code shall be obtained from the
applicable county’s real property tax records. The adjacent
property owners list must be current to within six (6) months of the
date of initial application.
3. Type III Preliminary Plat Actions. In addition to the above,
requirements for mailed notice of filing for preliminary plats and
proposed subdivisions shall also include the following:
a. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat adjacent to
or within one mile of the municipal boundaries of any city or town,
or which contemplates the use of any city or town utilities shall be
given to the appropriate city or town authorities;
b. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a
proposed subdivision adjoining the boundaries of Snohomish
County shall be given to the appropriate county officials;
c. Notice of the filing of a preliminary plat of a
proposed subdivision located adjacent to the right-of-way of a state
highway shall be given to the secretary of transportation;
4. For a plat alteration or a plat vacation, notice shall be as
provided in RCW 58.17.080 and 58.17.090.
All mailed public notices shall be deemed to have been received on
the next business day following the day that the notice is deposited
in the mail.
E. Published Notice. Notice of application shall be published
in the city’s official newspaper (The Everett Herald, as identified
Packet Page 169 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 14 -
in ECDC 1.03). The format shall be determined by the director
and the notice must contain the information listed in ECDC
20.03.002.C.
F. Posting. Posting of the property for site specific proposals
shall consist of one or more notice boards as follows:
1. A single notice board shall be placed:
a. At the midpoint of the street fronting the site or as
otherwise directed by the director for maximum visibility;
b. Five feet inside the street property line, except when
the board is structurally attached to an existing building; provided,
that no notice board shall be placed more than five feet from the
street without approval of the director;
c. So that the bottom of the notice board is between
two and four feet above grade; and
d. Where it is completely visible to pedestrians.
e. The size of the notice board shall be determined by
the director.
2. Additional notice boards may be required when:
a. The site does not abut a public road;
b. A large site abuts more than one public road; or
c. The director determines that additional notice
boards are necessary to provide adequate public notice.
3. Notice boards shall be:
a. Maintained in good condition during the notice
period;
b. In place at least 14 days prior to the date of any
hearing, and at least 14 days prior to the end of any required
comment period;
c. Removed within 30 days of the date of the project
decision, unless the decision is appealed. If the project decision is
Packet Page 170 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 15 -
appealed, the sign must be removed 30 after the appeal decision is
issued.
4. Removal of the notice board prior to the end of the notice
period shall be cause for discontinuance of the department review
until the notice board is replaced and remains in place for the
specified time period.
G. Public Comment on the Notice of Application. All public
comments in response to the notice of application must be received
by the city’s development services department by 4:30 PM on the
last day of the comment period. Comments in response to the
notice of application received after the comment period has
expired will not be accepted no matter when they were mailed or
postmarked. Comments shall be mailed or personally delivered.
Comments should be as specific as possible.
20.03.003 Notice of public hearing.
A. A notice of public hearing shall be provided by the City for
Type III or Type IV actions, as well as appeals of Type II actions,
by mailing, posting and publishing.
B. Content of Notice of Public Hearing for All Applications.
The notice of a public hearing required by this chapter shall
contain:
1. The name and address of the applicant and the applicant’s
representative;
2 A description of the subject property reasonably sufficient
to inform the public of its location, including but not limited to a
vicinity location or written description, a map or postal address,
and a subdivision lot and block designation (complete legal
description not required);
3. The date, time and place of the hearing;
4. The nature of the proposed use or development;
5. A statement that all interested persons may appear and
provide testimony;
6. The sections of the code that are pertinent to the hearing
procedure;
Packet Page 171 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 16 -
7. A statement explaining when information may be
examined, and when and how written comments addressing
findings required for a decision by the hearing body may be
admitted;
8. The name of a city representative to contact and the
telephone number where additional information may be obtained;
9. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents
and evidence relied upon by the applicant, and applicable criteria
are available for inspection at no cost and that copies will be
provided at the requestor’s cost; and
10. A statement explaining that a copy of the staff report will
be available for inspection at no cost at least seven days prior to
the hearing and that copies will be provided at the requestor’s cost.
C. Mailed Notice. Mailed notice of the public hearing shall be
provided as follows:
1. The notice of the public hearing shall be mailed to:
a. The applicant;
b. The owner of the subject property, if different from
applicant;
c. All owners of real property, as shown by the records
of the county assessor, within 300 feet of the boundaries of the
property(ies) involved in the application; and
d. Any person who submits a public comments on an
application;
2. Type III Preliminary Plat Actions. In addition to the above,
requirements for mailed notice of public hearing for preliminary
plats and proposed subdivisions shall also include the following:
a. If the owner of the real property which is proposed to be
subdivided owns another parcel or parcels of real property which
lie adjacent to the real property proposed to be subdivided, notice
under RCW 58.17.090(1)(b) shall be given to owners of real
property located with 300 feet from any portion of the boundaries
of the adjacent parcels owned by the owner of the real property to
be subdivided.
Packet Page 172 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 17 -
3. For a plat alteration or a plat vacation, notice shall be as
provided in RCW 58.17.080 and 58.17.090.
4. Procedure for Mailed Notice of Public Hearing.
a. The records of the Snohomish County assessor’s
office shall be used for determining the property owner of record.
Addresses for a mailed notice required by this code shall be
obtained from the applicable county’s real property tax records.
b. All mailed public notices shall be deemed to have
been received on the next business day following the day that the
notice is deposited in the mail.
D. Procedure for Posted or Published Notice of Public
Hearing.
1. Posted notice of the public hearing shall comply with
requirements set forth in ECDC 20.03.002.F.
2. Notice of public hearing shall be published in the city’s
official newspaper (The Everett Herald, as identified in Chapter
1.03 ECC). The format shall be determined by the director and the
notice must contain the information listed in ECDC 20.03.003.B.
E. Time of Notice of Public Hearing.
1. Notice shall be mailed, posted and first published not less
than 14 or more than 30 days prior to the hearing date.
20.03.004 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) notice.
A. Whenever possible, the city shall integrate the public notice
required under this subsection with existing notice procedures for
the City’s nonexempt permits(s) or approvals(s) required for the
proposal.
B. Whenever the City issues a determination of
nonsignificance (DNS) under WAC 197-11-340(2) or a
determination of significance (DS) under WAC 197-11-360(3) the
City shall give public notice as follows:
Packet Page 173 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 18 -
1. If public notice is required for a nonexempt license,
the notice shall state whether a DS or DNS has been issued and
when comments are due.
2. If an environmental document is issued
concurrently with the notice of application, the public notice
requirements for the notice of application in RCW 36.70B.110(4)
will suffice to meet the SEPA public notice requirements in
WAC 197-11-510(1).
3. If no public notice is otherwise required for the
permit or approval, the City shall give notice of the DNS or DS by:
a. Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
b. Mailed to real property owners as shown by the
records of the county assessor within 300 feet of the
boundary of the property, for site specific proposals;
and
c. Publishing notice in the City’s official newspaper
(or if one has not been designated, in a newspaper of
general circulation within the City).
4. Whenever the City issues a DS under WAC 197-11-
360(3), the City shall state the scoping procedure for the proposal
in the DS as required in WAC 197-11-408 and in the public notice.
C. If a DNS is issued using the optional DNS process, the
public notice requirements for a notice of application in RCW
36.70B.110(4) as supplemented by the requirements in WAC 197-
11-355 will suffice to meet the SEPA public notice requirements in
WAC 197-11-510(1)(b).
D. Whenever the City issues a draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS) under WAC 197-11-455(5) or a supplemental
environmental impact statement (SEIS) under WAC 197-11-620,
notice of the availability of those documents shall be given by:
1. Indicating the availability of the DEIS in any public
notice required for a nonexempt license;
2. Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
Packet Page 174 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 19 -
3. Mailed to real property owners as shown by the
records of the county assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of
the property, for site specific proposals; and
4. Publishing notice in the City’s official newspaper
(or if one has not been designated, in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City).
E. Public notice for projects that qualify as planned actions
shall be tied to underlying permit as specified in WAC 197-11-
172(3).
F. The City may require an applicant to complete the public
notice requirements for the applicant’s proposal at his or her
expense.
20.03.005 Shoreline Master Program (SMP) notice.
A. Methods of Providing SMP Notice. Notice of the
application of a permit under the purview of the city’s shoreline
master program shall be given by one or more of the following
methods:
1. Mailing of the notice to real property owners as
shown by the records of the county assessor within 300 feet of the
boundary of the property upon which the proposed project is to be
built;
2. Posting of the notice in a conspicuous manner, as
determined by the director, on the property upon which the project
is to be constructed; or
3. Any other manner deemed appropriate by the
director to accomplish the objectives of reasonable notice to
adjacent landowners and the public.
B. Content of SMP Notice. SMP notices shall include:
1. A statement that any person desiring to submit
written comments concerning an application, or desiring to receive
notification of the final decision concerning an application, may
submit comments, or requests for the decision, to the director
within 30 days of the last date that notice is published pursuant to
this subsection;
2. A statement that any person may submit oral or
written comments at the hearing;
Packet Page 175 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 20 -
3. An explanation of the manner in which the public
may obtain a copy of the city’s decision on the application no later
than two days after its issuance.
C. Public Comment Period. The public comment period shall
be 30 days.
D. The director shall mail or otherwise deliver a copy of the
decision to each person who submits comments or a written
request for the decision.
20.03.006 Optional public notice.
The director, in his or her sole discretion, may:
A. Notify the public or private groups with known interest in a
proposal or type of proposal;
B. Notify the news media;
C. Place notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood
newspapers or trade journals;
D. Publish notice in agency newsletters or send notice to
agency mailing lists, either general lists or lists for specific
proposals or subject areas; and
E. Mail notice to additional neighboring property owners.
Section 4. The Edmonds Community Development Code, Title 20, Chapter
20.04 Consistency With Development Regulations and SEPA
Chapter 20.04
CONSISTENCY WITH
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SEPA
is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sections:
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis.
20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions.
Packet Page 176 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 21 -
20.04.001 Determination of consistency.
A. Purpose. Consistency between a proposed development
project permit application, applicable regulations and
comprehensive plan shall be determined through the process
described in this section.
B. Consistency. During application review, the Development
Services Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the “director”)
shall determine whether the development regulations applicable to
the proposed project, or in the absence of applicable development
regulations, the city’s comprehensive plan, address the following:
1. The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses
that may be allowed if the criteria for their approval have been
satisfied;
2. The level of development, such as units per acre, density of
residential development in urban growth areas, or other measures
of density;
3. Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public
facilities identified in the comprehensive plan; and
4. Whether the plan or development regulations provide for
funding of these facilities as required by Chapter 36.70A RCW.
C. Project Review. Project review by the director and
appropriate city staff shall identify specific project design and
conditions relating to the character of development, such as the
details of site plans, curb cuts, drainage swales, the payment of
impact fees, or other measures to mitigate a proposal’s probable
significant adverse environmental impacts. During project review,
neither the director nor any other city reviewing body may re-
examine alternatives or hear appeals on decided matters which
have already been found to be consistent with development
regulations and/or the comprehensive plan, except for issues of
code interpretation.
20.04.002 Initial SEPA analysis.
A. In addition to the land use consistency review, the director
shall review the permit application for consistency with the State
Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”), Chapter 43.21C RCW, the
SEPA Rules, Chapter 197-11 WAC, and the city environmental
policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC, and shall:
Packet Page 177 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 22 -
1. Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to
adequately analyze all of the proposed project’s specific probable
adverse environmental impacts;
2. Determine whether applicable regulations require
mitigation measures to adequately address identified
environmental impacts; and
3. Provide prompt and coordinated review by other
government agencies and the public on compliance with applicable
environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific
project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the
plan or development regulation level.
B. In the review of a permit application, the director shall
determine whether the requirements for environmental analysis,
protection and mitigation measures in the applicable development
regulations, comprehensive plan and/or in other applicable local,
state or federal laws provide adequate analysis of, and mitigation
for, the specific adverse environmental impacts of the proposal.
C. If the director bases or conditions his or her approval of the
application on compliance with the requirements or mitigation
measures described in subsection A of this section, the city shall
not impose additional mitigation under SEPA during project
review for the same adverse environmental impacts.
D. A comprehensive plan, development regulation or other
applicable local, state or federal law provides adequate analysis of,
and mitigation for, the specific adverse environmental impacts of a
proposal when:
1. The impacts have been avoided or otherwise mitigated; or
2. The city has designated in the plan, regulation or law that
certain levels of service, land use designations, development
standards or other land use conditions allowed by Chapter 36.70A
RCW are acceptable.
E. In deciding whether a specific adverse environmental
impact has been addressed by an existing city plan or development
regulation, or by the regulations or laws of another government
agency, the director shall consult orally or in writing with that
agency and may expressly defer to that agency. In making this
deferral, the director shall base or condition any project approval
on compliance with these other regulations.
Packet Page 178 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 23 -
F. Nothing in this section limits the authority of the director in
reviewing or mitigating the impacts of a proposed project to adopt
or otherwise rely on environmental analyses and requirements
under other laws, as provided by Chapter 43.21C RCW.
G. The director shall also review the application under Chapter
20.15A ECDC, the city environmental policy ordinance; provided,
that such review shall be coordinated with the underlying permit
application review.
20.04.003 Categorically exempt and planned actions.
A. Categorically Exempt. Actions categorically exempt under
RCW 43.21C.110(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the
preparation of an environmental impact statement. An action that is
categorically exempt under the rules adopted by the Department of
Ecology (Chapter 197-11 WAC) may not be conditioned or denied
under SEPA.
B. Planned Actions.
1. A planned action does not require a threshold determination
or the preparation of an environmental impact statement under
SEPA, but is subject to environmental review and mitigation under
SEPA.
2. A “planned action” means one or more types of project
action that:
a. Are designated planned actions by an ordinance or
resolution adopted by the city;
b. Have had the significant impacts adequately
addressed in an environmental impact statement prepared in
conjunction with:
i. A comprehensive plan or subarea plan
adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW, or
ii. A fully contained community, a master
planned resort, a master planned development or a phased project;
c. Are subsequent or implementing projects for the
proposals listed in paragraph (2)(b) of this subsection;
Packet Page 179 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 24 -
d. Are located within an urban growth area, as defined
in RCW 36.70A.030;
e. Are not essential public facilities, as defined in
RCW 36.70A.200; and
f. Are consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan
adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW.
C. Limitations on Planned Actions. The city shall limit
planned actions to certain types of development or to specific
geographical areas that are less extensive than the jurisdictional
boundaries of the city, and may limit a planned action to a time
period identified in the environmental impact statement or this
title.
Section 5. The Edmonds Community Development Code Title 20, Chapter 20.06
Open Public Record Hearings
Chapter 20.06
OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sections:
20.06.000 General.
20.06.001 Joint Public Hearings
20.06.002 Responsibility of director for hearing.
20.06.003 Conflict of interest.
20.06.004 Ex parte communications.
20.06.005 Disqualification.
20.06.006 Burden and nature of proof.
20.06.007 Order of proceedings.
20.06.008 Decision.
20.06.009 Notice of final decision.
20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision.
20.06.000 General.
A. An open record public hearing is a hearing conducted by an
authorized body or officer that creates the city’s record through
testimony and submission of evidence and information. A public
hearing may be held prior to the city’s decision on a development
project permit application; this is an "open record predecision
hearing." A public hearing may be held on an appeal if no open
record predecision hearing was held for the permit; this is an "open
record appeal hearing."
Packet Page 180 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 25 -
B. Open record predecision hearings on all Type III and IV
permit applications and open record appeal hearings on all Type II
decision appeals shall be conducted in accordance with this
chapter. Public hearings conducted by the city hearing examiner
shall also be subject to the hearing examiner’s rules.
C. Unless otherwise provided, appeals of Type II decisions
shall be initiated as set forth in ECDC 20.07.004.
20.06.001 Joint public hearings.
A. Decision to Hold Joint Hearing. The Development Services
Director or his/her designee (hereinafter the “director”) may
combine any public hearing on a project application with any
hearing that may be held by another local, state, regional, federal,
or other agency, on the proposed action, as long asthe requirements
of subsection C of this section are met.
B. Applicant’s Request for a Joint Hearing. The applicant may
request that the public hearing on a permit application be combined
as long as the joint hearing can be held within the time periods set
forth in this chapter. In the alternative, the applicant may agree to a
particular schedule if additional time is needed in order to
complete the hearings.
C. Prerequisites to Joint Public Hearing. A joint public hearing
may be held with another local, state, regional, federal or other
agency and the city, when:
1. The other agency is not expressly prohibited by statute
from doing so;
2. Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the
agencies’ adopted notice requirements as set forth in statutes,
ordinances, or rules;
3. The agency has received the necessary information about
the proposed project from the applicant in enough time to hold its
hearing at the same time as the city hearing; or
4. The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the
city.
20.06.002 Responsibility of director for hearing.
The director shall:
Packet Page 181 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 26 -
A. Schedule project applications for review and public
hearing;
B. Verify compliance with notice requirements;
C. Prepare the staff report on the application, which shall be a
single report which sets forth all of the decisions made on the
proposal as of the date of the report, including recommendations
on project permits in the consolidated permit process that do not
require an open record predecision hearing. The report shall also
describe any mitigation required or proposed under the city’s
development regulations or SEPA authority. If the threshold
determination, other than a determination of significance, has not
been issued previously by the city, the report shall include or
append this determination.
D. Prepare the notice of decision, if required by the hearing
body, and mail a copy of the notice of decision to those entitled by
this chapter to receive the decision.
20.06.003 Conflict of interest.
The hearing body shall be subject to the code of ethics,
prohibitions on conflict of interest and appearance of fairness
doctrine as set forth in Chapter 42.23 RCW, and Chapter 42.36
RCW as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended.
20.06.004 Ex parte communications.
A. No member of the hearing body may communicate, directly
or indirectly, regarding any issue in a proceeding before him or
her, other than to participate in communications regarding
procedural aspects necessary for maintaining an orderly process,
unless he or she provides notice and opportunity for all parties to
participate. Nothing herein shall prevent the hearing body from
seeking legal advice from its legal counsel on any issue.
B. If, before serving as the hearing body in a quasi-judicial
proceeding, any member of the hearing body receives an ex parte
communication of a type that could not properly be received while
serving, the member of the hearing body, promptly after starting to
serve, shall disclose the communication as described in ECDC
20.06.004(C).
C. If a member of the hearing body receives an ex parte
communication in violation of this section, he or she shall place in
the record:
Packet Page 182 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 27 -
1. All written communications received;
2. All written responses to the communications;
3. The substance of all oral communications received, and all
responses made; and
4. The identity of each person from whom the member
received any ex parte communication.
The hearing body shall advise all parties that these matters have
been placed on the record. Upon request made after notice of the
ex parte communication, any party desiring to rebut the
communication shall be allowed to place a rebuttal statement on
the record.
20.06.005 Disqualification.
A. Any member who is disqualified shall make full disclosure
to the audience of the reason(s) for the disqualification, abstain
from voting on the proposal, and physically leave the hearing.
B. If enough members of the hearing body are disqualified so
that a quorum cannot be achieved, then all members present, after
stating their reasons for disqualification, shall be prequalified and
deliberations shall proceed.
20.06.006 Burden and nature of proof.
A. Except for Type V actions, appeal of Type II actions and
closed record appeals, the burden of proof is on the proponent. The
development project permit application must be supported by
convincing proof that it conforms to the applicable elements of the
city’s development regulations and comprehensive plan (review
criteria). The proponent must also prove that any significant
adverse environmental impacts have been adequately mitigated.
B. In an appeal of Type II actions or closed record appeal, the
appellant has the burden of proof with respect to points raised on
appeal.
C. In a closed record appeal of the Architectural Design
Board, its decision shall be given substantial deference regarding
decision review within its expertise and contained in its decisions.
Packet Page 183 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 28 -
20.06.007 Order of proceedings.
The order of proceedings for a hearing will depend in part on the
nature of the hearing. The following shall be supplemented by
administrative procedures as appropriate.
A. Before receiving testimony and other evidence on the issue,
the following shall be determined:
1. Any objections on jurisdictional grounds shall be noted on
the record and if there is objection, the hearing body may proceed
or terminate the proceeding;
2. Any member disqualifications shall be determined.
B. The presiding officer may take official notice of commonly
known and accepted information, such as:
1. Ordinances, resolutions, rules, officially adopted
development standards, and state law;
2. Public records and facts judicially noticeable by law.
C. Information officially noticed need not be proved by
submission of formal evidence to be considered by the hearing
body. Parties requesting official notice of any information shall do
so on the record. The hearing body, however, may take notice of
matters listed in subsection B of this section at any time. Any
information given official notice may be rebutted.
D. The hearing body may view the proposed project site or
planning area with or without notification to the parties, but shall
put into the record a statement setting forth the time, manner and
circumstances of the site visit.
E. Information shall be received from the staff and from
proponents and opponents. The presiding officer may, in his or her
discretion, permit persons attending the hearing to ask questions.
Unless the presiding officer specifies otherwise, approved
questions will be asked of persons submitting testimony by the
presiding officer.
F. When the presiding officer has closed the public comment
portion of the hearing, the hearing body may openly discuss the
issue and may further question the staff or any person submitting
information. An opportunity to present rebuttal shall be provided if
new information is presented in the questioning. When all evidence
Packet Page 184 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 29 -
has been presented and all questioning and rebuttal completed, the
presiding officer shall officially close the record and end the
hearing.
20.06.008 Decision.
A. Following the hearing procedure described in ECDC
20.06.007, the hearing body shall approve, conditionally approve,
or deny the application. If the hearing is an appeal, the hearing
body shall affirm, reverse or, with the written consent of the
applicant, which shall include a waiver of the statutory prohibition
against two open record hearings, remand the decision for
additional information.
B. The hearing body’s written decision shall be issued within
10 working days after the close of record of the hearing and within
90 days of the opening of the hearing, unless a longer period is
agreed to by the parties.
C. The city shall provide a notice of decision as provided in
ECDC 20.06.009.
D. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on an
application within the time limits provided for in this section, it
shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The
notice shall include a statement of reasons why the time limits
have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice
of decision.
20.06.009 Notice of final decision.
A. The director shall issue a notice of final decision within 120
days of the issuance of the determination of completeness pursuant
to ECDC 20.02.003; provided, that the time period for issuance of
a notice of final decision on a preliminary plat shall be 90 days, for
a final plat 30 days, and a final short plat 30 days. The notice shall
include the SEPA threshold determination for the proposal and a
description of any available administrative appeals. For Type II, III
and IV permits, the notice shall contain the requirements set forth
in ECDC 20.06.002(C) and explain that affected property owners
may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding
any program of revaluation.
1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise
delivered to the applicant, to any person who submitted comments
on the application or requested a copy of the decision, and to the
Snohomish County assessor.
Packet Page 185 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 30 -
2. Notice of the decision shall be provided to the public by
any means deemed reasonable by the director.
B. In calculating the 120-day period for issuance of the notice
of final decision, or other decision period specified in
20.06.009(A) ECDC, the following periods shall be excluded:
1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested
by the director to correct plans, perform required studies, or
provide additional required information. The period shall be
calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the
need for additional information until the earlier of the dates the
director determines that the additional information provided
satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the
additional information is provided to the city;
2. If the director determines that the information submitted is
insufficient, the applicant shall be informed of the deficiencies and
the procedures set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section for
calculating the exclusion period shall apply;
3. Any period during which an environmental impact
statement (EIS) is being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C
RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time period for preparation
of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A ECDC;
4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for
administrative appeals of development project permits, which shall
be not more than 90 days for open record appeals and 60 days for
closed record appeals, unless a longer period is agreed to by the
director and the applicant;
5. Any extension of time mutually agreed to by the director
and the applicant in writing.
C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if a
permit application:
1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a
development regulation;
2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as
provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or
Packet Page 186 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 31 -
3. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the
time period shall start from the date that a determination of
completeness for the revised application is issued by the director
pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003 and RCW 36.70B.070.
20.06.010 Reconsideration of decision.
A. General. Any person identified in ECDC 20.07.003 as
having standing to file an administrative appeal may request
reconsideration of a decision of the hearing examiner which issues
immediately after the open record public hearing on a permit
application described in this chapter. (There shall be no
reconsideration of a decision of the director (staff), ADB or city
council.) Reconsideration is not a condition precedent to any
appeal. Reconsideration shall be limited to:
1. error(s) of procedure;
2. error(s) of law or fact;
3. error(s) of judgment; and/or
4. the discovery of new evidence that was not known and
could not in the exercise of reasonable diligence, been discovered.
B. Time to File. A request for reconsideration, including
reconsideration fee, must be filed with the director within 10
calendar days of the hearing examiner’s written decision. Such
requests shall be delivered to the director before 4:00 p.m. on the
last business day of the reconsideration period. Requests for
reconsideration that are received by mail after 4:00 p.m. on the last
day of this reconsideration period will not be accepted, no matter
when such requests were sent, mailed or postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the
time for filing a request for reconsideration, the day the hearing
examiner’s decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day
of the reconsideration is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday designated
by RCW 1.16.050, or by a city ordinance, then the reconsideration
may be filed on the next business day.
D. Content of Request for Reconsideration. Requests for
reconsideration shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required
reconsideration fee, and contain the following information:
1. The name, address and phone number of the requestor;
2. Identification of the application and final decision which is
the subject of the request for reconsideration;
Packet Page 187 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 32 -
3. Requestor’s statement of grounds for reconsideration and
the facts upon which the request is based;
4. The specific relief requested;
5. A statement that the requestor believes the contents of the
request to be true, followed by his/her signature.
6. All written submittals should be typed on letter size paper
(8.5 x 11), with one inch margins, using readable font type (such as
Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of a request for reconsideration
shall stay the hearing examiner’s decision until such time as the
hearing examiner issues a decision on reconsideration.
F. Notice of Request for Reconsideration. The director shall
provide mailed notice that a request for reconsideration has been
filed to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003.
G. Hearing Examiner’s Action on Request. The hearing
examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration without a
hearing, but may solicit written arguments from parties of record.
A decision on the request for reconsideration shall be issued within
10 business days after receipt of the request for reconsideration by
the city.
1. The time period for appeal shall recommence and be the
same for all parties of record, regardless of whether a party filed a
motion for reconsideration.
2. Only one request for reconsideration may be made by a
party of record. Any ground not stated in the initial motion is
waived.
3. A decision on reconsideration or a matter that is remanded
to the hearing examiner by the City Council is not subject to a
motion for reconsideration.
H. Limitations on Hearing Examiner’s Reconsideration. The
hearing examiner shall consider the request for reconsideration
based on the administrative record compiled on the application up
to and including the date of the hearing examiner’s decision. The
hearing examiner may require or permit corrections of ministerial
errors or inadvertent omissions in the preparation of the record and
the hearing examiner’s decision. The reconsideration decision
Packet Page 188 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 33 -
issued by the hearing examiner may modify, affirm or reverse the
hearing examiner’s decision.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Reconsideration. The director
shall issue a notice of final decision on reconsideration in the
manner set forth and to the persons identified in ECDC 20.06.009.
J. Further Appeals. If no administrative appeal is allowed of
the hearing examiner’s decision, and a request for reconsideration
was timely filed, then any judicial appeal must be filed within 21
days after issuance of the decision on reconsideration, as provided
in Chapter 36.70C RCW.
Section 6. The Edmonds Community Development Code, Title 20, Chapter
20.07 Closed Record Appeals
Chapter 20.07
CLOSED RECORD APPEALS
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sections:
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions.
20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
20.07.006 Judicial appeals.
20.07.007 Resubmission of application.
20.07.001 Appeals of decisions.
A. "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal on
the record to the city council, following an open record public
hearing on a development project permit application when the
appeal is on the record with no new evidence or information
allowed to be submitted, except as provided in ECDC
20.07.005(B), and only appeal argument allowed.
B. The right of appeal for all permit applications and Type V
land use decisions shall be as described in the matrix set forth in
ECDC 20.01.003.
20.07.002 Consolidated appeals.
All appeals of development project permit application decisions,
other than appeals of determinations of significance (“DS”), and
exempt permits and approvals under ECDC 20.01.007, shall be
Packet Page 189 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 34 -
considered together in a consolidated appeal using the appeal
procedure for the highest type permit application.
20.07.003 Standing to initiate an administrative appeal.
A. Limited to Parties of Record. Only parties of record may
file an administrative appeal.
B. Definition. The term “parties of record,” for the purposes of
this chapter, shall mean:
1. The applicant;
2. Any person who testified at the open record public hearing
on the application;
3. Any person who individually submits written comments
concerning the application at the open record public hearing (or to
staff if an appeal of a Type II decision). Persons who have only
signed petitions are not parties of record; and/or
4. The city of Edmonds.
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions.
Permit Decisions or Recommendations. Appeals of a hearing
body’s recommendation or decision on a permit application shall
be governed by the following:
A. Standing. Only parties of record have standing to appeal the
hearing body’s decision.
B. Time to File. An appeal must be filed within 14 days after
the issuance of the hearing body’s written decision. The appeal
period shall be extended for an additional seven days, if state or
local rules adopted pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW allow public
comment on a determination of nonsignificance issued as part of
the appealable project permit decision. Appeals, including fees,
must be received by the city’s development services department by
mail or by personal delivery at or before 4:00 PM on the last
business day of the appeal period. Appeals received by mail after
4:00 PM on the last day of the appeal period will not be accepted,
no matter when such appeals were mailed or postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the
time for filing an appeal, the day the hearing body’s decision is
issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the appeal is a
Packet Page 190 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 35 -
Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or
by a city ordinance, or any day when city hall or the City’s
Development Services Department is closed to the public by
formal executive or legislative action, then the appeal may be filed
on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or closed
day.
D. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be
accompanied by the required appeal fee as set forth in the city’s
adopted fee resolution, and contain the following information:
1. Appellant’s name, address and phone number;
2. A statement describing appellant’s standing to appeal;
3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the
appeal;
4. Appellant’s statement of grounds for appeal and the facts
upon which the appeal is based with specific references to the facts
in the record;
5. The specific relief sought;
6. A statement that the appellant has read the appeal and
believes the contents to be true, followed by the appellant’s
signature.
7. All written submittals should be typed on letter size paper
(8.5 x 11), with one inch margins, using readable font type (such as
Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the hearing
body’s decision until such time as the appeal is concluded or
withdrawn.
F. Notice of Appeal. The Development Services Director
(hereinafter the “director”) shall provide mailed notice of the
appeal to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003.
20.07.005 Procedure for closed record decision/appeal.
A. Closed record appeals shall be based on the record
established at the open record hearing before the hearing
body/officer whose decision is appealed, which shall include the
written decision of the hearing body/officer, copies of any exhibits
Packet Page 191 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 36 -
admitted into the record, and official transcript, minutes or tape
recording of the proceedings.
1. At his/her own expense, a party to the appeal may have the
official tape recording of the open record hearing transcribed;
however, to be admitted into the record, the transcription must be
performed and certified by a transcriber that is pre-approved by the
City. In addition, the certified transcription must be received by
the City directly from the transcriber at least 16 working days
before the date scheduled for the closed record review. It shall be
each party of record’s responsibility to obtain a copy of the
transcription from the City.
2. The director shall maintain a list of pre-approved
transcribers that are court approved; and if needed, shall coordinate
with parties to the appeal so that no more than one official
transcription is admitted into the record.
B. No new testimony or other evidence will be accepted by the
city council except: (1) new information required to rebut the
substance of any written or oral ex parte communication provided
during an appearance of fairness disclosure; and (2) relevant
information that, in the opinion of the city council, was improperly
excluded by the hearing body/officer.
1. Appellants who believe that information was improperly
excluded must specifically request in writing within 5 working
days of the appeal deadline that the information be made part of
the record. The request shall be addressed to the city council
president, describing the information excluded, its relevance to the
issues appealed, the reason(s) that the information was excluded by
the hearing body/officer, and the reason why the hearing
body/officer erred in excluding the information.
2. In determining whether the information should be admitted,
the city council president may request other parties of record to
submit written arguments rebutting the above. Non response by
the city council president within 5 working days of the initial
request that the information be made part of the record shall
constitute a rejection of the same.
C. Parties to the appeal may present written arguments to the
city council. Arguments shall describe the particular errors
committed by the decision maker, with specific references to the
administrative record. The appellant shall bear the burden to
demonstrate that the decision is clearly erroneous given the record.
Packet Page 192 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 37 -
D. While not required, appellant may submit his or her written
arguments 12 working days before the date scheduled for the
closed record review. Parties of record, except for the appellant,
may submit his or her written arguments or respond in writing to
appellant’s arguments no later than 7 working days before the
closed record review. Appellant may rebut in writing to responses
submitted by parties of record no later than 4 working days before
the closed record review. If the applicant is not the appellant,
applicant may submit a final surrebuttal in writing to appellant’s
rebuttal no later than 2 working days before the closed record
review.
E. Written arguments, responses, rebuttal and surrebuttals
must be received by the city’s development services department by
mail or personal delivery at or before 4:30 PM of the date due.
Late submittals shall not be accepted. Submittals received by mail
after 4:30 PM on the last day of the appeal period will not be
accepted, no matter when such submittals were mailed or
postmarked. It shall be the responsibility of the parties involved to
obtain for their own use from the city copies of written arguments,
responses, rebuttals and surrebuttals submitted.
F. All written submittals should be typed on letter size paper
(8.5 x 11), with one inch margins, using readable font type (such as
Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than 12), single sided,
double spaced and without exceeding twelve pages in length,
including exhibits, if any. Exhibits that are not already in the
record shall not be allowed.
G. The review shall commence with the resolution of
appearance of fairness issues, if any, followed by the opportunity
for oral presentations by the director and other parties of records,
including the appellant. After the presentations, the city council
may ask clarifying questions on disputed issues to parties of
record, with an opportunity for the director, appellant and/or
applicant, respectively, to rebut to the response. The city council
shall not request information outside the administrative record.
If information outside the administrative record is offered (in
written submittals or oral presentation) by a party of record, it shall
be the responsibility of other parties of record opposing the same
to timely object and provide justification in support of the
objection. Objections to information outside the administrative
record shall be brought before the city council begins deliberations.
Packet Page 193 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 38 -
The party offering the information shall have the opportunity to
show where in the record said information is contained.
H. The city council shall determine whether the decision by
the hearing body/officer is clearly erroneous given the evidence in
the record. The city council shall affirm, modify or reverse the
decision of the hearing body/officer accordingly. Upon written
agreement by the applicant to waive the requirement for a decision
within the time periods set forth in RCW 36.70B.080, as allowed
by RCW 36.70B.080(3), the city council may remand the decision
with instructions to the hearing body for additional information.
I. Notice of Final Decision on Closed Record Appeal. The
director shall issue a notice of final decision on closed record
appeal in the manner set forth and to the persons identified in
ECDC 20.06.009.
20.07.006 Judicial appeals.
The city’s final decision on an application may be appealed by a
party of record with standing to file a land use petition in
Snohomish County superior court. Such petition must be filed
within 21 days after issuance of the decision, as provided in
Chapter 36.70C RCW.
20.07.007 Resubmission of application.
Any permit application or other request for approval submitted
pursuant to this chapter that is denied shall not be resubmitted or
accepted by the director for review for a period of 12 months from
the date of the last action by the city on the application or request
unless, in the opinion of the director, there has been a significant
change in the application or a significant change in conditions
related to the impacts of the proposed project.
Section 7. The Edmonds Community Development Code, Title 20, Chapter
20.08 Development Agreements
Chapter 20.08
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sections:
20.08.010 Authority.
20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements.
20.08.030 Enforceability.
Packet Page 194 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 39 -
20.08.040 Approval procedure for development
agreements.
20.08.050 Form of agreement, council approval,
recordation.
20.08.060 Judicial appeal.
20.08.010 Authority.
A. The city may enter into a development agreement with a
person having ownership or control of real property within the city
limits. The city may also enter a development agreement for real
property outside of the city limit but within the urban growth area
(UGA) as part of a proposed annexation or a service agreement.
20.08.020 General provisions of development agreements.
A. A development agreement shall be consistent with the
applicable policies and goals of the city of Edmonds
comprehensive plan and applicable development regulations. As
applicable, the development agreement shall specify the following:
1. Project components which define and detail the permitted
uses, residential densities, nonresidential densities and intensities
or building sizes;
2. The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed
to in accordance with any applicable provisions of state law, any
reimbursement provisions, other financial contributions by the
property owner, inspection fees, or dedications;
3. Mitigation measures, development conditions and other
requirements of Chapter 43.21C RCW;
4, Design standards such as architectural treatment,
maximum heights, setbacks, landscaping, drainage and water
quality requirements and other development features;
5. Provisions for affordable housing, if applicable;
6. Parks and common open space preservation;
7. Phasing;
8. A build-out or vesting period for applicable standards; and
Packet Page 195 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 40 -
9. Any other appropriate development requirement or
procedure which is based upon a city policy, rule, regulation or
standard.
B. As provided in RCW 36.70B.170, the development
agreement shall reserve authority to impose new or different
regulations to the extent required by a serious threat to public
health and safety.
20.08.030 Enforceability.
Unless amended or terminated, a development agreement is
enforceable during its term by a party to the agreement. A
development agreement and the development standards in the
agreement govern during the term of the agreement, or for all or
that part of the build-out period specified in the agreement. The
agreement may not be subject to an amendment to a zoning
ordinance or development standard or a new zoning ordinance or
development standard or regulation adopted after the effective date
of the agreement. The permit approval issued by the city after the
execution of the agreement must be consistent with the
development agreement.
20.08.040 Approval procedure for development
agreements.
A development agreement is a Type V development project permit
application and shall be processed in accordance with the
procedures established in this title. A development agreement shall
be approved by the Edmonds city council after a public hearing.
20.08.050 Form of agreement, council approval,
recordation.
A. Form. All development agreements shall be in a form
provided by the city attorney’s office. The city attorney shall
approve all development agreements for form prior to
consideration by the Planning Board.
B. Term. Development agreements may be approved for a
maximum period of five years.
C. Recordation. A development agreement shall be recorded
against the real property records of the Snohomish County
assessor’s office. During the term of the development agreement,
the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors,
including any area that is annexed to the city.
Packet Page 196 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 41 -
20.08.060 Judicial appeal.
If the development agreement relates to a project permit
application, the provision of Chapter 36.70C RCW shall apply to
the appeal of the decision on the development agreement.
Section 8. Amended. 18.45.055, Notice.
18.45.055 Notice.
, of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Notice to surrounding property owners shall be provided pursuant to ECDC
20.03.002, informing them of the application for a clearing permit.
Section 9. Amended
A. Notices of permit submittal application with the city shall be posted pursuant
to ECDC 20.03.002. Such notices shall be conspicuously posted and maintained
at each street frontage. Notice of permit issuance or denial shall be conspicuously
posted as required above. Upon each posting a 10-day appeal period shall
commence. Appeals shall be to the Snohomish County superior court in
accordance with the Land Use Petition Act, and no other appeal shall be
permitted.
. Subsection 19.10.040(A) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 10. Amended
A. Public Hearing – Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled
with the architectural design board (ADB) as a public meeting. Notice of the
meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of ECDC 20.03.003.
This notice may be combined with the formal notice of application required under
ECDC 20.03.002, as appropriate.
. Subsection 20.12.020.(A) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 11. Amended. 20.40.030, Notice.
20.40.030 Notice.
, of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Packet Page 197 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 42 -
Notice of rezone hearings (and text change) before the planning board shall be the
same as set forth for proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan in ECDC
20.00.020 for newspaper publication, and pursuant to ECDC 20.03.003.
Section 12. Amended
1. When the director of community services has accepted a subdivision for filing,
he shall set a date of hearing, and give notice of the hearing as provided in ECDC
20.03.003, and by the following for a formal subdivision:
. Subsection 20.75.065(B)(1) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 13. Amended
B. Notice. See ECDC 20.03.003.
. Subsection 20.80.020(B) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 14. Amended
C. When the city council, in its discretion, deems it appropriate to adopt pre-
annexation zoning comparable to that in effect in Snohomish County for a
proposed annexation area, the procedural and notice requirements of RCW
35A.14.340 shall control over the provisions of this chapter and Chapter 20.03
ECDC. In the event that the city council determines it appropriate to zone
property proposed for annexation to the city in a category which is not
comparable to zoning in effect in Snohomish County, the provisions of this
chapter and Chapter 20.03 ECDC shall apply. Any change to pre-annexation
zoning proposed after annexation to the city shall also comply with the provisions
of this chapter and Chapter 20.03 ECDC.
. Subsection 20.80.020(C) of the Edmonds Community
Development Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 15. Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title.
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
Packet Page 198 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 43 -
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 199 of 482
{BFP833858.DOC;1\00006.150243\ } - 44 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY REPEALING AND REENACTING CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF TITLE 20, TO WIT, CHAPTER 20.01 TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT PERMITS; CHAPTER 20.02 TYPE I - IV, DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT
APPLICATIONS, CHAPTER 20.03 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS; CHAPTER 20.04
CONSISTENCY WITH DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SEPA; CHAPTER 20.06
OPEN RECORD PUBLIC HEARINGS; CHAPTER 20.07 CLOSED RECORD APPEALS;
AND CHAPTER 20.08 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS ARE HEREBY AMENDED IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE REINSERTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AS AN
APPEAL BODY, MAKE TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS AND REVISE REFERENCES, 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 200 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 3
Councilmember Wilson observed the default could be a city choosing not to participate in the future. Therefore
if a city chose not to participate, the other cities would have a $300,000 liability. Mr. Nelson answered there was
no commitment to spend the $300,000 in the future. This agreement provides 3 years of free fiber and leaves
open the option for 30 years of fiber at a very low cost.
Council President Bernheim asked whether this was reviewed by committee. Mr. Nelson answered it was
reviewed by the Finance Committee.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the agreement terminated at the end of 30 years. Mr. Nelson explained
at the end of 30 years, the City would pay $500/month, the same arrangement the City has had with Blackrock
for the past year. Councilmember Plunkett asked what would happen if the City terminated the agreement in
three years. Mr. Nelson answered per the agreement SERS reached with Blackrock, at the end of 3 years, the
cities could combine their resources to pay an additional $300,000 one-time fee and they would also be given a
30-year Irrevocable Right of Use (IRU). If the cities chose not pursue an IRU, each city would start paying the
$500/mo for the Blackrock connection at the end of 3 years.
Finance Director Lorenzo Hines explained at the end of 3 years, the City had the option of paying $50,000 (1/6th
of $300,000) for 30 years of free fiber or return to the monthly rate of $500 ($180,000 over 30 years).
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified the City was currently paying Blackrock $500/month; the 3 years of free
fiber was an incentive for the City to pay its portion of $300,000 to receive 30 years of free fiber.
Council President Bernheim inquired about the Finance Committee’s recommendation with regard to this item.
Councilmembers Plunkett and Buckshnis answered the Finance Committee recommended approval. Council
President Bernheim pointed out the Finance Committee’s recommendation was not included in the agenda
memo. Mr. Hines advised the Finance Committee minutes reflect that the Committee recommended approval
and forwarded this item to the Council Consent Agenda at last week’s meeting.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised this agreement can be terminated but not without terminating the dark fiber
agreement.
Councilmember Wilson suggested in the future the agenda memo reflect action recommended by the Council
committee.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM E. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED UPDATES TO LAND USE PERMIT REVIEW
PROCEDURES CONTAINED IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC)
CHAPTERS 20.01 THROUGH 20.08, EXCLUDING 20.05, WHICH INCLUDE STAFF REASSUMING
THE PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECT APPLICATIONS; REORGANIZING AND
CLARIFYING PORTIONS OF TEXT; AND UPDATING THE PERMIT TYPE MATRIX IN ECDC
20.01.003.A. (FILE NO. AMD20100013).
Planner Mike Clugston explained the Planning Board forwarded to the Council several recommended changes to
the Land Use Permit Administration procedures in Title 20. The recommended changes include the two interim
zoning ordinances the Council passed in January reestablishing the Council’s role in closed record appeals.
Other changes include staff reassuming public notice requirements for project permit applications; previously
adopted changes made applicants responsible for notification. The proposed changes also include reorganizing
and clarifying text to make it more user friendly. The permit matrix in ECDC 20.01.003A was updated to reflect
the permits processed in Edmonds and a 90-day permit extension opportunity was added. The final change is the
draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was removed from the permit matrix. An EIS is not a land use
Packet Page 201 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 4
decision but a decision-making tool and there are separate requirements elsewhere in the ECDC and State
regulations that relate to hearings.
Councilmember Petso referred to language in the proposed ordinance that appeals be typed with a decent size
font and printed single sided. She assumed that was for the City’s convenience and asked whether an appeal be
rejected if those requirements were not met. Mr. Clugston answered the intent was to be able to read the
material. City Attorney Scott Snyder pointed out only the Council or the body to whom an appeal is made could
dismiss an appeal; staff accepts appeals but does not dismiss appeals.
Councilmember Petso asked the time of close of business for the second floor. Mr. Clugston answered 4:30.
Councilmember Petso suggested the appeal deadline be changed from 4:00 to 4:30.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the proposed changes reinstated the Council in land use appeals as a
quasi judicial body in approximately the same appeals as the Council heard previously. Mr. Snyder answered
yes. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the proposed ordinance required appeals be in writing or allowed
oral argument. Mr. Clugston answered the appeal and closed record hearing materials were required to be in
writing. Mr. Snyder advised that requirement was contained on page 33-34, Section 20.07.005C, “parties to the
appeal may present written arguments to the City Council.”
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the language did not state only written argument. Mr. Snyder recalled the
Council’s prior direction was to require written argument and that was the intent of the language. The language
could be clarified to state only written argument would be accepted. He pointed out the procedures in Section
20.07.005 do not contain a provision for oral argument. The Council’s record to date has been to limit the appeal
to a written record. Councilmember Plunkett acknowledged that may have been the direction of the Council
previously but this Council may be interested in amending that requirement.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the matrix does not define whether the appeal is written or oral. Mr.
Snyder explained the purpose of the matrix is to provide a simplified format; each process is described in more
detail in later sections of the code.
Councilmember Plunkett explained land use appeals were previously heard by the Council. A different City
Council took those decisions away from the City Council and required citizens to go to court. The proposed
ordinance reinstates the Council in those decisions. The Council previously discussed whether decisions would
be in writing only or whether there would be an opportunity for oral argument. The proposed ordinance requires
arguments to be in writing only rather than the previous procedure that allowed written and/or oral argument. He
suggested the audience speak to whether oral argument should be allowed or whether argument should be in
writing only. He expressed his intent to propose an amendment.
Councilmember Wilson explained Council had never taken itself out of land use decisions. The question was
who heard an appeal of a land use decision. In the recent past, Council acted only as legislators and not judges
and appeals were sent to a Hearing Examiner. The proposed ordinance returns appeals of land use decisions to
the Council. With regard to written versus oral argument, Councilmember Wilson recalled former Development
Services Director Duane Bowman advocated for a written appeal process because often when providing oral
argument, new information was provided that had the potential to influence the Council’s decision.
Councilmember Wilson asked staff’s opinion regarding the appropriate and standard practice for land use
appeals. Mr. Snyder recalled the concern that former Mayor Haakenson and he raised was that citizens who
often are not lawyers inadvertently providing new information during an appeal. This put an enormous burden
on the mayor, staff and him to try to review the information while oral argument was underway and identify
issues that may be outside the record. There are several ways this can be addressed, first, require argument be in
writing. He referred to page 34, paragraph G, pointing out the Council still has the ability to ask questions of the
appellant and parties of record. The formal presentation and argument by the appellant and respondent was
Packet Page 202 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 5
eliminated. Another option if the Council wanted to hear oral argument was to put the burden on the parties to
object to information outside the record. This often leads to an opportunity for each party to respond and make
citations to the record. The result may be delays so that parties can make formal objection and the other party
can indicate where the information is contained in the record.
Mr. Snyder commented he often felt uncomfortable during closed record hearings telling citizens they could not
say something. Staff’s intent is to keep argument to the record and if not, identify a mechanism that removed the
Mayor and the City Attorney from seemingly muzzling citizens during their argument. He commented on the
difficulty for staff to review a voluminous record while a party was providing comment to determine whether
information was/was not contained in the record. If the Council allowed oral argument, he suggested
formalizing the process to require objections by the parties.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented on the importance of the public or appellant having an opportunity to
decide whether to submit written materials or provide oral argument. In his experience Mr. Snyder had done an
excellent job during oral argument. He recalled a Councilmember who preferred to listen to oral argument over
reading the materials. He summarized the Council should allow oral argument. Next, he expressed concern with
administrative variances and asked whether there was criteria for administrative variances and whether there
were examples to assist the public and Council in understanding what matters were handled by administrative
variance. Another topic not addressed by the proposed ordinance was the form in which appeals could be
submitted, whether by email, fax, mail, or hand delivery. He was also concerned with development agreements
which can address maximum building heights, setback, phasing and design standards. He referred to language in
paragraph C on page 34 that states parties to an appeal may present written argument and paragraph D that states
while not required, the applicant may submit his written argument. He suggested as written, the ordinance would
allow oral or written argument.
Kathy Lester, Edmonds, suggested the appeal process should be allowed to be oral and in writing. She feared
eliminating the oral appeal process would reduce citizen participation. Without the ability to provide oral
comment, she envisioned a person attending a Council meeting would not have the ability to provide comment
on an appeal.
Betty Larman, Edmonds, explained three years ago she appealed an ADB decision to the City Council, using a
PowerPoint as part of her presentation. She did not recall Mr. Snyder informing her that she was providing new
information. She expressed support for the Council hearing appeals and for the public to witness the
proceedings. If information is provided in writing, the public is left out of the process. She expressed support for
allowing an appellant to decide whether to provide information in writing or orally.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, pointed out some may prefer to speak and some prefer to provide information in
writing depending on their abilities and what is more convenient. He recommended the option to provide
information orally or in writing be left up to the citizen.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
In response to Mr. Hertrich’s comment regarding administrative variances, Mr. Snyder explained the Council
approved an extensive revision of Chapter 18 a few months ago. That process included consolidation of 30-40
appeal routes for issues such as driveway surface area, street grade, etc. An example of an administrative
variance would be to increase the grade of a driveway from 12% to 15%.
With regard to providing appeals in writing or orally, Mr. Snyder explained a written document was required to
frame issues and determine whether the appeal was timely. Requiring an appellant to list the issues they are
appealing assists with providing order to the process.
Packet Page 203 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 6
With regard to development agreements, Mr. Snyder explained this provision was already in the code, and is a
codification of State statute, RCW 36.70A. He agreed that a number of issues could be addressed via a
development agreement, one of the primary provisions in the City’s code and State statute is the development
agreement must comply with the purposes and wording of the zoning ordinance. A development agreement
allows minor amendments to development processes and a public hearing is required. To assist citizens, the
State statute has been included in the City’s development code.
With regard to the use of “may” on page 34, Mr. Snyder explained “may” was used rather than “shall” to ensure
once a written appeal was filed, if an applicant felt it was frivolous and did not respond, they did not
automatically lose due to a requirement to submit a written response.
With regard to a person attending a Council meeting not having the ability to provide comment on an appeal,
Mr. Snyder explained these are closed record appeals and participation is limited to those who participated in the
open record hearing.
Mr. Clugston advised appeals must be in writing as there is a fee for filing an appeal.
Councilmember Petso asked whether an applicant could obtain an administrative variance for a height limit and
would there be an opportunity for appeal. Mr. Snyder answered an applicant could not obtain an administrative
variance for height. Mr. Clugston explained the only way to request a height variance was the variance process
via the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Snyder explained the standard topography variance under the City’s code, a full
open record process, would apply; there is no height variance in the administrative variance process.
Councilmember Petso asked whether a variance could be requested for underground wiring and whether the
appeal would come to the Council. Mr. Snyder recalled the undergrounding provisions have no variance
authority other than the standard subdivision variance that has variance criteria and is appealable to the Council.
He offered to confirm his recollection.
Council President Bernheim commented on the timeframe to submit written materials, suggesting the current
requirements contained in 20.07.005.D were somewhat constrained. He suggested consideration be given to
expanding the timeline from 12 days before the closed record review to submit written arguments, 7 days to
respond to the appellant’s argument, 4 days for rebuttal and 2 days for final surrebuttal, to 20 days, 10 days, 5
days and 1 day. Mr. Snyder explained the difficulty was the 120 day rule to act on permits. The process
including appeals must be completed within the 120 days exclusive of SEPA review. The proposed requirements
already consume approximately a month, leaving only 90 days for the remainder of the process. Planning
Manager Rob Chave noted another factor that drives the deadlines is including materials in the Council packet.
With regard to the 4:00 p.m. deadline for submitting an appeal, Mr. Chave explained the City does not accept
money after 4:00 p.m. as administrative accounting procedures require all accounts be reconciled by close of
business which is 4:30 p.m. Extending the deadline to 4:30 p.m. would create an administrative difficulty.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the liability for oral versus written appeal argument and whether the
City has ever had a liability. Mr. Snyder explained the Council must make its decision based on information in
the record. If a party injects new information during their argument and staff does not catch it and a
Councilmember relies on that information and it is included in the Findings of Fact, the decision could be
overturned by the court. If the Council does not want appeal argument in writing which provides an opportunity
to ensure that information outside the record is not included, he suggested the burden of proof be placed on the
parties to object at the hearing and require the other party to show where in the record the information was
contained. The intent was to make the process fair as well as appear to be fair. He recalled times when he has
had to inject himself into a person’s argument more than he is comfortable with. Councilmember Plunkett
Packet Page 204 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 7
commented Mr. Snyder has always done so expertly and professionally. Mr. Snyder summarized his concern
was he did not want to appear to be favoring one side over the other.
Mr. Chave commented the reverse was also true; he recalled a person who was delivering their oral argument
and was interrupted by staff questioning whether a fact was in the record. The person became flustered and lost
his train of thought. If the materials had been submitted in writing, staff could have identified any information
that was outside the record ahead of time. He summarized there was no easy solution but there were problems
with both methods.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how often problems arose with oral argument. Mr. Snyder answered when the
Council was holding closed record reviews, it was a rare occasion when information outside the record was not
introduced. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed Councilmember Plunkett’s comment that there had never been a
court issue. Mr. Snyder responded at times it had been very distracting for the person presenting their argument.
With regard to his offer to Councilmember Petso to confirm his recollection, Mr. Snyder reported Chapter 18.05
regarding utility wires does not contain a variance provision. There are exemptions for underground utility
substations and high voltage but no variance process.
Councilmember Wilson inquired about Councilmembers incurring personal liability in a quasi judicial
proceeding. He asked if a Councilmember would be exposed to personal liability if he/she relied on new
information provided during a closed record review and stated their position was based on that information. Mr.
Snyder answered not if a Councilmember was acting in good faith based on the information provided. He
explained the inability to provide new information at a close record review is due to the GMA’s requirement that
there only be one open record hearing. If new information is presented in the closed record review, it is
essentially a second open record hearing. That is also the reason that only parties of record can provide
information. The Council is limited to the record of the first hearing.
Mr. Snyder clarified a Councilmember could always be sued; the City has an indemnity ordinance to protect
Councilmembers for the good faith fulfillment of their acts. Under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, anyone
challenging a Councilmember based on a conflict of interest has the obligation to raise their objection at the
earliest opportunity. If a Councilmember refused to recuse themselves and they had a conflict of interest, they
could incur some personal liability. If new information was provided and considered, there was no liability for
an individual Councilmember, however, there was potential for litigation costs on appeal. He summarized new
information provided at the closed record review was a blemish on the record of the proceeding.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out during a closed record review, the Council sits as a judge rather than a
legislator. He asked if there were any courts of law in the United States where an appeal could be made without
a written brief. Mr. Snyder agreed all appeals must be in writing. At small claims court, parties are not required
to brief materials. Councilmember Wilson noted even with written briefs, there was an oral element in courts of
law via questioning. As proposed the Council would still have the opportunity to ask questions. Mr. Snyder
agreed. Councilmember Wilson summarized eliminating the written brief would be an uncommon practice. Mr.
Snyder explained “may” was used in the ordinance to keep the requirement loose so that a written response was
not required but the party could attend the closed record review and Council could ask questions if they desired.
Councilmember Plunkett pointed out the Supreme Court and most other courts allowed oral argument. Mr.
Snyder agreed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
APPROVE THE CHANGES RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON 7/28/10 AND
CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT 4, AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE
FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL.
Packet Page 205 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 8
COUNCIL PRESIDENT BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION; AMEND PAGE 34, SECTION 20.07.005.G TO READ, “THE REVIEW SHALL
COMMENCE WITH THE RESOLUTION OF APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS ISSUES, IF ANY,
FOLLOWED BY A ORAL PRESENTATIONS BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE GENERAL
BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE. AND THE
OTHER PARTIES. AFTER THE DIRECTOR’S PARTIES’ PRESENTATIONS, THE CITY COUNCIL
MAY ASK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS...”
Councilmember Plunkett commented he often learned from the oral presentation as well as the written materials.
He agreed some people may prefer to write their argument, others may prefer to provide it orally. When citizens
appeal a development, the developer usually has an attorney to write the brief; requiring a citizen to do the same
was not in their best interest. The timeframes are very short and although they may not be tight for an attorney
whose job it is to write the brief, the timelines would be difficult for a citizen to meet. He preferred to provide
citizens the best opportunity to provide their case.
Councilmember Wilson commented the proposed ordinance allows for written argument and oral
question/answer. He asked whether the proposed amendment will allow written argument and require an oral
presentation. To address this issue, Council President Bernheim revised the amendment as follows:
“...FOLLOWED BY THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ORAL PRESENTATIONS BY THE DIRECTOR AND
THE OTHER PARTIES...”
Mr. Snyder advised if the amendment was approved, he had several clarifying questions for the Council about
other procedures that would need to be changed.
To the comment that an attorney was better able to provide written arguments without an attorney a citizen was
out of luck, Councilmember Peterson pointed out one of an attorney’s key skills was oral argument. If oral
argument was allowed without any written materials, an attorney was better able than the average citizen to
provide oral argument. He disagreed with the idea that allowing only oral argument served the citizen better.
Requiring written argument allows the information be fact-checked prior to the closed record review. An
attorney may be better able to present information in an oral presentation which upon review may not be factual
which leaves the appeal in jeopardy. He was also concerned with a process that allowed objection to oral
argument, pointing out an attorney would be much better at making objections. He feared allowing oral
argument would increase the need for an appellant to be represented by an attorney. He pointed out the proposed
ordinance did not exclude oral argument; parties would simply be required to submit a written outline of points
they planned to cover. He supported the requirement for a written record.
Councilmember Plunkett preferred to give the citizen as much latitude as possible and to allow them the choice
to provide written and/or oral argument. He agreed Council could ask questions during a closed record review
but the ability to make oral argument would allow a citizen to emphasize what they felt was most important.
Councilmember Petso recalled during her appeal to the Council, there were objections and claims that
information was not in the record. She recalled Mr. Snyder provided both sides an opportunity to submit a letter
identifying where in the record information was contained and all claims that information was not in the record
were resolved quickly by Mr. Snyder. If oral presentation is not allowed, one of the most powerful tools for
citizens to communicate would be lost including the ability to provide a PowerPoint with photographs,
diagrams, etc. She agreed via oral argument, the public also has the ability to hear the information. She
summarized that allowing PowerPoints and the public to view the process outweighs the advantage attorneys
may have via oral argument.
Council President Bernheim pointed out the proposed ordinance requires a clear, written statement of the
grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based with specific reference to facts in the record.
Packet Page 206 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 21, 2010
Page 9
Councilmember Peterson asked whether a PowerPoint handout would be considered written materials. Mr.
Snyder responded that was one of his questions to the Council if this amendment passed. If the amendment did
not pass, he clarified the Council was not excluding oral argument, it must be supplemented with written
argument. He agreed with the importance of allowing oral argument.
AMENDMENT CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON AND PETERSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Snyder suggested he draft the following procedural rules:
1. Reasonable time limits for oral argument be established by the Mayor.
2. A procedure be drafted for parties to make objections and provide opportunity to respond. An option
would be to continue the public hearing to allow response. The sole basis for objection would be the
material cited in argument was not in the record of the proceeding.
3. “Shall” in Section 20.07.004.D.7 and F be changed to “should” (All written submittals shall should be
typed on letter size paper...)
4. Does the Council want PowerPoint presentations to be submitted in conjunction with parties’ briefs? He
suggested any PowerPoint presentation be attached to a brief or rebuttal brief and will not count toward
the page count. Council President Bernheim commented as long as a PowerPoint did not contain new
information it could be presented along with oral argument
Mr. Snyder advised he would draft a list of rules and procedures for the Council’s review in conjunction with
consideration of a final ordinance.
Council President Bernheim thanked staff for their work, noting there had been several changes back and forth
as well as changes in the composition of the City Council.
Councilmember Peterson did not support the motion, explaining when Councilmembers served in a quasi
judicial capacity, they were unable to speak to citizens about issues they may be passionate about. He preferred
Councilmembers act as legislators and not judges.
Councilmember Wilson expressed support for the motion, envisioning the process would operate smoothly
regardless of the details.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER
PETERSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Snyder advised a closed record appeal under the interim ordinance was scheduled on October 19. That
appeal would be subject to the limitation of written argument; there will not be oral argument as the appeal will
proceed under the rules in effect on the date the appeal was filed. He advised the final ordinance and rules and
procedures would be presented to the Council in 2-3 weeks.
4. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SIX-YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2011-
2016).
Councilmember Wilson pointed out all the funding allocations from the assumed passage of the Transportation
Benefit District (TBD) vote were in the fourth year and beyond. He assumed that would change if the ballot
measure passed. He questioned why the public hearing and Council approval of the Six-Year TIP was being
held tonight rather than waiting until after the vote. City Engineer Rob English explained when the Council
approved the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) in December 2009, they requested it be presented earlier in the year.
The presentation on the CFP will describe how the CIP and CFP interrelate. If the TBD ballot measure passes in
November, he suggested the Council take up the matter in the first quarter of 2011, noting the TBD Board will
also be making some key decisions regarding how projects are programmed.
Packet Page 207 of 482
AM-3534 Item #: 2. M.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Kernen Lien
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Ordinance amending the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code by repealing
and reenacting Chapter 20.15A relating to Environmental Review (SEPA), amending Chapter
20.03 Public Notice Requirements, to add a new section relating to SEPA noticing requirements,
and fixing a time when the same shall become effective.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve attached ordinance (Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
The ECDC 20.15A update was discussed with the CS/DS Committee on May 12, 2009. An
introduction to the proposed updates recommended by the Planning Board was presented to the
Council on July 27, 2010. The City Council held Public Hearings on the proposed updates on
September 7, 2010. The Planning Board recommendation included proposed increases to SEPA
flexible thresholds for certain new construction. The City Council voted unanimously to bring
the SEPA update back without the proposed changes to the flexible thresholds. The attached
ordinance is the updates to ECDC 20.15A without the increases to the flexible thresholds.
Narrative
The City of Edmonds SEPA regulations are codified in ECDC 20.15A. The City’s original SEPA
regulations were adopted under Ordinance 1855 in 1976. In 1984, the City adopted Ordinance
No. 2461 which created ECDC 20.15A in order to come into compliance with the new (at that
time) SEPA rules in WAC 197-11 and model SEPA ordinance in WAC 173-806. The ECDC
20.15A the City uses today is essentially the same ordinance that was adopted 25 years ago
having under gone only five minor amendments in that time.
ECDC 20.15A was reviewed as part of the City’s comprehensive review of its development
regulations. Due to changes in the RCW’s, WAC’s, and the City’s own code, ECDC 20.15A was
long over due for an update. Below is an outline of items and issues that were considered under
this review.
1. Adoption by reference.
ECDC 20.15A adopts significant portions of WAC 197-11 (SEPA rules) by reference. Sections
of WAC 197-11 have been added and/or removed since the City adopted Ordinance No. 2461 in
1984, particularly in regards to SEPA and GMA integration. This update reviewed changes in
WAC 197-11 and the adoption lists in ECDC 20.15A to ensure the City is up-to-date and
Packet Page 208 of 482
WAC 197-11 and the adoption lists in ECDC 20.15A to ensure the City is up-to-date and
compliant with state regulations.
2. Model code.
ECDC 20.15A is largely based off the model code in WAC 173-806. As with WAC 197-11, there
have been changes to WAC 173-806 since 1984. This update reviewed WAC 173 806 and made
updates to ECDC 20.15A where appropriate to ensure the City is up-to-date and compliant with
state regulations.
3. Consistency.
As with the state rules, Edmonds Community Development Code has under gone a number of
amendments since 1984. This update reviewed ECDC 20.15A to ensure it remains consistent with
the rest of the City’s development regulations.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: ECDC 20.15A Ordinance
Exhibit 2: September 7, 2010 Council Minutes Excerpt
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/10/2010 12:12 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Kernen Lien Started On: 11/09/2010
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 209 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 1 -
0006.90000
WSS/gjz
9/10/10
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY
REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 20.15A
RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA),
AMENDING CHAPTER 20.03 PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS, TO ADD A NEW SECTION RELATING TO
SEPA NOTICING REQUIREMENTS, AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City’s environmental review processes were established shortly
after the adoption of the State Environmental Protection Act; and
WHEREAS, over the years, changes have been made both in the Act and in the
regulations which implement its provisions; and
WHEREAS, following receipt of the recommendation of the City’s Planning
Board, and having considered the comments of the public as put forward at public hearings
before both the Planning Board and the City Council, the City Council deems it to be in the
public interest to amend the provisions of Chapter 20.15A to incorporate changes in state law
and regulation and to amend the provisions of ECDC 20.03 relating to noticing requirements,
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Edmonds Community Development Code is hereby amended by
the repeal and reenactment of Chapter 20.15A to read as follows:
Packet Page 210 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 2 -
Chapter 20.15A
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA)
Sections:
20.15A.010 Authority.
20.15A.020 General SEPA Requirements - Adoption by
reference.
20.15A.025 Reliance on existing laws, plans and regulations
20.15A.030 Additional definitions.
20.15A.040 Designation of responsible official.
20.15A.050 Lead agency determination and responsibilities.
20.15A.060 Rules for deciding probable significant, adverse
environmental impacts– Adoption by reference.
20.15A.080 Categorical exemptions – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.090 Categorical exemptions – Flexible thresholds.
20.15A.100 Categorical exemptions – Use of exemptions.
20.15A.110 Determination – Review at conceptual stage.
20.15A.120 Environmental checklist.
20.15A.130 Threshold determinations – Mitigated DNS.
20.15A.140 Environmental impact statement (EIS) –
Adoption by reference.
20.15A.150 Preparation of EIS – Additional considerations.
20.15A.160 Commenting – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.170 Public notice.
20.15A.180 Designation of official to perform consulted
agency responsibilities.
20.15A.190 Using existing environmental documents –
Adoption by reference.
20.15A.195 Planned Actions
20.15A.200 SEPA decisions – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.210 SEPA decisions – Nonexempt proposals.
20.15A.220 SEPA decisions – Substantive authority.
20.15A.230 SEPA – Policies.
20.15A.240 Appeals.
20.15A.250 Notice/statute of limitations.
20.15A.260 Definitions – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.270 Compliance with SEPA – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.280 Repealed.
20.15A.290 Fees.
20.15A.300 Forms – Adoption by reference.
20.15A.310 Severability.
Packet Page 211 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 3 -
20.15A.010 Authority.
The city of Edmonds adopts the ordinance codified in this chapter
under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), RCW
43.21C.120 and the SEPA rules WAC 197-11-904. The city’s
substantive policies and procedures for SEPA are contained in this
chapter. The SEPA rules contained in Chapter 197-11 WAC must
be used in conjunction with this chapter.
20.15A.020 General SEPA Requirements - Adoption by
reference.
This part contains the basic requirements that apply to the SEPA
process. The city adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11
WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference:
197-11-040 Definitions.
197-11-050 Lead agency.
197-11-055 Timing of the SEPA process.
197-11-060 Content of environmental review.
197-11-070 Limitations on actions during SEPA process.
197-11-080 Incomplete or unavailable information.
197-11-090 Supporting documents.
197-11-100 Information required of applicants.
197-11-210 SEPA/GMA integration.
197-11-220 SEPA/GMA definitions.
197-11-228 Overall SEPA/GMA integration procedures.
197-11-230 Timing of an integrated GMA/SEPA process.
197-11-232 SEPA/GMA integration procedures for preliminary
planning, environmental analysis, and expanded
scoping.
197-11-235 Documents.
197-11-250 SEPA/Model Toxics Control Act integration.
197-11-253 SEPA lead agency for MTCA actions.
197-11-256 Preliminary evaluation.
197-11-259 Determination of nonsignificance for MTCA
remedial actions.
197-11-262 Determination of significance and EIS for MTCA
remedial actions.
197-11-265 Early scoping for MTCA remedial actions.
197-11-268 MTCA interim actions.
20.15A.025 Reliance on existing plans, laws and regulations
In reviewing the environmental impacts of a project and making a
threshold determination, the City may determine that the
Packet Page 212 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 4 -
requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and mitigation
measures in the City’s development regulations and
comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in
other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, provide
adequate analysis of and mitigation for some or all of the specific
adverse environmental impacts of the project consistent with the
initial SEPA analysis identified in ECDC 20.04.002.
20.15A.030 Additional definitions.
In addition to those definitions contained within WAC 197-11-700
through 197-11-799 and 197-11-220, when used in this chapter the
following terms shall have the following meanings, unless the
content indicates otherwise:
A. “Department” means any division, subdivision or
organizational unit of the city established by ordinance, rule or
order.
B. “SEPA Rules” means Chapter 197-11 WAC adopted by the
Department of Ecology.
C. “Ordinance” means the ordinance, resolution, or other
procedure used by the city to adopt regulatory requirements.
D. “Early notice” means the city’s response to an applicant
stating whether it considers issuance of a determination of
significance likely for the applicant’s proposal (mitigated
determination of nonsignificance (DNS) procedures).
20.15A.040 Designation of responsible official.
A. For those proposals for which the city is a lead agency, the
responsible official shall be the planning manager or his/her
designee.
B. For all proposals for which the city is a lead agency, the
responsible official shall make the threshold determination,
supervise scoping and preparation of any required EIS and perform
any other functions assigned to the lead agency or responsible
official by those sections of the SEPA rule that have been adopted
by reference.
C. The city shall retain all documents required by the SEPA
rules (Chapter 197-11 WAC) and make them available in
accordance with chapter 42.17 RCW.
Packet Page 213 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 5 -
20.15A.050 Lead agency determination and responsibilities.
A. The responsible official or the department receiving an
application for or initiating a proposal that involves a nonexempt
action shall determine the lead agency for that proposal under
WAC 197-11-050, WAC 197-11-253, and WAC 197-11-922
through 197-11-940, unless the lead agency has been previously
determined or the department is aware that another department or
agency is in the process of determining the lead agency.
B. When the city is the lead agency for a proposal, the
responsible official shall supervise compliance with the threshold
determination requirements, and if an EIS is necessary, shall
supervise preparation of the EIS.
C. When the city is not the lead agency for a proposal, all
departments of the city shall use and consider as appropriate either
the DNS or the final EIS of the lead agency in making decisions on
the proposal. No city department shall prepare or require
preparation of a DNS or EIS in addition to that prepared by the
lead agency unless the city determines a supplemental
environmental review is necessary under WAC 197-11-600.
D. If the city, or any of its departments, receives a lead agency
determination made by another agency that appears inconsistent
with the criteria of WAC 197-11-253 or WAC 197-11-922 through
197-11-940, it may object to the determination. Any objection
must be made to the agency originally making the determination
and resolved within 15 days of receipt of the determination or the
city must petition the Department of Ecology for a lead agency
determination under WAC 197-11-946 within the 15-day time
period. Any such petition on behalf of the city may be initiated by
the responsible official.
E. The responsible official is authorized to make agreements
as to lead agency status or shared lead agency duties for a proposal
under WAC 197-11-942 and 197-11-944:provided, that the
responsible official and any department that will incur
responsibilities as the result of such agreement approve that
agreement.
F. The responsible official shall require sufficient information
from the applicant to identify which other agencies have
jurisdiction over the proposal.
Packet Page 214 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 6 -
G. When the city is lead agency for a MTCA remedial action,
the Department of Ecology shall be provided an opportunity under
WAC 197-11-253(5) to review the environmental documents prior
to public notice being provided. If the SEPA and MTCA
documents are issued together with one public comment period
under WAC 197-11-253(6), the city shall decide jointly with
Ecology who receives the comment letters and how copies of the
comments letters will be distributed to the other agency.
20.15A.060 Rules for deciding probable significant, adverse
environmental impact – Adoption by reference.
This part contains the rules for deciding whether a proposal has a
“probable significant, adverse environmental impact” requiring an
environmental impact statement (EIS) to be prepared. This part
also contains rules for evaluating impacts of proposals not
requiring an EIS. The city adopts the following sections of
Chapter 197-1l WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended by
reference as supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-300 Purpose of this part.
197-11-305 Categorical exemptions.
197-11-310 Threshold determination required.
197-11-315 Environmental checklist.
197-11-330 Threshold determination process.
197-11-335 Additional information.
197-11-340 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).
197-11-350 Mitigated DNS.
197-11-355 Optional DNS process.
197-11-360 Determination of significance (DS)/initiation of
scoping.
197-11-390 Effect of threshold determination.
20.15A.080 Categorical exemptions – Adoption by reference.
The city adopts the following rules for categorical exemption of
Chapter 197-11, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by
reference, as supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-800 Categorical exemptions.
197-11-880 Emergencies.
197-11-890 Petitioning DOE to change exemptions.
Packet Page 215 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 7 -
20.15A.090 Categorical exemptions – Flexible thresholds.
A. The proposed actions contained in this section are
categorically exempt from threshold determination and EIS
requirements, subject to the rules and limitations on categorical
exemptions contained in ECDC 20.15A.100. The exemptions in
this section apply to all licenses required to undertake the
construction in question, except when undertaken wholly or partly
on lands covered by water. To be exempt under this section, the
project must be equal to or smaller than the exempt level.
B. The city establishes the following exempt level for minor
new construction based on local conditions in addition to those
standards adopted by reference.
C. For landfills and excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v)
up to 500 cubic yards.
D. The responsible official shall send copies of all adopted
flexible thresholds to the Department of Ecology, Headquarters
Office, Olympia, Washington.
20.15A.100 Categorical exemptions – Use of exemptions.
A. When the city receives an application for a license or, in the
case of governmental proposals a department initiates a proposal,
the responsible official shall determine whether the license and/or
the proposal is exempt. The determination that a proposal is
exempt shall be final and not subject to administrative review. If a
proposal is exempt, none of the procedural requirements of this
chapter shall apply to the proposal. The city shall not require
completion of an environmental checklist for an exempt proposal.
B. In determining whether or not a proposal is exempt the
responsible official shall make certain the proposal is properly
defined and shall identify the governmental license required. If a
proposal includes exempt and nonexempt actions, the responsible
official shall determine the lead agency even if the license
application that triggers the consideration is exempt.
C. If a proposal includes both exempt and nonexempt actions,
the city may authorize exempt actions prior to compliance with the
procedural requirements of this chapter, except that:
1. The city shall not give authorization for:
Packet Page 216 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 8 -
a. Any nonexempt action;
b. Any action that would have an adverse environmental
impact; or
c. Any action that would limit the choice of reasonable
alternatives.
2. The city may withhold approval of any permit, application
or proposal, the basis of which is an exempt action that would lead
to modification of the physical environment, when such
modification would serve no purpose if the nonexempt actions
were not approved.
3. The city may withhold approval of any permit, application
or proposal, the basis of which is an exempt action that would lead
to substantial financial expenditures by a private applicant when
the expenditures would serve no purpose if the nonexempt actions
were not approved.
20.15A.110 Determination – Review at conceptual stage.
A. If the city’s only action on a proposal is a decision on a
building permit or other licenses that requires detailed project
plans and specifications, the applicant may request in writing that
the city conduct environmental review prior to submission of the
detailed plans and specifications.
B. In addition to the environmental documents an applicant
shall submit the following information for early environmental
review:
1. A copy of any permit or license application;
2. Other information as the responsible official may
determine.
20.15A.120 Environmental checklist.
A. Except as provided in subsection (E) of this section, a
completed environmental checklist, in the form provided in WAC
197-11-960, shall be filed at the same time as an application for a
permit, license, certificate or other approval not specifically
exempted by this chapter; except, a checklist is not needed if the
city and applicant agree an EIS is required, SEPA compliance has
been completed, or SEPA compliance has been initiated by another
Packet Page 217 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 9 -
agency. The city shall use the environmental checklist to
determine the lead agency, and if the city is the lead agency, for
making the threshold determination. .
B. For private proposals, the applicant is required to complete
the environmental checklist. The city may provide assistance as
necessary. For city proposals the department initiating the proposal
shall complete the environmental checklist for that proposal.
C. The city may decide to complete all or part of the
environmental checklist for a private proposal, if any of the
following occurs:
1. The city has technical information on a question or
questions that is unavailable to the private applicant; or
2. The applicant has provided inaccurate information on
previous proposals or on proposals currently under consideration;
or
3. On the request of the applicant.
D. The applicant shall pay to the city the actual costs of
providing information under paragraphs C(2) and C(3) of this
section.
E. For projects submitted as planned actions under ECDC
20.04.003.B, the city shall use its existing environmental checklist
form or may modify the environmental checklist form as provided
in WAC 197-11-315. The modified environmental checklist form
may be prepared and adopted along with or as part of a planned
action ordinance; or developed after the ordinance is adopted. In
either case, a proposed modified environmental checklist form
must be sent to the Department of Ecology to allow at least a
thirty-day review.
20.15A.130 Threshold determinations – Mitigated DNS.
A. The responsible official may issue a determination of
nonsignificance (DNS) based on conditions attached to the
proposal by the responsible official or on changes to, or
clarifications of, the proposal made by the applicant.
B. An applicant may request in writing early notice of whether
a DS is likely. The request must:
Packet Page 218 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 10 -
1. Follow submission of a permit application and
environmental checklist for a nonexempt proposal for which the
department is lead agency; and
2. Precede the city’s actual threshold determination for the
proposal.
C. The responsible official’s response to the request for early
notice shall:
1. Be written;
2. State whether the city currently considers issuance of a DS
likely and, if so, indicate the general or specific areas of concern
that are leading the city to consider a DS; and
3. State that the applicant may change or clarify the proposal
to mitigate the indicated impacts, and may revise the
environmental checklist and/or permit application as necessary to
reflect the changes or clarifications.
D. As much as possible, the city should assist the applicant
with identification of impacts to the extent necessary to formulate
mitigation measures.
E. When an applicant submits a changed or clarified proposal,
along with a revised environmental checklist, the city shall base its
threshold determination on the changed or clarified proposal:
1. If the city indicated specific mitigation measures in its
response to the request for early notice, and the applicant changed
or clarified the proposal to include those specific mitigation
measures, the city shall issue and circulate a determination of
nonsignificance if the city determines that no additional
information or mitigation measures are required.
2. If the city indicated areas of concern, but did not indicate
specific mitigation measures that would allow it to issue a DNS,
the city shall make the threshold determination, issue a DNS or DS
as appropriate.
3. The applicant’s proposed mitigation measures,
clarifications, changes or conditions must be in writing and must
be specific. For example, proposals to “control noise” or “prevent
stormwater runoff” are inadequate, whereas proposals to “muffle
Packet Page 219 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 11 -
machinery to X decibel” or “construct 200-foot stormwater
retention pond at Y location” are adequate.
4. Mitigation measures which justify issuance of a mitigated
DNS may be incorporated in the DNS by reference to agency staff
reports, studies or other documents.
F. A mitigated DNS is issued under either WAC 197-11-
340(2), requiring a fourteen-day comment period and public
notice, or WAC 197-11-355, which may require no additional
comment period beyond the comment period on the notice of
application..
G. Mitigation measures incorporated in the mitigated DNS
shall be deemed conditions of approval of the licensing or permit
decision and may be enforced in the same manner as any term or
condition of the permit or enforced in any matter specifically
prescribed by the city. Failure to comply with the designated
mitigation measures shall be grounds for suspension and/or
revocation of any license or permit issued.
H. If the city’s tentative decision on a permit or approval does
not include mitigation measures that were incorporated in a
mitigated DNS for the proposal, the city should evaluate the
threshold determination to assure consistency with WAC 197-11-
340(3) (a) relating to the withdrawal of a DNS.
I. The city’s written response under subsection C of this
section shall not be construed as a determination of significance. In
addition, preliminary discussion of clarification or changes to a
proposal, as opposed to a written request for early notice, shall not
bind the city to consider the clarifications or changes in its
threshold determination.
20.15A.140 Environmental impact statement (EIS) –
Adoption by reference.
This section contains the rules for preparing environmental impact
statements. The city adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-
11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference as
supplemented by this chapter:
197-11-400 Purpose of EIS.
197-11-402 General requirements.
197-11-405 EIS types.
197-11-406 EIS timing.
Packet Page 220 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 12 -
197-11-408 Scoping.
197-11-410 Expanded scoping.
197-11-420 EIS preparation.
197-11-425 Style and size.
197-11-430 Format.
197-11-435 Cover letter or memo.
197-11-440 EIS contents.
197-11-442 Contents of EIS on nonproject proposals.
197-11-443 EIS contents when prior nonproject EIS.
197-11-444 Elements of the environment.
197-11-448 Relationship of EIS to other considerations.
197-11-450 Cost-benefit analysis.
197-11-455 Issuance of DEIS.
197-11-460 Issuance of FEIS.
20.15A.150 Preparation of EIS – Additional considerations..
A. Preparation of draft and final EISs and SEISs shall be under
the direction of the responsible official. Before the city issues an
EIS, the responsible official shall be satisfied that it complies with
this chapter and Chapter 197-11 WAC.
B. The draft and final EIS or SEIS shall be prepared at the
city’s option by the city staff, the applicant or by a consultant
approved by the city. If the responsible official requires an EIS for
a proposal and determines that someone other than the city will
prepare the EIS, the responsible official shall notify the applicant
immediately after completion of the threshold determination. The
responsible official shall also notify the applicant of the city’s
procedure for EIS preparation, including approval of the draft and
final EIS prior to distribution.
C. The city may require an applicant to provide additional
information which the city does not possess, including information
which must be obtained by specific investigations. This provision
is not intended to expand or limit an applicant’s other obligations
under WAC 197-11-100, or other provisions of regulation, statute,
or ordinance. An applicant shall not be required to produce
information under this provision which is not specifically required
by this chapter nor is the applicant relieved of the duty to supply
any other information required by statute, regulation or ordinance.
20.15A.160 Commenting – Adoption by reference.
This part contains rules for consulting, commenting, and
responding on all environmental documents under SEPA,
Packet Page 221 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 13 -
including rules for public notice and hearings. The city adopts the
following sections of Chapter 197-1l WAC, as now existing or
hereinafter amended, by reference as supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-500 Purpose of this part.
197-11-502 Inviting comment.
197-11-504 Availability and cost of environmental documents.
197-11-508 SEPA register.
197-11-510 Public notice.
197-11-535 Public hearings and meetings.
197-11-545 Effect of no comment.
197-11-550 Specificity of comments.
197-11-560 FEIS response to comments.
197-11-570 Consulted agency costs to assist lead agency.
20.15A.170 Public notice.
Public notice for SEPA reviews shall be carried out as described in
ECDC 20.03.004.
20.15A.180 Designation of official to perform consulted
agency responsibilities.
A. The responsible official shall be responsible for preparation
of written comments for the city in response to a consultation
request prior to a threshold determination, participation in scoping
and reviewing of a draft EIS.
B. The responsible official shall be responsible for the city’s
compliance with WAC 197-11-550 whenever the city is a
consulted agency and is authorized to develop operating
procedures that will ensure that responses to consultation requests
are prepared in a timely fashion and include data from all
appropriate departments of the city.
20.15A.190 Using existing environmental documents –
Adoption by reference.
This part contains rules for using and supplementing existing
environmental documents prepared under SEPA or National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the City’s own
environmental compliance. The city adopts the following sections
of Chapter 197-1l WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended,
by reference:
Packet Page 222 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 14 -
197-11-168 Ordinances or resolutions designating planned
actions – Procedures for adoption.
197-11-172 Planned actions – Project review.
197-11-600 When to use existing environmental documents.
197-11-610 Use of NEPA documents.
197-11-620 Supplemental environmental impact statements.
197-11-625 Addenda – Procedures.
197-11-630 Adoption – Procedures.
197-11-635 Incorporation by reference – Procedures.
197-11-640 Combining documents.
20.15A.195 Planned Actions
Definition and criteria for planned actions within the City are
included in ECDC 20.04.003.B.
20.15A.200 SEPA decisions – Adoption by reference.
This part contains rules and policies for SEPA’s substantive
authority, such as decisions to mitigate or reject proposals as a
result of SEPA. This part also contains procedures for appealing
SEPA determinations to agencies or the courts. The city adopts the
following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now existing or
hereinafter amended, by reference:
197-11-650 Purpose of this part.
197-11-655 Implementation.
197-11-660 Substantive authority and mitigation.
197-11-680 Appeals.
197-11-700 Definitions.
20.15A.210 SEPA decisions – Nonexempt proposals.
For nonexempt proposals, the DNS or draft EIS for the proposal
shall accompany the city staff’s recommendation to any
appropriate advisory body such as the planning board. If a final
EIS is or becomes available, it shall be substituted for the draft.
20.15A.220 SEPA decisions – Substantive authority.
A. The city may attach conditions to a permit or approval for a
proposal so long as:
1. Such conditions are necessary to mitigate specific probable
adverse environmental impacts clearly identified in an
environmental documents prepared pursuant to this chapter; and
Packet Page 223 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 15 -
2. Such conditions are in writing; and
3. The mitigation measures included in such conditions are
reasonable and capable of being accomplished; and
4. The city has considered whether other local, state or federal
mitigation measures applied to the proposal are sufficient to
mitigate the identified impacts; and
5. Such conditions are based on one or more policies in
subsection C of this section or ECDC 20.15A.230 and cited in the
permit, approval, license or other decision document.
B. The city may deny a permit or approval for a proposal on
the basis of SEPA so long as:
1. A finding is made that approving the proposal would result
in probable significant adverse environmental impacts that are
identified in a final EIS or final supplemental EIS prepared
pursuant to this chapter; and
2. A finding is made that there are no reasonable mitigation
measures sufficient to mitigate the identified impact; and
3. The denial is based on one or more policies identified in
subsection C of this section or in ECDC 20.15A.230 and identified
in writing in the decision document.
C. The City designates and adopts by reference the following
policies as the basis for the City’s exercise of authority pursuant to
this section:
1. The City shall use all practicable means, consistent with
other essential considerations of state policy, to improve and
coordinate plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that
the state and its citizens may:
a. Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of
the environment for succeeding generations;
b. Assure for all people of Washington safe, healthful,
productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;
Packet Page 224 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 16 -
c. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the
environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other
undesirable and unintended consequences;
d. Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of
our national heritage;
e. Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which
supports diversity and variety of individual choice;
f. Achieve a balance between population and resource use
which will permit high standards of living and wide sharing of
life’s amenities; and
g. Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach
the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.
2. The City recognizes that each person has a fundamental
and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each
person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and
enhancement of the environment.
20.15A.230 SEPA – Policies.
A. The policies and goals set forth in this chapter are
supplementary to those in the existing authorization of the city.
B. The city adopts by reference the policies in the following
city codes, ordinances, resolutions and plans, as now existing or
hereinafter amended, as a possible basis for the exercise of
substantive authority in the conditioning or denying of proposals.
Chapter 43.21C RCW, State Environmental Policy Act;
Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program;
Chapter 5.05 ECC, Animal Control;
ECC Title 6, Health and Sanitation;
ECC Title 8, Traffic;
ECC Title 9, Streets and Sidewalks;
ECDC Title 15, Land Use Plans and Policies;
ECDC Title 16, Zone Districts, and Title 17, General Zoning
Regulations;
ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements;
ECDC Title 19, Building Codes;
ECDC Title 20, Review Criteria and Procedures;
ECDC Title 21, Definitions;
ECDC Title 22, Design Standards
Packet Page 225 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 17 -
ECDC Title 23, Natural Resources
City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and adopted elements.
20.15A.240 Appeals.
A. Any interested person may appeal a threshold
determination, adequacy of a final EIS and the conditions or
denials of a requested action made by a non-elected city official
pursuant to the procedures set forth in this section. No other SEPA
appeal shall be allowed.
B. All appeals filed pursuant to this section must be filed in
writing with the director of community services within 14 calendar
days of the date of the decision; provided that when a 14 day DNS
comment period is required pursuant to this chapter, appeals may
be filed no later than the 21 calendars from the date of decision.
C. On receipt of a timely written notice of appeal, the director
of community services shall advise the hearing examiner of the
pendency of the appeal and request that a date for considering the
appeal be established. The decision of the hearing examiner shall
be final and shall not be appealable to the city council.
D. Appeals shall be governed by the procedures specified in
Chapter 20.06 ECDC.
E. All relevant evidence shall be received during the hearing
of the appeal. The procedural determination by the city’s
responsible official shall carry substantial weight in any appeal
proceeding.
F. For any appeal under this section, the city shall provide for
a record that shall consist of the following:
1. Findings and conclusions;
2. Testimony under oath; and
3. A taped or written transcript.
G. The city may require the applicant to provide an electronic
transcript.
H. The city shall give official notice under WAC 197-11-
680(5) whenever it issues a permit or approval for which a statute
or ordinance establishes a time limit for commencing judicial
appeal.
Packet Page 226 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 18 -
Packet Page 227 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 19 -
20.15A.250 Notice/statute of limitations.
A. The city, applicant for, or proponent of an action may
publish a notice of action pursuant to RCW 43.21C.080 for any
action.
B. The form of the notice shall be substantially in the form
provided in WAC 197-11-990. The notice shall be published by
the city clerk, applicant or proponent pursuant to RCW
43.21C.080.
20.15A.260 Definitions – Adoption by reference.
This part contains uniform usage and definitions of terms under
SEPA. The city adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11
WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference, as
supplemented in this chapter:
197-11-700 Definitions.
197-11-702 Act.
197-11-704 Action.
197-11-706 Addendum.
197-11-708 Adoption.
197-11-710 Affected tribe.
197-11-712 Affecting.
197-11-714 Agency.
197-11-716 Applicant.
197-11-718 Built environment.
197-11-720 Categorical exemption.
197-11-721 Closed record appeal.
197-11-722 Consolidated appeal.
197-11-724 Consulted agency.
197-11-726 Cost-benefit analysis.
197-11-728 County/city.
197-11-730 Decision maker.
197-11-732 Department.
197-11-734 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).
197-11-736 Determination of significance (DS).
197-11-738 EIS.
197-11-740 Environment.
197-11-742 Environmental checklist.
197-11-744 Environmental document.
197-11-746 Environmental review.
197-11-750 Expanded scoping.
197-11-752 Impacts.
197-11-754 Incorporation by reference.
Packet Page 228 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 20 -
197-11-756 Lands covered by water.
197-11-758 Lead agency.
197-11-760 License.
197-11-762 Local agency.
197-11-764 Major action.
197-11-766 Mitigated DNS.
197-11-768 Mitigation.
197-11-770 Natural environment.
197-11-772 NEPA.
197-11-774 Nonproject.
197-11-775 Open record hearing.
197-11-776 Phased review.
197-11-778 Preparation.
197-11-780 Private project.
197-11-782 Probable.
197-11-784 Proposal.
197-11-786 Reasonable alternative.
197-11-788 Responsible official.
197-11-790 SEPA.
197-11-792 Scope.
197-11-793 Scoping.
197-11-794 Significant.
197-11-796 State agency.
197-11-797 Threshold determination.
197-11-799 Underlying governmental action.
20.15A.270 Compliance with SEPA – Adoption by reference.
This part contains rules for agency compliance with SEPA,
including rules for charging fees under the SEPA process,
designating categorical exemptions that do not apply within critical
areas, listing agencies with environmental expertise, selecting lead
agency, and applying these rules to current agency activities. The
city adopts the following sections of Chapter 197-11 WAC, as now
existing or hereinafter amended, by reference, as supplemented in
this chapter:
197-11-900 Purpose of this part.
197-11-902 Agency SEPA policies.
197-11-916 Application to ongoing actions.
197-11-920 Agencies with environmental expertise.
197-11-922 Lead agency rules.
197-11-924 Determining the lead agency.
197-11-926 Lead agency for governmental proposals.
197-11-928 Lead agency for public and private proposals.
Packet Page 229 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 21 -
197-11-930 Lead agency for private projects with one agency
with jurisdiction.
197-11-932 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses
from more than one agency, when one of the
agencies is a county/city.
197-11-934 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses
from a local agency, not a county/city, and one or
more state agencies.
197-11-936 Lead agency for private projects requiring licenses
from more than one state agency.
197-11-938 Lead agencies for specific proposals.
197-11-940 Transfer of lead agency status to a state agency.
197-11-942 Agreements on lead agency status.
197-11-944 Agreements on division of lead agency duties.
197-11-946 DOE resolution of lead agency disputes.
197-11-948 Assumption of lead agency status.
20.15A.280 Environmentally sensitive areas.
Repealed by Ord. 3345.
20.15A.290 Fees.
A. The city shall require the following fees for its activities in
accordance with the provisions of this chapter:
1. Threshold Determination. For every environmental
checklist the city reviews as lead agency, the city shall collect a fee
set by Chapter 15.00 ECDC from the proponent of the proposal
prior to undertaking the threshold determination. This fee may be
waived as provided therein. The time periods provided by this
chapter from making a threshold determination shall not begin to
run until fee has been paid or waived in writing by the responsible
official. When the city assists the applicant or completes the
environmental checklist at the applicant’s request under ECDC
20.15A.120 (C), an additional fee equal to the estimated actual cost
of providing the assistance shall be collected.
2. Environmental Impact Statement.
a. When the city is the lead agency for a proposal requiring an
EIS and the responsible official determines that the EIS shall be
prepared by employees of the city, the city may charge and collect
a reasonable fee from any applicant to cover costs incurred,
including overhead, by the city in preparing the EIS. The
Packet Page 230 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 22 -
responsible official shall advise the applicant of the projected costs
for the EIS prior to actual preparation.
b. The responsible official may determine that the city will
contract directly with a consultant for preparation of an EIS, or a
portion of the EIS, for activities initiated by some persons or entity
other than the city and may bill such costs and expenses directly to
the applicant. Such consultants shall be selected by mutual
agreement of the city and applicant after a call for proposals.
c. The applicant shall pay the projected amount to the city
prior to commencing work. The city will refund the excess, if any,
at the completion of the EIS. If the city’s cost exceeds the
projected costs, the applicant shall immediately pay the excess. If a
proposal is modified so that an EIS is no longer required, the
responsible official shall refund any fees collected under
subsections (B)(1) or (2) of this section which remain after
incurred costs, including overhead, are paid.
3. The city may collect a reasonable fee from an applicant to
cover the cost of meeting the public notice requirements of this
chapter relating to the applicant’s proposal.
4. The city shall not collect a fee for performing its duties as a
consulted agency.
5. The city may charge any person for copies of any document
prepared under this chapter, and for mailing the document, in a
manner provided by Chapter 42.17 RCW. [Ord. 2829 § 1, 1991].
20.15A.300 Forms – Adoption by reference.
The city adopts the following forms and sections of Chapter 197-
11 WAC, as now existing or hereinafter amended, by reference:
197-11-960 Environmental checklist.
197-11-965 Adoption notice.
197-11-970 Determination of nonsignificance (DNS).
197-11-980 Determination of significance and scoping notice
(DS).
197-11-985 Notice of assumption of lead agency status.
197-11-990 Notice of action.
Packet Page 231 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 23 -
12.15A.310 Severability.
If any provision of this chapter or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance, or the
application of the provision to other persons or circumstances,
shall not be affected.
Section 2. The Edmonds Community Development Code 20.03.004 relating to
SEPA noticing requirements is hereby amended to add a new section to read as follows:
20.03.004 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) notice.
* * *
.
A. Whenever possible, the city shall integrate the public notice
required under this subsection with existing notice procedures for
the City’s nonexempt permits(s) or approvals(s) required for the
proposal.
B. Whenever the City issues a Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) under WAC 197-11-340(2) or a
Determination of Significance (DS) under WAC 197-11-360(3) the
City shall give public notice as follows:
1. If public notice is required for a nonexempt license, the
notice shall state whether a DS or DNS has been issued and when
comments are due.
2. If an environmental document is issued concurrently with
the notice of application, the public notice requirements for the
notice of application in RCW 36.70B.110(4) will suffice to meet
the SEPA public notice requirements in WAC 197-11-510(1).
3. If no public notice is otherwise required for the permit or
approval, the City shall give notice of the DNS or DS by:
a. Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
b. Mailed to real property owners as shown by the
records of the county assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of
the property, for site specific proposals; and
Packet Page 232 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 24 -
c. Publishing notice in the City’s official newspaper
(or if one has not been designated, in a newspaper of general
circulation within the City).
4. Whenever the City issues a DS under WAC 197-11-360(3),
the City shall state the scoping procedure for the proposal in the
DS as required in WAC 197-11-408 and in the public notice.
C. If a DNS is issued using the optional DNS process, the
public notice requirements for a notice of application in RCW
36.70B.110(4) as supplemented by the requirements in WAC 197-
11-355 will suffice to meet the SEPA public notice requirements in
WAC 19711-510(1)(b).
D. Whenever the City issues a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) under WAC 197-11-455(5) or a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) under WAC 197-11-620,
notice of the availability of those documents shall be given by:
1. Indicating the availability of the DEIS in any public notice
required for a nonexempt license;
2. Posting the property, for site specific proposals;
3. Mailed to real property owners as shown by the records of
the county assessor within 300 feet of the boundary of the
property, for site specific proposals; and
4. Publishing notice in the City’s official newspaper (or if one
has not been designated, in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City).
E. Public notice for projects that qualify as planned actions
shall be tied to underlying permit, the notice shall state that the
project has qualified as a planned action. If notice is not otherwise
required for the underlying permit, no special notice is required.
F. The City may require an applicant to complete the public
notice requirements for the applicant’s proposal at his or her
expense.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
Packet Page 233 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 25 -
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
Packet Page 234 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 26 -
APPROVED:
MAYOR MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. SCOTT SNYDER
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 235 of 482
{WSS819985.DOC;1\00006.900000\ }- 27 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE BY
REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 20.15A RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW (SEPA), AMENDING CHAPTER 20.03 PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, TO
ADD A NEW SECTION RELATING TO SEPA NOTICING REQUIREMENTS, 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 236 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 2
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE (ECDC) 20.15A ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA). THE UPDATE IS BEING
CONDUCTED AS PART OF THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ITS
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE UPDATE IS BEING DONE TO ENSURE ECDC 20.15A
IS CONSISTENT WITH WAC 197-11, WAC 173-806, AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THIS UPDATE INCLUDES
PROPOSED INCREASES TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FLEXIBLE THRESHOLD
LEVELS FOR THE MEDICAL/HIGHWAY 99 ACTIVITY CENTER AS DEFINED BY THE CITY
OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Councilmember Plunkett observed there was no recommendation from Mayor and Staff for Agenda Item
3 or 4 nor any potential action. He asked whether these were public hearings with future potential action
or was it anticipated the Council would take action tonight. Council President Bernheim explained after
the public hearing the Council would determine how to proceed.
Mayor Cooper advised this item began before he was the Mayor and there was no recommendation from
the Mayor at this time.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the difference between Agenda Items 3 and 4, observing that the
narratives in the agenda memos were nearly the same. Mayor Cooper explained the items were split at the
Council’s request when the Council last discussed it. Associate Planner Kernen Lien explained when this
topic was introduced to the Council in July, it was decided to split the Planning Board’s recommendation.
His presentation this evening included an introduction that applied to both areas, the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor.
When Mr. Lien reached the end of the introduction, he suggested the Council make a determination
whether to hear the presentation on both areas before opening the public hearing.
Mr. Lien explained Washington State’s Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was first adopted in 1971.
Among other things, the law requires all state and local governments within the state to:
• “Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the
natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making
which may have impact on man’s environment,” and
• Ensure that “...environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in
decision making along with economic and technical considerations...” (RCW 43.21C.030(2)(a)
and (2)(b).
Any governmental action may be conditioned or denied pursuant to SEPA. The environmental review
process in SEPA is designed to work with other regulations to provide a comprehensive review of a
proposal. Where most regulations focus on a particular aspect of a proposal, SEPA requires identification
and evaluation of probable impacts of all elements of the environment. Proposals can be project proposals
such as fill and grade, new development, etc. or they can be non-project proposals such as Comprehensive
Plan changes, rezones, etc.
The City of Edmonds SEPA regulations are codified in Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) 20.15A. The City’s first SEPA regulations were adopted in 1976. In 1984 the City adopted
Ordinance No. 2461 which created ECDC 20.15A to be compliant with new SEPA rules in WAC 197-11
and model SEPA ordinances in WAC 173-806. The SEPA regulations the City uses today are essentially
the same ordinance that was adopted 25 years ago having undergone only minor amendments during that
time. Due to changes in the WAC, RCW and the City’s own development regulations since the SEPA
ordinance was adopted, the update to ECDC 20.15A is long overdue.
Packet Page 237 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 3
This update focused on the following four issues:
• Adoption by Reference – WAC 197-11
ECDC 20.15A adopts by reference significant portions of WAC 197-11, the State’s SEPA rules.
Sections of 197-11 have been added or removed since the City adopted its SEPA regulations in
1984 particularly in regard to SEPA-GMA integration. This update reviewed the changes in
WAC 197-11, the adopted list in 20.15A to ensure the City is up-to-date and compliant with the
State’s regulations.
• Model Code – WAC 173-806
ECDC 20.15A is largely based on the State’s model code in WAC 173-806. There have been
changes to the model code since 1984. This update reviewed the model code and made changes to
the City’s SEPA regulations where appropriate to ensure the City is up-to-date and compliant
with the State’s regulations.
• Consistency within ECDC
The City’s development code has undergone a number of amendments since 1984. This update
ensures the SEPA regulations are consistent with the rest of the City’s development regulations.
• Categorical Exemptions Flexible Thresholds
The State’s rules allow local jurisdictions to modify the categorically exempt flexible threshold
levels for certain minor new development. Once the threshold is reached, a SEPA review is
required.
Mr. Lien reviewed the Categorical Exemptions Thresholds in WAC 197-11-800(1) where the City could
adjust the thresholds:
• The construction or location of any residential structures of four dwelling unit – Can be modified
up to 20 dwelling units.
• The construction of agricultural buildings – Does not apply in Edmonds.
• The construction of an office, school, commercial, recreational, service or storage building with
4,000 square feet of gross floor area, and associated parking facilities designed for 20
automobiles – Can be modified up to 12,000 square feet and 40 automobiles.
• The construction of a parking lot designed for 20 automobiles – Can be modified up to 40
automobiles.
• Any landfill or excavation of 100 cubic yards – Can be modified up to 500 cubic yards, and has
been at 500 cubic yards since 1984 when the City adopted the ordinance that established 20.15A.
In response to a question raised by the Council regarding why consideration should be given to adjusting
the flexible thresholds, Mr. Lien explained:
• State Rules allow the City to adjust exempt levels where “supported by local conditions,
including zoning or other land use plans or regulations.”
• Determining the environmental impact of a development depends on context and intensity.
Context may vary by physical setting; intensity depends on the magnitude and duration of the
impact. Some proposals may have a significant impact in one location but not in another.
• The Comprehensive Plan provides policy guidance on what type of development should be
encouraged in different areas of the City. The Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway
99 Corridor are identified as areas for more intensive development and areas where the City is
interested in expanding the economic tax base of the City by providing incentives for businesses
and commercial development.
• Comprehensive Plan also provides guidance regarding streamlining the permit process.
Mr. Lien provided several excerpts from the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with regard to
the Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
Packet Page 238 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 4
• Highway 99 is recognized as a “…high-intensity development corridor.” (Pg. 59)
• The Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center “…is intended to be an intensively development mixed
use, pedestrian friendly environment…” (Pg. 59)
• Goals for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor include:
o To expand the economic and tax base of the City of Edmonds by providing incentives for
business and commercial redevelopment in a planned activity center;
o Recognize and plan for the distinct difference in opportunities and development character
provided by the Highway 99 corridor versus the local travel access patterns on local streets;
(Pg. 59)
• Policy A.6 of the Activity Center and Corridor Section states:
o Uses adjoining the Highway 99 corridor should provide more intensive levels of mixed use
development. (Pg. 60)
• The Highway 99 Corridor:
o Its economic vitality is important to Edmonds and should be supported. Commercial
development in this area is to be encouraged to its maximum potential. (Pg. 71)
• In-fill Development:
o The overall plan direction has been termed “designed infill” and can be seen in the City’s
emphasis and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more
flexible standards, and improving its design guidelines. (Pg. 150)
• Edmonds Economic Development Plan
o Promote a results-oriented permit and licensing process, which consolidates review
timelines, eliminates unnecessary steps, and maintains a strong customer service approach.
(Pg. 14)
Mr. Lien summarized the Comprehensive Plan identifies the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the
Highway 99 Corridor as areas where more intensive development is appropriate. Increasing the SEPA
threshold for these areas is one way to achieve Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for encouraging
development and streamlining the permit process.
The Planning Board undertook a thorough review of the Categorical Exemption Threshold levels and
recommended the following:
• For landfills and excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) maintain 500 cubic yards in all
locations through the City.
• Increase flexible threshold in the Highway 99 Corridor and Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
as follows:
o Residential units: 20 units
o New construction: 12,000 square feet
o Parking: 40 spaces
o Landfill or excavation: 500 cubic yards (no change)
When this matter was last presented to the Council, a decision was made to split the Planning Board’s
recommendation into parts for the public hearing. Consistency with RCW, WAC, and ECDC applies to
both proposals. One proposal increases flexible thresholds for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
and the second proposal increases flexible thresholds for Highway 99 Corridor. The above information
applies to both the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and the Highway 99 Corridor.
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
Mr. Lien displayed a map identifying the boundaries of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, 208th
Street to the north, 80th Avenue to the west, Highway 99 to the east and 228th Street SW to the south. He
reiterated the statements in the Comprehensive Plan about the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, that
it is intended to encourage the development of a pedestrian and transit oriented area focused on two
Packet Page 239 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 5
master planned developments, Stevens Hospital and Edmonds-Woodway High School with the related
high intensity development corridor along Highway 99. The overall character of the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center is intended to be an intensively developed mixed use, pedestrian-friendly environment in
which buildings are linked by walkways served by a centralized parking and landscaping to promote
pedestrian activity in a park-like atmosphere.
Mr. Lien displayed a map of the Comprehensive Plan designations within the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center, explaining the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is an overlay, not a Comprehensive
Plan designation. The Comprehensive Plan designations within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
include Highway 99 Corridor, Public near the High School, Medical around the hospital, Mixed-Use in
the center and Single Family Urban.
He displayed a map of the zoning within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center that exemplifies the
mixture of uses in the area that include General Commercial along Highway 99 (CG and CG2),
Community Business, Neighborhood Business, Public, Single Family and Multi Family zones.
The Planning Board’s recommendation for increasing the Categorical Exemption Threshold levels for the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center are:
• For landfills and excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) maintain 500 cubic yards in all
locations through the City
• Increase flexible threshold as follows:
o Residential units: 20 units
o New construction: 12,000 square feet
o Parking: 40 spaces
o Landfill or excavation: 500 cubic yards (no change)
With regard to the impact of increasing the flexible thresholds in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center, Mr. Lien explained a total of 193 SEPA reviews have been conducted by the City between
January 2004 and July 2010. Of those, 113 would be subject to the flexible thresholds. Of the 113, 95
exceeded 500 cubic yards fill and/or grade. He noted the largest trigger for SEPA review is fill and grade.
If the proposed increase in the flexible thresholds for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center were in
place, 2 of the 193 projects would have been exempt from SEPA review.
He emphasized SEPA is only one part of the regulatory requirements; the City has other processes and
regulations to provide public notice and hearing opportunity and to control issues that would be
considered such as transportation impacts and Critical Areas regulations. SEPA cannot control the level
of development on a property; it can only condition development based on impacts that are not otherwise
addressed in the code. SEPA has very little impact on development in single family zones.
Mr. Lien provided a case study for a 10-lot residential development in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center, stressing this was a hypothetical development on real property.
• Subject Site and Assumptions
o 7723 and 7807 220th Street SW
o Three parcels totaling 1.92 acres
o Zoned RS-8
o Assumes SEPA exemption thresholds have been increased
• 10-lot subdivision
• Formal Subdivision – Five or more lots
• Multi-Step review and approval process
o Preliminary Approval – Type III-B decision before Hearing Examiner
Packet Page 240 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 6
o Civil Design Review and Approval
o Construction of improvements or Bonding
o Final Approval – Type IV-A decision before City Council
• Formal Subdivision review criteria in ECDC 20.75.085
o Environmental
Minimize impacts or impose restrictions to avoid impacts
Minimize grading
Can be denied if hazardous to future residents or nearby property owners
Designed to minimize offsite impacts
o Lot and Street Layout
Contain usable building area
Special provisions to minimize traffic hazards
Zoning Dimensional Requirements
Pedestrian walks or bicycle paths
o Dedications
City Council may require dedication of land for public use
City Council may approve dedication of park land
Dedication of land for streets
o Improvements
Streets, curbs, sidewalks, stormwater, utilities, etc.
Improvements determined by ECDC Title 18 and Chapter 19.75 Fire Code
Septic may be approved if certain conditions are met
o Comply with Flood Plain Management
• City Development Codes that may apply
o ECDC 16.20 Single- Family Residential
o ECDC 17.10 Bonds
o ECDC 17.50 Off-Street Parking
o ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires
o ECDC 18.80 Streets and Driveways
o ECDC 18.82 Traffic Impact Fees
o ECDC 18.85 Street Trees
o ECDC 18.90 Sidewalks
o ECDC 18.10 Sewers
o ECDC 18.30 Stormwater Management
o ECDC 18.40 Grading and Retaining Walls
o ECDC 18.45 Land Clearing and Tree Cutting
o ECDC 19.25 Fire Code
o ECDC 20.75 Subdivisions
o ECDC 23.40 – ECDC 23.90 Critical Area Regulations
• Review for consistency with development regulations
o The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed if the criteria
for their approval have been satisfied
o The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential development in urban
growth areas, or other measures of density
o Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified in the
Comprehensive Plan
o Whether the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as
required by Chapter 36.70A RCW
• Notice of Application and Public Hearing
o Publish Everett Herald
o Post Subject Site
o Mail to property owners within 300 feet
Packet Page 241 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 7
o City of Lynwood (subject property within 1 mile of Lynnwood)
o Snohomish County (subject property adjacent to Snohomish County)
• Public Hearing before Hearing Examiner
o Type III-B decision
o Appealable to City Council
• Applicant prepares civil design
• Civil Design Review and Approval by City’s Engineering Division
• Once civil design approved, applicant must complete or bond for the required improvements
• Final Approval
o Type IV-A decision by City Council
o Type IV-A decisions require public notice
Notice published in Everett Herald
Posted on site
Mailed to property owners within 300 feet
o City Council’s decision appealable to Superior Court
Mr. Lien explained to this point it was assumed the project would be exempt from SEPA. When a project
is reviewed for SEPA, it must meet all the exemption threshold levels. In the above case study, a 10-lot
subdivision would meet the exemption threshold but it would require significant improvements for
sidewalks, roads, utilities, stormwater, etc. which would likely exceed the 5,000 cubic yard threshold.
Had SEPA applied to this project, SEPA review would be conducted with the underlying subdivision
application. In addition to the land use consistency review, the City will review the proposed subdivision
for consistency with RCW 43.21C (SEPA), the SEPA rules in WAC 197-11, and the City’s SEPA
regulations in ECDC 20.15A and will:
• Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately analyze all of the
proposed project’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts.
• Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to adequately address
identified environmental impacts.
• Provide prompt and coordinated review by other government agencies and the public on
compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific
project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development
regulation level.
• It is only when existing local, state, or federal regulations do not provide adequate mitigation that
additional conditions under SEPA may be applied.
Mr. Lien reviewed SEPA notice requirements:
• SEPA Threshold Determinations are Type II decisions requiring public notice
• SEPA notice likely combined with Notice of Application and public hearing
• Additional SEPA notice requirements
o Other agencies with jurisdiction
o Department of Ecology
o Posted on SEPA Register at Ecology
• SEPA comment period & appeal
o 14-day comment period on Threshold Determination
o Threshold Determination appealable to Hearing Examiner
Mr. Lien summarized key points from this case study:
• Formal Subdivisions have significant review criteria that must be met
• Public notice and public hearing are required
• SEPA does not significantly add to the review process for formal subdivision
Packet Page 242 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 8
It was the consensus of the Council to combine the public hearing on the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center and the Highway 99 Corridor and Mr. Lien proceeded with his presentation regarding the
Highway 99 Corridor.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CODE (ECDC) 20.15A ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SEPA). THE UPDATE IS BEING
CONDUCTED AS PART OF THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ITS
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE UPDATE IS BEING DONE TO ENSURE ECDC 20.15A
IS CONSISTENT WITH WAC 197-11, WAC 173-806, AND THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THIS UPDATE INCLUDES
PROPOSED INCREASES TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FLEXIBLE THRESHOLD
LEVELS FOR THE HIGHWAY 99 CORRIDOR AS DEFINED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Mr. Lien provided a map of the Highway 99 Corridor, a narrow corridor from approximately 210th Street
SW to the north to 244th Street SW/Lake Ballinger Way to the south. He referred to the Comprehensive
Plan policies for the Highway 99 Corridor that state uses adjoining the Highway 99 corridor should
provide more intensive levels of mixed use development and the Highway 99 corridor’s economic vitality
is important to Edmonds and should be supported. Commercial development in this area is to be
encouraged to its maximum potential.
Mr. Lien displayed a map of Highway 99 Corridor Comprehensive Plan designations, explaining that
unlike the Activity Center which is an overlay with several Comprehensive Plan designations, the
Highway 99 Corridor itself is a Comprehensive Plan designation. He provided a map of the zoning within
the Highway 99 Corridor; the majority is CG (60 foot building heights) and CG2 (75 foot building
heights), there is also BC and BN zoning as a transition to the residential neighborhoods and limited
amounts of multi family zoning on the fringes of the corridor.
The Planning Board’s recommendation for increasing the Categorical Exemption Threshold levels for the
Highway 99 Corridor are the same as the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center:
• For landfills and excavations in WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(v) maintain 500 cubic yards in all
locations through the City.
• Increase flexible threshold as follows:
o Residential units: 20 units
o New construction: 12,000 square feet
o Parking: 40 spaces
o Landfill or excavation: 500 cubic yards (no change)
With regard to the impact of increasing the flexible thresholds in the Highway 99 Corridor, Mr. Lien
explained a total of 193 SEPA reviews have been conducted by the City between January 2004 and July
2010. Of those, 113 would be subject to the flexible thresholds. Of the 113, 95 exceeded 500 cubic yards
fill and/or grade. If the proposed increase in the flexible thresholds for the Highway 99 Corridor were in
place, 1 of the 193 projects would have been exempt from SEPA review. He reiterated SEPA is only one
part of the regulatory requirements; the City has other processes and regulations to provide public notice
and hearing opportunity and to control issues that would be considered such as transportation impacts and
Critical Areas regulations. SEPA cannot control the level of development on a property; it can only
condition development based on impacts that are not otherwise addressed in the code.
Mr. Lien provided a case study for a mixed use development in the Highway 99 Corridor, reiterating this
was a hypothetical development on real property.
• Subject Site and Assumptions
Packet Page 243 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 9
o 23320 Highway 99
o Two parcels totaling 2.29 acres
o Zoned CG
o Assumes SEPA exemption thresholds have been increased
• Mixed use Development
o 12,000 square feet commercial area on ground floor
o 20 residential units above
o Permitted Use in CG Zone (CG is the most permissive zone, the only use in CG zone that
requires Conditional Use Permit is an aircraft landings strip)
Staff Review, no public hearing required
Type I Design on District Base Design Review conducted by staff
• Reviewed for consistency with development regulations
o The type of land use permitted at the site, including uses that may be allowed if the criteria
for their approval have been satisfied
o The level of development, such as units per acre, density of residential development in urban
growth areas, or other measures of density
o Availability and adequacy of infrastructure and public facilities identified in the
Comprehensive Plan
o Whether the plan or development regulations provide for funding of these facilities as
required by Chapter 36.70A RCW
• City Development Codes that may apply
o ECDC 16.60 CG – General Commercial: CG and CG2 Zones
o ECDC 17.10 Bonds
o ECDC 17.50 Off-Street Parking
o ECDC 18.05 Utility Wires
o ECDC 18.10 Sewers
o ECDC 18.30 Stormwater Management
o ECDC 18.40 Grading and Retaining
o ECDC 19.15 Mechanical Code and Fuel Gas Code
o ECDC 19.20 Plumbing Code
o ECDC 19.25 Fire Code
o ECDC 19.30 Energy Code
o ECDC 19.35 Ventilation Code
o ECDC 19.45 Housing Code
o ECDC 19.55 Electrical Code Walls
o ECDC 18.80 Streets and Driveways
o ECDC 18.82 Traffic Impact Fees
o ECDC 18.85 Street Trees
o ECDC 18.90 Sidewalks
o ECDC 18.95 Parking Lot Construction
o ECDC 19.00 Building Code
o ECDC 19.05 Residential Building Code
o ECDC 20.12 District Based Design Review
o ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements
o ECDC 20.15A Environmental Review (SEPA)
o ECDC 20.60 Sign Code
o ECDC 23.40 – ECDC 23.90 Critical Area Regulations
When a project is reviewed for SEPA, it must meet all the exemption thresholds. This case study has
12,000 square feet of commercial area and 20 residential units which would meet the exemption under the
increased threshold levels. However, during consistency review, the off-street parking regulations in
ECDC 17.50 are also reviewed. Assuming the 20 residential units are 2-bedroom, 1.8 parking spaces
Packet Page 244 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 10
would be required for each or a total of 36 spaces. The 12,000 square feet of office with commercial
service requires 1 space/400 square feet or 30 parking spaces. The total parking required would be 66
spaces which would exceed the SEPA exemption threshold of 40 parking spaces.
Mr. Lien reviewed the project review process for this case study:
• Pre-application conference
o A form that lists the requirements for a complete application
o A general summary of the procedures to be used to process the application
o The references to the relevant code provisions or development standards which may apply to
approval of the application
o The City’s design guidelines
• Complete application
o Routed to departments/divisions with permit review responsibility
o Reviewed for consistency with Development Regulations
o District Based Design Review
• SEPA review conducted with underlying development permit application
The City will review the proposed subdivision for consistency with RCW 43.21C (SEPA), the SEPA
rules in WAC 197-11, and the City’s SEPA regulations in ECDC 20.15A and will:
• Determine whether applicable regulations require studies to adequately analyze all of the
proposed project’s specific probable adverse environmental impacts
• Determine whether applicable regulations require mitigation measures to adequately address
identified environmental impacts
• Provide prompt and coordinated review by other government agencies and the public on
compliance with applicable environmental laws and plans, including mitigation for specific
project impacts that have not been considered and addressed at the plan or development
regulation level
• It is only when existing local, state, or federal regulations do not provide adequate mitigation that
additional conditions under SEPA may be applied
Mr. Lien reviewed SEPA notice requirements:
• SEPA Threshold Determinations are Type II decisions requiring public notice
o Publish Everett Herald
o Post subject site
o Mail to property owners within 300 feet
• Additional SEPA Notice Requirements
o Other agencies with jurisdiction
o Department of Ecology
o Posted on SEPA Register at Ecology
• City also posts SEPA determinations at City Hall, Public Safety Building, Library and Post office
• SEPA Comment Period & Appeal
o 14-day comment period on Threshold Determination
o Threshold Determination appealable to Hearing Examiner
o Design Review Type I decision appealable to Superior Court
o Other permit decisions on the application may be appealable to Hearing Examiner or Superior
Court depending on specific code section
Mr. Lien summarized key points from this case study:
• Highway 99 and CG zones are one of the most permissive areas in the City. Anything permitted
or requiring a CUP in any other zone in the City is permitted outright in the CG zones other than
an aircraft strip.
Packet Page 245 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 11
• Projects must meet all SEPA exemptions in order to be exempt from SEPA review. The focus has
been on flexible threshold levels, but there are also categorical exemptions, statutory exemptions,
and several exemptions in WAC 197-11-800. If a project does not meet one of the exemption
levels, SEPA would be required.
• SEPA provides an opportunity for public comment and notice
Councilmember Petso asked whether any changes had been made to the provisions in the code where the
City prepares the SEPA checklist for the developer. Mr. Lien responded no changes were made and that
section remains as it currently exists in the SEPA regulations. Completion of the SEPA checklist for a
developer is an option in the model code. In his experience, no developers have asked staff to complete
the SEPA checklist for them. One of the instances cited when staff would fill out the SEPA checklist was
if misinformation had been provided in the past. If the City completed the SEPA checklist, the developer
would be charged for that service.
Councilmember Petso asked where the City’s code departed from the model code with its .025 section,
the model ordinances refers to 158. Mr. Lien explained the section above .025 contains an adoption by
reference list. WAC 197-11-158 is contained within the adoption by reference list, the same code the City
has in another section, ECDC 20.04.002.C. Rather than adopt that section of WAC when an equivalent
section in the City’s code, he referenced it in the adoption list. Councilmember Petso asked whether the
section in the City’s code replacing the WAC makes it any less protective. Mr. Lien answered the
language is essentially the same. Councilmember Petso noted the WAC mentions planning staff will
review the environmental checklist. That was not stated in the substitute section. Mr. Lien answered that
was a given, that was how a developer applied for SEPA review, they submitted a SEPA checklist. There
are other sections that refer to the developer preparing a SEPA checklist.
Councilmember Petso referred to the case studies Mr. Lien provided; the first example was a 10-unit
subdivision on 2 parcels. She asked whether there would be public notice provided if the proposal was 4
units on the western parcel. Mr. Lien answered there would be public notice for a 4-lot subdivision which
is a Type II decision. The same notice requirements would be required for a short plat as are required for
a formal plat. The difference would be the preliminary approval of a short plat is a Type II staff decision,
appealable to the Hearing Examiner versus preliminary approval for a formal subdivision which is a Type
III-B decision which is appealable to the City Council.
Councilmember Petso asked whether major projects on Highway 99 could be proposed without public
notice. Mr. Lien answered if SEPA was not required, there could be major projects on Highway 99
without public notice because the CG zones are the most permissive zone in the City. There are other
zones in the Highway 99 Corridor.
Observing that the ability for staff to complete the SEPA checklist had been in the code for the past 25
years, Councilmember Plunkett assumed City Attorney Scott Snyder was comfortable with staff
completing the SEPA checklist with regard to the City’s liability. Mr. Snyder referred to the Public Duty
Doctrine that generally holds that neither the City nor City staff is liable for simple negligence absent an
ultra-hazardous condition or special relationship. The completion of a SEPA checklist is akin to an
inspection by a Building Inspector.
Council President Bernheim asked who directed that this effort be undertaken, to rewrite Chapter 20.15A?
Mr. Lien answered this is part of the comprehensive code rewrite. The points under review were first
introduced at the Community Services/Development Services Committee in May 2009 and the question
was asked whether to consider the categorical exemption since the Comprehensive Plan includes policies
and goals for those two areas. Staff would have been remiss if they did not ask the question whether to
consider it during the update. It was presented as an option to the Planning Board and the Planning Board
Packet Page 246 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 12
decided that given the economic development direction from the Council, it should be considered. The
Planning Board’s consideration resulted in the recommendation provided to the City Council.
Council President Bernheim asked who suggested the categorical exemption for 40 parking spaces,
12,000 square foot building and 20 units? Mr. Lien stated it was staff’s suggestion. The Planning Board
requested staff present proposals; that was one of several proposals considered by the Planning Board.
Council President Bernheim referred to Section 20.15A.130.E.3 that states “The applicant’s proposed
mitigation measures, clarifications, changes or conditions must be in writing and must be specific.” He
expressed concern with the proposed additional language, “For example, proposals to “control noise” or
“prevent stormwater runoff” are inadequate, whereas proposals to “muffle machinery to X decibel” or
“construct 200-foot stormwater retention pond at Y location” are adequate.” Mr. Lien answered that
language was taken from the model ordinance.
Council President Bernheim referred to a section that states the City shall share the EIS consultant rather
than the City having sole authority. Mr. Lien answered that was also taken from the model ordinance.
Council President Bernheim asked why this much time was being spent on the amendment if it would
have only impacted 2 projects in the past 25 years? Mr. Lien answered he was surprised by the number of
projects that would not be exempt by the proposal. The Planning Board recommended this amendment as
part of the SEPA update.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how long it took to complete a SEPA checklist. Mr. Lien answered it
depends on the complexity of the project; it could take one to a few hours depending on the person’s
familiarity with the project and how much information is included. Councilmember Buckshnis
commented in view of all the other requirements, completing a checklist would not be much more
burdensome. Mr. Lien answered the checklist was only part of the process. SEPA adds to the permit
“hoops” a developer would need to go through. The Comprehensive Plan addresses streamlining the
permit process. This was one thing that could be done to streamline the permit process.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Colleen McDonald, Edmonds, a resident of unincorporated Esperance within 300 feet of the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, expressed her opposition to the proposed changes to the exemption
thresholds for the Activity Center area. One of the goals for the Medical Activity Center in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan is to avoid encroaching into single family neighborhoods; this proposed change
would do just that. While the proposed change would only affect a small number of projects according to
planning staff, the magnitude of the increase is substantial for those living next to a project; 4 houses to
20 houses, 40,000 square feet to 12,000 square feet for commercial building, and 20 parking spaces to 40
parking spaces. She pointed a large residential neighborhood was currently included in the Medical
Activity Center and sections of the Center border other neighborhoods. She supported development in
appropriate locations and would be willing to consider changes if there were a way to appeal an
exemption; according to the current wording, an exemption was final and there was no opportunity for
appeal. Approving this change would send a message to residents in neighborhood within the Medical
Activity Center that commercial development was more important than preserving neighborhoods. She
questioned the proposal to expand the threshold to the maximum allowed, commenting that may be
appropriate for a large city but not for Edmonds. She urged the Council to vote against the proposed
change in the interest of the families who live in the targeted areas.
Todd Cloutier, Edmonds, commented the flexible thresholds could be omitted and the remaining
changes adopted without any noticeable impact. He commented on the inappropriate use of SEPA to
control development when the intent of SEPA is environmental protection. The City controls
Packet Page 247 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 13
development via the development code not by misapplication of environmental concerns to achieve
development goals. He acknowledged there were real development concerns in the Medical Activity
Center area and there are numerous single family residences in that area. The area needs to be reviewed in
more detail, an issue separate from this SEPA proposal. A recent proposal for a large medical facility in
the Medical Activity Center zone located within a residential neighborhood highlighted the problem with
the boundaries of the Medical Activity Center. SEPA is not the correct tool to stop that development; the
development code is. The Planning Board recommended tailoring the SEPA review level to the area,
areas with proposed raised thresholds are completely built out and the environment is already understood
and development regulations prevent doomsday development regulations. The expected impact of
changes to the flexible thresholds is minimal. SEPA checklists are not a large burden and if there is an
environmental concern, it should be addressed. He recommended adoption of the proposed SEPA changes
with the exception of the new flexible thresholds. To address the real development problems in the
Medical Activity Center, he recommended a reassessment of the boundaries of that area in the
Comprehensive Plan as well as a review of the zoning in that area. He voiced a similar concern along
Highway 99, commenting that although Highway 99 was appropriately zoned, the areas directly adjacent
should be considered as a transition area.
Joe St. Laurent, stated he represents James Klug, the majority land owner on this block within the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. He relayed Mr. Klug’s concurrence with Ms. McDonalds’s and
Mr. Cloutier’s comments. He stated Mr. Klug’s opposition to the proposed changes in the flexible
thresholds. The neighborhood within the 200th Avenue West, 80th Avenue West, and 76th Avenue West
area is a prosperous middle class neighborhood. Mr. Klug is a majority land owner on the block proposed
to be developed by Kruger Clinic, Blue Star and Tony Shapiro into a 4-story, 30,000 square foot mixed
commercial use medical building. This project is not a minor intrusion into the neighborhood; it will have
a major impact on an area already impacted by traffic, drainage and congestion issues. It appears the City
is trying to push development of this area and eliminate the middle class and affordable housing in this
area for commercial enterprises that may provide minimal tax revenue to the City. If a project is exempt
from SEPA, he wanted to ensure that due process was available for citizens to voice their concerns and
participate in the process as well as the ability to appeal any decision.
Marian Bacon, Edmonds, a resident on 220th for 48 years, explained 220th is very busy and a main
corridor to Edmonds and she feared commercial development in their neighborhood would increase
traffic volumes. Her neighborhood is a residential area and once businesses begin to move in, historically
there is more than one business. Businesses locating in their neighborhood will reduce home values. She
asked whether any Councilmember would be willing to have a commercial building across the street from
their home. She concurred with the comments made by the previous speakers.
Cathy Lester, Edmonds, a resident in the middle of the Activity Center, encouraged the Council to vote
against the SEPA exemption in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. She pointed out the diversity of
neighborhoods in the Activity Center that includes many single family residential homes. A blanket
exemption for larger developments is not feasible in an area where there is such diversity. The larger a
development proposal is, 20 homes versus 4 homes, 12,000 square feet versus 4,000 square feet, the more
important it is to have a thorough review of the project and SEPA is an integral part of the process. If as
the case study provided by staff states, SEPA likely would not significantly add to the review process for
the formal subdivision, she suggested keeping the review process as it currently exists. She questioned the
compelling reason for adopting the SEPA exemption for these two areas. She did not support any
reduction in the process or public notice for development of any size. She was also uncomfortable with
leaving the Department of Ecology out of the process which the exemption would do.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recommended the Council not approve the proposed exemptions, pointing
out the benefit to the developer versus the cost to Edmonds citizens was not balanced. Greater harm was
possible to the environment and citizens’ right to participate under the proposed exemption. Changes in
Packet Page 248 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 14
the Highway 99 Corridor zoning allowed nearly unlimited development; however, there are residential
areas close to Highway 99 that are affected. He suggested the case study for the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center was not the correct study; the medical center and accompanying parking lot would have
been a more appropriate case study. He referred to Council President Bernheim’s question regarding how
this proposal originated, envisioning it was staff-driven or it was simply change for the sake of change.
He suggested the number of regulations referred to in the case study created the delay in the permit
process, not SEPA.
Rich Senderoff, Edmonds, pointed out comments regarding the Medical Activity Center highlight
concerns with the borders of that zone. He agreed with Mr. Cloutier’s suggestion to reassess the
boundaries of the Medical Activity Center as well as the zoning within that area and suggested that be
done before the SEPA thresholds were changed.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, one of two citizen representatives on the Highway 99 Task Force for
Economic Development and one of seventeen commissioners on the Economic Development
Commission, stated he was not speaking on either group’s behalf but as a citizen who lives in the Aurora
Marketplace Neighborhood near Highway 99. He supported intelligent economic development throughout
the City. He did not support economic development that did not take into consideration the impact of
development on long established neighborhoods. He supported the comments made in an email from Jim
Underhill, his citizen colleague on the Highway 99 Task Force as well as the comments of Ms. McDonald
and others in her neighborhood who spoke against the proposed changes. He urged the Council to build in
protections for single family neighborhoods that surround Highway 99 and the Medical Activity Center
before embarking on a relaxation of regulations that could adversely affect long established
neighborhoods. Appropriate development on Highway 99 and in the Medical Activity Center should be
permitted but as that development begins to encroach on and impact surrounding neighborhoods,
neighborhood protections should be in place to appropriately lessen the encroachment and impact.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether a change to the Comprehensive Plan needed to be initiated by the
Council or citizens. Mr. Lien answered it could come from the Council or citizens. The deadline to submit
a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is December 31. To place an item on the docket for next
year, it would need to be submitted by December 31, 2010. Councilmember Wilson asked whether the
Council could request an emergency amendment be expedited this year. Mr. Lien answered it would be
difficult to complete a Comprehensive Plan change by yearend.
Councilmember Wilson asked whether the Council should give the Planning Board specific direction to
consider the boundaries of the Medical Activity Center. Mr. Lien explained that was an issue separate
from the proposed SEPA update under discussion. If the City Council chose, they could provide policy
direction to the Planning Board to consider the boundaries of the Medical Activity Center.
With regard to how this proposal originated, Councilmember Wilson recalled an April 21, 2009 meeting
when 65 citizens on the Levy Review Committee stated, 1) we need a levy, and 2) to avoid a future levy,
the City needs to work on economic development. In addition, the Council passed a resolution creating an
Economic Development Commission. Within that context, it was reasonable that the Planning Board and
staff would look for ways to expedite economic development. It is now 14-16 months later, there are three
new Councilmembers and a new Mayor. He appreciated staff and the Planning Board asking the question,
commenting it was now up to the Council to make a decision.
Council President Bernheim expressed concern that major policy changes were included in the draft along
with updates that were technical corrections. The proposed change to the SEPA threshold seemed like a
very low priority but has consumed a great deal of staff and Planning Board time. He preferred that
Packet Page 249 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 15
planning staff work on green building codes, incentives for development based on energy efficiency,
preservation of view corridors, etc. He did not support the repeal of environmental safeties to facilitate
development which is what this sounded like to him. He did not support eliminating environmental policy
procedures for an entire class of development in the name of economic development. Because Highway
99 and the Medical Activity Center are economic development zones did not mean they should be exempt
from environmental protections. He preferred the entire City be subject to SEPA review.
Council President Bernheim expressed concern that this amount of work had been done with only one
presentation to the Community Services/Development Services Committee and no request for guidance
from the Committee. The only City Council involvement following the presentation to the Committee
was the presentation staff provided in July. He did not want the Planning Board to view this as another
effort on which the Council did not act. He did not want the message to be that the Council was interested
in promoting economic development by repealing environmental regulations. He acknowledged many of
the technical updates were non-controversial.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed the motive for the proposal was as Councilmember Wilson described but
in this case the Planning Board got it wrong. He would have preferred the Planning Board bring the
policy issue of whether to increase the SEPA threshold to the Council prior to providing a
recommendation on the updates for consistency along with a change in the policy. That would have
achieved both objectives, 1) the technical update, and 2) determining whether the Council was interested
in pursuing an increase in the SEPA threshold.
Councilmember Petso suggested staff return the proposal to the Council with the technical corrections and
without the change in the flexible thresholds.
Mr. Lien clarified the Council was not interested in repealing the 500 cubic yards that has applied
throughout the City for 25 years, only the Activity Center and the Highway 99 corridor. Councilmember
Petso agreed, expressing her intent to leave the policy thresholds as they are and make the other technical
updates to better conform to the model ordinance. She was not proposing a change to the grading
threshold.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO ASK
STAFF TO BRING BACK THE SEPA UPDATES WITHOUT THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO
THE FLEXIBLE THRESHOLD.
Councilmember Peterson concurred with Councilmember Wilson’s explanation that direction for this
review came from the Council as a result of the Levy Review Committee’s recommendation and the
formation of an Economic Development Commission. The Council has told staff and citizen groups to
look for positive economic development efforts. He emphasized the zoning would not change under the
proposal to increase the SEPA threshold; SEPA is a minor part of a development proposal. As an
environmentalist, he supports SEPA but wants to ensure citizens are aware that it is the development code
and zoning that protects single family neighborhoods, not SEPA. He recalled the proposal by the Kruger
Clinic would have required an extensive review; SEPA review would not have prevented that
development. He clarified neither staff, the Planning Board nor the Council was interested in radically
changing policy; the policy is in the zoning code and development code, not in the SEPA regulations. He
expressed his support for the motion.
Councilmember Plunkett clarified he did not mean that the Planning Board should not explore things, he
was suggesting the process was wrong when major policy changes did not come to the Council first
before the Planning Board spent time on it.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 250 of 482
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
September 7, 2010
Page 16
Councilmember Wilson suggested redefining the boundaries of the Medical Activity Center as part of the
2011 Comprehensive Plan docket. He recalled the overwhelming lesson at the time of the Kruger Clinic’s
proposal was that the Medical Activity Center was poorly defined which created conflicts between the
City’s vision for the area and how it was described in the Comprehensive Plan.
Councilmember Petso suggested the Community Services/Development Services Committee discuss a
Comprehensive Plan amendment at their next meeting and return to Council with a plan of action.
Mr. Snyder suggested a motion to docket review of the language and limits of the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center in next year’s Comprehensive Plan amendment. Councilmember Wilson clarified the
Council could docket a proposed question without an answer to the question. Mr. Snyder answered yes,
explaining it kept all the options open.
Councilmembers Peterson and Petso expressed support for docketing review of the language and limits of
the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, TO
PLACE REVIEW OF THE MEDICAL ACTIVITY CENTER ON THE 2011 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DOCKET. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, reiterated her question, how the ferry system plans to spend $26 million in
Edmonds and why the eight elected officials in Edmonds do not know how those funds will be spent. She
suspected the reason elected officials did not know the answer was because the elected officials have
never asked the ferry system that question; the email Mr. Clifton sent to the ferry system stated Ms.
Shippen was asking the question. The ferry system’s response has been the funds are a placeholder. Next,
she asserted the City had never asked the ferry system what one improvement project would be built with
the $26 million. She urged the Mayor and Council to ask the ferry system what the $26 million would be
spent on. To the comment that this is far in the future, she pointed out the project would be built in 19
years, and the ferry system must know what the project is. She objected to the suggestion to appeal to the
legislature with regard to this issue, anticipating they would have little interest. She assumed the project
was a second slip at the main street terminal and planned to pursue discussion of the second slip and the
Edmonds Crossing “crackpot scheme.”
Barbara Tipton, Edmonds, Steering Committee Member of the Edmonds Backyard Wildlife Project,
spoke in favor of the ordinance to create a Citizens Tree Board. Last April, Edmonds received
Community Wildlife Habitat certification from the National Wildlife Federation following nearly two
years of dedicated work by Laura and Paul Spehar and a committee with the support of 191 residential
property owners, 5 schools and 19 parks and green zone managers who registered their properties as
backyard wildlife habitats. The Tree Board will engage in several sub-projects that include, 1) developing
a tree ordinance designed to preserve and protect existing trees and encourage planting of additional trees,
2) increasing community outreach and education regarding the value of trees, proper selection of trees and
current methods of planting and carrying for trees, 3) working with citizen groups to organize invasive
plant removal and native vegetation planting in conjunction with the Department of Parks, Recreation and
Cultural Services, 4) sponsoring an annual Arbor Day event, 5) working toward achievement of Tree City
USA status. Meetings will be open to the public and minutes will be filed with the City Clerk’s Office.
Dr. Richard Senderoff and she met with Planning Manager Rob Chave and Parks Director Brian
McIntosh who reviewed and provided input on the ordinance. The ordinance has also been reviewed by
the City Attorney Scott Snyder. Once the ordinance to create the Tree Board is approved by the Council,
the Mayor’s office will prepare a press release seeking applicants for the Tree Board. She encouraged all
interested parties to apply.
Packet Page 251 of 482
AM-3543 Item #: 3.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on the Planning Board recommendation regarding an amendment to the
Edmonds Community Development Code requiring that interior lot lines not overlap PRD
perimeter buffers.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the Planning Board's recommendation and direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for
Council adoption.
Previous Council Action
See City Council minutes (Exhibit 3).
Narrative
This issue was referred to the Planning Board by the City Council for review (see Council minutes in
Attachment 3).
The interim changes to the development code are summarized in the interim ordinance adopted by
Council earlier in 2010 (see Attachment 1). This is a public hearing on whether the provisions clarifying
that lot lines are not intended to overlap PRD perimeter buffer should become a permanent part of the
development code.
The Planning Board has recommended approval of a permanent ordinance. If the Council concurs, the
City Attorney should be directed to draft a final ordinance of Council approval.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Interim zoning ordinance
Exhibit 2: Planning Board minutes
Exhibit 3: City Council minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/10/2010 12:54 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 11/10/2010 12:28 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 252 of 482
Packet Page 253 of 482
Packet Page 254 of 482
Packet Page 255 of 482
Packet Page 256 of 482
Packet Page 257 of 482
Packet Page 258 of 482
Packet Page 259 of 482
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
October 27, 2010 Page 5
Clarke agreed that would be appropriate. He commented that City Council Members are diligent in reading Planning Board
minutes, which will clearly portray the Board’s thoughts and concerns.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 18.45.0970 AND ECDC 23.40.240 AS AMENDED TO INDICATE THE $1,000 FEE
WOULD BE A MINIMUM. BOARD MEMBER CLARKE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUS.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED TO ADVISE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE BOARD’S WISHES TO
SEE THE FINE LEVELS SET MUCH HIGHER THAN INDICATED IN THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE. BOARD
MEMBER CLARK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 4-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER
JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
Board Member Johnson explained that she voted against the motion because she wanted the Board’s direction to the City
Council to be more detailed.
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED TO INFORM THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PREVIOUS TWO
MOTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE
SHORT-TERM SOLUTIONS PENDING A REVISION OF THE CODE REGARDING THE CUTTING OF TREES
TO INCLUDE THREE COMPONENTS: VALUE OF THE TREES, ECONOMIC VALUE TO THE DEVELOPER
FROM REMOVING THE TREES, AND THE COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION COSTS
AS A RESULT OF TREE REMOVAL. BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING INTERIOR LOT LINES OVERLAPPING PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOMENT (PRD) PERIMETER BUFFERS
Mr. Clugston recalled that in April the City Council approved an interim ordinance to clarify ECDC 20.35.050.C.2 regarding
PRD’s and the application of exterior buffers on side setbacks. The code, as previously written, was unclear as to how the
buffer and setbacks could be implemented. The proposed amendments are intended to codify the interim ordinance approved
by the City Council as a stop gap measure. He reminded the Board that they are in the process of updating the Subdivision
and PRD Regulations, and further amendments may be considered as part of this process. Vice Chair Reed noted that the
interim ordinance was extended in August, so the new expiration date is February of 2011. However, the City Council has
the item scheduled on their agenda for November.
Roger Hertrich expressed his belief that the proposed amendment is appropriate and should be approved. However, he
expressed concern that the provision addressed in the proposed ordinance would be eliminated as part of the Board’s update
of the Subdivision Regulations. He noted that, as per staff’s recommendation, the PRD section of the code would be
eliminated and various elements of it would be folded into the Subdivision Regulations. This could result in a loss of public
involvement in the PRD process. He cautioned the Board to very careful as they move forward.
THERE WAS NO ONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING. THEREFORE, THE
PUBLIC PORTION WAS CLOSED.
Vice Chair Reed pointed out that the Board just received the first draft of the proposed new Subdivision Regulations, and
they have not had an opportunity to thoroughly review its contents. He assured Mr. Hertrich that the PRD regulations would
be foremost on the Board’s mind as they review and discuss the document at future meetings. Board Member Clarke
explained that by recommending approval of the proposed amendment, the Board would acknowledge the public’s concern.
The new language would remain in place until such time as it is amended as part of the update of the Subdivision and PRD
Regulations in the future.
Packet Page 260 of 482
DRAFT
Planning Board Minutes
October 27, 2010 Page 6
BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO ECDC 20.35 AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER REED SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION
CARRIED 4-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON ABSTAINING.
Board Member Johnson explained that because this interim ordinance does not expire until February 2011, she felt it would
be more appropriate for the Board to postpone a recommendation until they have complete their work on the Subdivision and
PRD Regulations rather than approving the amendments on an interim basis. Vice Chair Reed pointed out that because of
the holidays and the complexity of the Subdivision and PRD Regulations, amendments to the Subdivision Regulations would
not likely be adopted before the interim ordinance expires.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (PRD) REGULATIONS
Board Member Clarke observed that the agenda advertises this item as a continued discussion of the Subdivision and PRD
Regulations, yet the Board was not presented with the first draft of the document until yesterday via email. Board Member
Cloutier agreed the Board just received the draft proposal, but they have discussed the potential amendments on numerous
occasions. Board Member Clarke expressed concern that he has not yet had an opportunity to read, study, analyze and form
an opinion on the proposal. Vice Chair Reed explained that the purpose of tonight’s discussion is for staff to present and
help the Board understand the materials. The issue will be scheduled for continued Planning Board discussion in December.
He emphasized that the Board would have further discussion on the proposal before it is scheduled for public hearing.
Mr. Clugston apologized for getting the draft proposal to the Board so late, but he reminded them that they have discussed
the issue a number of times in the past. He said staff’s intent was to present the draft information to the Board and provide a
general overview of the elements it contains. The Board could then read through the document and prepare for future
discussion in December.
Mr. Clugston introduced Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, who has been helping him with the Civil
Improvement Section of the proposal. He reminded the Board that the Subdivision Regulations are interrelated with several
other sections of the code. He referred to the two documents presented to the Board. The one in landscape format provides a
comparison between the existing code language and the proposed new code language. The other document is the proposed
subdivision code language in a more readable format.
Mr. Clugston reviewed that staff studied subdivision regulations from other municipalities to identify a reasonable flow for
the document and identified eight chapter titles that the existing code language would fit within. He advised that notes were
provided in the margins of both documents to give the Board an idea of whether the language is new entirely or an update of
existing language. He emphasized that this is staff’s first iteration of the proposal, and they are still working on additional
language related to multi-family site design for town house type subdivisions to include features such as guest parking,
shared access, sidewalks, etc. This language would be presented at the Board’s next discussion in December. Mr. Clugston
reviewed the draft proposal as follows:
General Subdivision Review Process. This flow chart outlines the subdivision review process. The intent is to provide
more flow charts and drawings to give people a better idea of how the process works in a fairly streamlined way. Pictures
would also be provided to illustrate examples of good development.
Section 26.20.020 – Subdivision Design Priority Criteria. This section will provide design standards for how subdivisions
should look. One goal of the rewrite is to incorporate elements of sustainability. The current subdivision regulations were
created in the 50s and 60s, and they are very stale. The intent is to update the regulations using guidance from the City
Council found in the Comprehensive Plan. To that end, they have included ideas for subdivision design priority criteria.
He noted that design criteria already exists in the code, but the proposal pulls the language into the actual Subdivision
Regulations to capture the applicant’s attention about issues such as tree cutting, clearing and grading, low-impact
development, etc. Hopefully, this will improve the end result of future projects.
Packet Page 261 of 482
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
2
o
f
4
8
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
3
o
f
4
8
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
4
o
f
4
8
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
5
o
f
4
8
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
6
o
f
4
8
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
7
o
f
4
8
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
8
o
f
4
8
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
9
o
f
4
8
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
0
o
f
4
8
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
1
o
f
4
8
2
AM-3535 Item #: 4.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:John Westfall
Department:Fire
Review
Committee:
Public Safety Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public hearing on residential fire sprinklers.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Mayor and staff recommend final area threshold determination for residential fire sprinkler systems
requirements for the City. The Mayor's recommendation is to adopt the ordinance requiring new
construction of dwellings to be sprinklered at no more than 3,000 s.f. fire area (living space) threshold.
Previous Council Action
April 13, 2010 PS Committee Discussion of residential fire sprinkler requirements.
May 11, 2010 PS Committee Residential fire sprinkler systems requirements.
June 8, 2010 PS Committee Residential fire sprinkler systems options.
August 10, 2010 PS Committee Residential fire sprinkler stakeholder discussion.
September 14, 2010 PS Committee Residential fire sprinkler system determination.
Narrative
The International Code Council (ICC) International Residential Code (IRC) 2009 advisory group has
adopted and written fire sprinkler requirements for all residential construction including townhouses and
single-family dwellings. WA State has brought together all dwelling-related sprinkler language into two
IRC appendix chapters and deferred the requirements for cities and counties to determine needs and adopt
locally. Upon adoption, the State Building Code Council that oversees and approves state housing
development requires only notification of the changes.
City of Edmonds has been eight months in discussion amongst stakeholders including fire officials, local
and area builders, real estate agents, water purveyors, and sprinkler fitters to determine the most
reasonable and cost-effective threshold for residential fire protection. Discussion of the advantages,
disadvantages, requirements, systems and connection options, costs, and cost savings have been
evaluated from these discussions during groups and Committee meetings. The ordinances
recognize collaboration of the discussion groups and include interests from all stakeholders. Only final
determination of residential area threshold is sought to identify the dwelling size limits for installation.
An ordinance is presented for installation of residential fire sprinkler systems (RFSS) in new construction
of one-family, two-family, and townhouses exceeding 3,000 and 5,000 square feet of dwelling fire area.
The City Attorney has reviewed in form and detail.
The General Facility Charge for the water connection in Edmonds will reflect only the domestic and
non-fire protection demands when RFSS is required as a cost-savings measure requested by local
Packet Page 272 of 482
non-fire protection demands when RFSS is required as a cost-savings measure requested by local
builders. Additionally, more restrictive thresholds will not be presented by staff prior to the next IRC
cycle slated for adoption on July 1, 2013 requested by Master Builder's Association.
Staff presents this final proposed ordinance in consideration of all local concerns and these represent a
collaborative agreement amongst the stakeholder groups.
Attachments
Ordinance 3k
Ordinance 5k
NFPA Grindle Ltr
Pierce Co Franz Ltr
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/10/2010 02:49 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: John Westfall Started On: 11/09/2010 04:26 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 273 of 482
{BFP826440.DOC;1\00006.900070\ } - 1 -
0006.
ORDINANCE NO. _____ (RFSS- 3k)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING REGULATIONS CONCERNING
RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 19.27 RCW provides that certain international building
codes, as amended by the State Building Code Council, shall be in effect in all Washington
Cities; and
WHEREAS, Washington State Building Code Council has amended the 2009
International Residential Code so that every community may independently consider and
determine suitable application of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (RFSS) as a minimum
requirement for purposes of life safety, property preservation, and environmental protection in all
new one-family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings; and
WHEREAS, by local stakeholder discussions with citizens, elected officials, City
staff, fire officials, local builders and developers, water purveyors, area system installers, realtors
and insurance companies, aided determination regarding the merits and limitations for the
installation of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (RFSS) in new residential construction; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the public health, safety, and welfare will
be better served by adopting a requirement for RFSS in construction of all new dwellings larger
than 3,000 square feet; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Packet Page 274 of 482
{BFP826440.DOC;1\00006.900070\ } - 2 -
Section 1. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.05.000 is
amended to read as follows:
19.05.000 International Residential Code adopted.
…The International Residential Code (IRC), 2009 Edition, published by the International Code
Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-51 WAC,
and as subsequently amended by this chapter, is hereby adopted along with Appendix Chapters
A, B, C, K, and R and S
.
Section 2. A new subsection C is hereby added to Edmonds Community
Development Code 19.05.020 is amended to includeto read as follows:
19.05.020 Section amendments
C. Appendix S - Section AS107.1 Fire Sprinklers. An approved automatic fire sprinkler
system shall be installed in new one-family and two-family dwellings and townhouses exceeding
3,000 square feet of fire area, and in accordance with Appendix R. No modifications will be
made to this threshold limit prior to next code cycle update on July 1, 2013.
Section 3. New section Edmonds Community Development Code
19.25.036 is insertedhereby adopted to read as follows:
19.25.036 Dwelling Fire Sprinkler Systems Connection Fees.
(a) Where dwelling fire sprinkler systems are required to be installed in a one- or two-family
dwellings (building containing one or two dwelling-units) constructed under the International
Residential Code (IRC), a single water connection may provide fire protection and domestic
services through combination water lines utilizing an integrated fire and plumbing flow-through
piping system described in IRC Appendix R (WAC 51-51-60105).
(b) Automatic sprinkler systems installed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall not
be subject to the cost differential from General Facility Charges for connection to the public
water system when an up-sized meter is required to meet the design flow rate for, and is solely
attributable to the installation of the automatic sprinkler system. All other costs, including the
expense of a larger meter, a general facility charge attributable to the meter sized for the
domestic service alone, and other permits and fees shall remain the responsibility of the owner.
Comment [A1]: Why the “…” ?
(c) When Aautomatic sprinkler systems designed for life safety and installed pursuant to
subsection (a) of this section are integrated and dependent upon the domestic water supply of the
residential dwelling unit, . It is incumbent upon the property owner to shall be responsible for
Comment [A2]: Check final version of this
section as adopted by the Council. There may be an
additional sentence providing that “Any appendix
not listed above has not been adopted.”
Comment [A3]: Council may, at its discretion,
make modifications to this threshold limit via
ordinance at anytime.
Comment [A4]: WAC 51-51-60105 provides that
“piping beyond the service valve located at the
beginning of the water distribution system shall not
serve more than one dwelling.” A dwelling by
definition in the IRC is a building containing one or
two dwelling units. To avoid confusion, keep it
consistent and delete reference to “one or two
family”.
Packet Page 275 of 482
{BFP826440.DOC;1\00006.900070\ } - 3 -
maintaining the service connection and paying for an adequate supply of water to the residential
dwelling unit.
Section 4. Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and
shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary
thereof consisting of the title.
MAYOR _____________________
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 276 of 482
{BFP826440.DOC;1\00006.900070\ } - 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING REGULATIONS CONCERNING
RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS 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 277 of 482
{BFP826440.DOC;1\00006.900070\ } - 1 -
0006.
ORDINANCE NO. _____ (RFSS- 5k)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING REGULATIONS CONCERNING
RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 19.27 RCW provides that certain international building
codes, as amended by the State Building Code Council, shall be in effect in all Washington
Cities; and
WHEREAS, Washington State Building Code Council has amended the 2009
International Residential Code so that every community may independently consider and
determine suitable application of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (RFSS) as a minimum
requirement for purposes of life safety, property preservation, and environmental protection in all
new one-family, two-family, and townhouse dwellings; and
WHEREAS, by local stakeholder discussions with citizens, elected officials, City
staff, fire officials, local builders and developers, water purveyors, area system installers, realtors
and insurance companies, aided determination regarding the merits and limitations for the
installation of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (RFSS) in new residential construction; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the public health, safety, and welfare will
be better served by adopting a requirement for RFSS in construction of all new dwellings larger
than 5,000 square feet; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Packet Page 278 of 482
{BFP826440.DOC;1\00006.900070\ } - 2 -
Section 1. Edmonds Community Development Code 19.05.000 is
amended to read as follows:
19.05.000 International Residential Code adopted.
…The International Residential Code (IRC), 2009 Edition, published by the International Code
Council, as amended by the Washington State Building Code Council in Chapter 51-51 WAC,
and as subsequently amended by this chapter, is hereby adopted along with Appendix Chapters
A, B, C, K, and R and S
.
Section 2. A new subsection C is hereby added to Edmonds Community
Development Code 19.05.020 is amended to includeto read as follows:
19.05.020 Section amendments
C. Appendix S - Section AS107.1 Fire Sprinklers. An approved automatic fire sprinkler
system shall be installed in new one-family and two-family dwellings and townhouses exceeding
5,000 square feet of fire area, and in accordance with Appendix R. No modifications will be
made to this threshold limit prior to next code cycle update on July 1, 2013.
Section 3. New section Edmonds Community Development Code
19.25.036 is insertedhereby adopted to read as follows:
19.25.036 Dwelling Fire Sprinkler Systems Connection Fees.
(a) Where dwelling fire sprinkler systems are required to be installed in a one- or two-family
dwellings (building containing one or two dwelling-units) constructed under the International
Residential Code (IRC), a single water connection may provide fire protection and domestic
services through combination water lines utilizing an integrated fire and plumbing flow-through
piping system described in IRC Appendix R (WAC 51-51-60105).
(b) Automatic sprinkler systems installed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall not
be subject to the cost differential from General Facility Charges for connection to the public
water system when an up-sized meter is required to meet the design flow rate for, and is solely
attributable to the installation of the automatic sprinkler system. All other costs, including the
expense of a larger meter, a general facility charge attributable to the meter sized for the
domestic service alone, and other permits and fees shall remain the responsibility of the owner.
Comment [A1]: Why the “…” ?
(c) When Aautomatic sprinkler systems designed for life safety and installed pursuant to
subsection (a) of this section are integrated and dependent upon the domestic water supply of the
residential dwelling unit, . It is incumbent upon the property owner to shall be responsible for
Comment [A2]: Check final version of this
section as adopted by the Council. There may be an
additional sentence providing that “Any appendix
not listed above has not been adopted.”
Comment [A3]: Council may, at its discretion,
make modifications to this threshold limit via
ordinance at anytime.
Comment [A4]: WAC 51-51-60105 provides that
“piping beyond the service valve located at the
beginning of the water distribution system shall not
serve more than one dwelling.” A dwelling by
definition in the IRC is a building containing one or
two dwelling units. To avoid confusion, keep it
consistent and delete reference to “one or two
family”.
Packet Page 279 of 482
{BFP826440.DOC;1\00006.900070\ } - 3 -
maintaining the service connection and paying for an adequate supply of water to the residential
dwelling unit.
Section 4. Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power
specifically delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and
shall take effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary
thereof consisting of the title.
MAYOR _____________________
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 280 of 482
{BFP826440.DOC;1\00006.900070\ } - 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2010, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING REGULATIONS CONCERNING
RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS 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 281 of 482
Packet Page 282 of 482
Packet Page 283 of 482
Packet Page 284 of 482
AM-3529 Item #: 6.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Lorenzo Hines
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Adoption of proposed Ordinance providing for the annual tax levy by increasing the
regular property tax levy by the current 101% levy limit, thereby levying an estimated
regular property tax levy of $9,535,938, EMS levy of $3,533,529 and levying $877,984 for
voted indebtedness for the Public Safety Complex.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The following ordinance authorizes a 1% increase in the 2011 levy for regular property tax and
the Emergency Medical Services levy. The ordinance also continues the Debt Service Levy. The Levy
Certification must be received by the Snohomish County Assessor by November 30, 2010.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2011
Revenue:$13,947,451
Expenditure:
Fiscal Impact:
Regular Levy: $9,535,938
Excess Levy: $ 877,984
EMS Levy: $3,533,529
Attachments
Memo on Finding of Substantial Need Resolution
2011 Property Tax Ordinance
2011 Property Tax Levy Detail
City Tax Rates 2009-2011
11-02-2010 Questions Regarding Property Tax Ordinance.pdf
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Packet Page 285 of 482
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2010 05:05 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 11/08/2010
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 286 of 482
City of Edmonds Finance and Information Systems
DATE: October 29, 2010
TO: City of Edmonds, City Council
FROM: Lorenzo Hines Jr., Director of Finance and Information Services
SUBJECT: Finding of Substantial Need Resolution is not necessary for 2011
Honorable Members,
Section 1 of the 2011 Property Tax Ordinance reads as follows:
“Section 1. The limit factor for the regular levy to be collected in budget year 2011
shall be limited to the 101%, or 100% plus inflation, which ever is lower of the
highest amount of regular property taxes that could have been levied in the City in
any year since 1985.”
The inflation for 2011 taxes is estimated by Snohomish County to be 1.539%
(implicit price deflator). Therefore, the increase in property tax is limited to the lesser
of 101% or 105.39%. As a result, our increase will be 101%.
Because inflation is projected above 101%, we do not need to pass a Finding of
Substantial Need Resolution this year. We only need this resolution when inflation
is estimated to be below 101%.
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 287 of 482
2011 Property Tax Ordinance Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. ------
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY
BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY
BY THE CURRENT 101% LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING
AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF
$9,535,938, AN EMS LEVY OF $3,533,529 AND LEVYING
$877,984 FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC
SAFETY COMPLEX, AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the City of Edmonds have properly given
notice of the public hearing held on October 19, 2010, to consider the City's current expense
budget for 2011, pursuant to RCW 84.55.120; and
WHEREAS, the City Council in the course of considering the budget for 2011
have reviewed all sources of revenue and examined all anticipated expenses and obligations; and
WHEREAS, the district’s actual levy amount for the previous year was
$9,383,000 for regular property levy, and $3,477,000 for is EMS levy, and $853,084 for debt
service payments, and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby determines following public hearing that it
is in the best interest of and necessary to meet the expenses and obligations of the City to
increase the regular property levy by 1%; and keep the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) levy
at the prior year level, and
WHEREAS, the population of this district is greater than 10,000, and
WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office has requested that all
Snohomish County Taxing Districts submit their levy certifications to the county on the State
Department of Revenue standardized form REV 64 0100; NOW, THEREFORE
Packet Page 288 of 482
2011 Property Tax Ordinance Page 2 of 5
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The limit factor for the regular levy to be collected in budget year
2011 shall be limited to the 101%, or 100% plus inflation, which ever is lower of the highest
amount of regular property taxes that could have been levied in the City in any year since 1985.
Section 2. Regular Property Tax. The 2010 regular property tax levy for
collection in 2011 is the amount levied in 2009 for collection in 2010, plus an increase of
$93,830 which is a percentage increase of 1%, plus an increase equal to the amount allowed by
one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property, newly constructed
wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any annexations that have
occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $9,535,938.
Section 3. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) property tax levy. The 2010
EMS property tax levy for collection in 2011 is the amount levied in 2009 for collection in 2010,
plus an increase of $34,777 which is a percentage increase of 1%, plus an increase equal to the
amount allowed by one or more of the following; new construction, improvements to property,
newly constructed wind turbines, any increase in the value of state assessed property, any
annexations that have occurred and refunds made, for an estimated total levy of $3,533,529.
Section 4. There shall be and is hereby levied current taxes of $877,984, the
purpose of which is to make debt service payments on voter approved bonds.
Section 5. The levies contained in sections 2 through 4 are subject to amendment
upon receipt of 2010 assessed valuation from Snohomish County.
Section 6. Pursuant to the request by the Snohomish County Assessor’s Office,
the Finance Director is hereby authorized to submit to the Snohomish County Council
Packet Page 289 of 482
2011 Property Tax Ordinance Page 3 of 5
certification of the hereby approved levies on the State Department of Revenue standardized
form REV 64 0100 attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 7. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 8. 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
effect five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of
the title. It is enacted on a vote of a majority plus one of the City Council.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, MIKE COOPER
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 290 of 482
2011 Property Tax Ordinance Page 4 of 5
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. -----
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 1st day of November, 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, PROVIDING FOR THE
ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE
CURRENT 101% LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR
PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $9,535,938, AN EMS LEVY OF $3,533,529 AND LEVYING
$877,984 FOR VOTED INDEBTEDNESS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX, AND
FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 1st day of November, 2010.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 291 of 482
2011 Property Tax Ordinance Page 5 of 5
Exhibit A – Levy Certification
Levy Certification
Submit this document to the county legislative authority on or before November 30 of the year preceding
the year in which the levy amounts are to be collected and forward a copy to the assessor.
In accordance with RCW 84.52.020, I, Lorenzo Hines Jr., Finance Director, for the City of
Edmonds, do hereby certify to the Snohomish County legislative authority that the Council of
said district requests that the following levy amounts be collected in 2011 as provided in the
district’s budget, which was adopted following a public hearing on October 19, 2010.
Regular Levy: $9,535,938
Excess Levy: $877,984
EMS Levy: $3,533,529
___________________________________________
Signature Date
Packet Page 292 of 482
Regular Property Tax
Amount Levied last year 9,383,000$
Percentage Increase 1%93,830
Estimated for New Construction 35,565
Refunded Amount to be added 23,543
2011 Regular Property Tax Levy 9,535,938
EMS
Amount Levied last year 3,477,741$
Percentage Increase 1%34,777
-
Estimated for New Construction 13,181
-
Refunded Amount to be added 7,829
-
2011 Regular Property Tax Levy 3,533,529
Bonds
Year Principal Interest Total D/S O/S Balance
2011 715,000$ 162,984$ 877,984$ 4,275,000$
2012 755,000 140,640 895,640 3,520,000
2013 800,000 116,103 916,103 2,720,000
2014 855,000 91,303 946,303 1,865,000
2015 905,000 64,370 969,370 960,000
2016 960,000 33,600 993,600 -
2011 Regular Property Tax Levy 877,984$
2003 UTGO Refunding Bonds
Bond Schedule
City of Edmonds
Calculation of 2011 Property Tax
2011
Packet Page 293 of 482
(projected)
2009 2010 2011
Assessed Value 7,709,209,490$ 6,955,482,717$ 6,450,768,068$
2009 2010 2011
City Regular 1.199902$ 1.349008$ 1.473641$
City (EMS)0.500000 0.500000 0.500000
City (Bonds)0.115650 0.130750 0.136100
Subtotal (City Assessed Tax)1.815553$ 1.979758$ 2.109741$
2009 2010 2011
City Regular 9,250,299$ 9,383,000$ 9,535,938$
City (EMS)3,854,605 3,477,741 3,533,529
City (Bonds)839,084 853,084 877,984
Subtotal (City Assessed Tax)13,943,988$ 13,713,825$ 13,947,451$
Regular Propety Tax - Increase limited to 1% annually. All proceeds are forwarded to the City.
Bonds - This levy is necessary to address the bond payment schedule for the public safety
bonds. All proceeds are forwarded to the City.
EMS - The 2011 property tax ordinance reflects a 1% increase, however due to the
$0.50/$1,000 ceiling, we anticipate collecting approximately $3.2MM in 2011. All
proceeds are forwarded to the City.
City of Edmonds
Property Tax Summary
2009-2011
Property Taxes
Total Receipts
Property Taxes Rates
(per $1,000 assessed valuation)
Packet Page 294 of 482
Questions Regarding Property Ordinance
Meeting date: 11/02/2010
1) What is the interest rate on the bond portion of the property tax levy?
2% to 3.5% depending on the particular issue
2) If we refund the bonds (refinance) to lower the annual payment, will the property
taxes associated with this debt go down?
Yes.
3) Can we refund these bonds?
We have already refunded these bonds in 2003 and the bonds are not callable until
2013. Therefore, we cannot refund them until that time.
4) Regarding the EMS portion of the levy: you explained that you carried over the same
levy amount from last year because: 1) the anticipated amount to be collected for
2011 is lower than last year’s levy due to the ceiling on the EMS levy, and 2) it still
gives us flexibility if the amount collected was higher than anticipated. Can increase
the ordinance amount to the statutory increase that would have occurred in 2011?
Yes, it is reflected in the revised ordinance for the November 16, 2010 council
meeting.
5) The 2009 4th Quarter Report indicates that we collected $3,806,497 for the EMS
Property Tax. How does this relate to the $3,477,741 formerly in the ordinance?
The amount in the 4th Quarter Report represents levy collections for the 2009 tax year.
The $3,477,741 represents levy collections for the 2010 tax year.
Packet Page 295 of 482
AM-3526 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
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
Packet Page 296 of 482
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2010 05:05 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Lorenzo Hines Started On: 11/08/2010
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 297 of 482
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 298 of 482
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 299 of 482
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 300 of 482
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 301 of 482
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 302 of 482
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 303 of 482
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 304 of 482
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 305 of 482
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 306 of 482
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 307 of 482
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 308 of 482
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 309 of 482
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 310 of 482
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 311 of 482
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 312 of 482
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 313 of 482
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 314 of 482
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 315 of 482
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 316 of 482
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 317 of 482
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 318 of 482
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 319 of 482
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 320 of 482
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 321 of 482
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 322 of 482
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 323 of 482
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 324 of 482
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 325 of 482
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 326 of 482
AM-3533 Item #: 8.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:10 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
Authorize staff to advertise for construction bids for the Interurban Trail Improvements.
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.
On November 9, 2010, the CS/DS Committee requested staff to make a presentation on the project at the
November 16, 2010 Council meeting.
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 11/10/2010 02:25 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 11/10/2010 02:44 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/10/2010 02:49 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 11/08/2010
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 327 of 482
Packet Page 328 of 482
AM-3532 Item #: 9.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Robert S. English Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program (2011-2016).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the Capital Facilities Plan and the Capital Improvement Program.
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).
On November 9, 2010, the CS/DS Committee recommended this item be forwarded to the full Council
for review and approval.
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 issues 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.
Packet Page 329 of 482
Response to Item#3
Staff followed-up with Councilmember Wilson and discussed the possibility of prioritizing the general
CFP project list. At the conclusion of the meeting, Brian McIntosh offered to prepare a memo with his
recommendations on how to prioritize the projects. His memo is attached as Exhibit 2.
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 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)
Exhibit 2: CFP List & Comments
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 11/10/2010 03:31 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 11/12/2010 09:16 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 09:19 AM
Mayor Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 01:41 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 01:42 PM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 11/08/2010
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 330 of 482
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT
2011 - 2016
1Packet Page 331 of 482
2Packet Page 332 of 482
CFP
GENERAL
3Packet Page 333 of 482
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Pa
r
k
s
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
,
a
n
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G
.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
$5
-
$
2
3
M
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
To
t
a
l
$5
M
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
$5
M
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
RE
E
T
1
/
G
r
a
n
t
s
To
t
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Li
b
r
a
r
y
/
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
Ci
t
y
G
.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
C
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
Gr
a
n
t
s
/
R
E
E
T
2
To
t
a
l
$1
0
-
1
2
M
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
$3
-
$
4
M
Pu
b
l
i
c
V
o
t
e
/
G
r
a
n
t
s
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
To
t
a
l
$4
-
1
0
M
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
/
US
D
O
T
EI
S
St
a
t
e
F
u
n
d
s
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
$1
1
.
8
M
To
t
a
l
$2
.
2
M
$
2
.
0
M
$
2
.
1
M
$
1
.
9
M
$
2
.
1
M
$
1
.
5
M
Un
k
n
o
w
n
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$1
1
.
8
M
An
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$2
.
2
M
$
2
.
0
M
$2
.
1
M
$
1
.
9
M
$
2
.
1
M
$
1
.
5
M
`
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
/
S
n
o
-
I
s
l
e
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
Ex
p
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
(
S
n
o
-
I
s
l
e
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Pl
a
n
)
.
20
1
4
Ar
t
C
e
n
t
e
r
/
A
r
t
M
u
s
e
u
m
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
n
e
w
c
e
n
t
e
r
f
o
r
t
h
e
A
r
t
'
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
/
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
e
(C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
s
u
b
l
e
a
s
e
d
o
n
C
i
v
i
c
Pl
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
u
n
t
i
l
2
0
2
1
)
.
Bo
y
s
&
G
i
r
l
s
C
l
u
b
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
20
1
6
20
1
3
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
20
1
5
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
W
S
D
O
T
F
e
r
r
y
/
M
u
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
Re
l
o
c
a
t
e
f
e
r
r
y
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
t
o
M
a
r
i
n
a
Be
a
c
h
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
/
R
e
n
o
v
a
t
e
d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
n
C
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
.
Se
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Re
p
l
a
c
e
a
n
d
e
x
p
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
.
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
/
A
t
h
l
e
t
i
c
C
o
m
p
l
e
x
-
Ol
d
W
o
o
d
w
a
y
H
i
g
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
Pa
r
k
s
&
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
&
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
In
c
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
E
S
D
#
1
5
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
p
a
r
k
a
n
d
a
t
h
l
e
t
i
c
co
m
p
l
e
x
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Gr
a
n
t
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
Me
e
t
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
n
e
e
d
s
f
o
r
a
n
A
q
u
a
t
i
c
s
Ce
n
t
e
r
(
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
s
t
u
d
y
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
Au
g
u
s
t
2
0
0
9
)
.
Ci
v
i
c
P
l
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(C
i
t
y
h
a
s
l
e
a
s
e
u
n
t
i
l
2
0
2
1
)
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
_
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
_
0
9
1
6
1
0
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
_
C
F
P
9/
1
6
/
2
0
1
0
4Packet Page 334 of 482
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 335 of 482
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 336 of 482
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 337 of 482
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 338 of 482
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 339 of 482
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 340 of 482
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 341 of 482
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 342 of 482
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 343 of 482
14Packet Page 344 of 482
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
15Packet Page 345 of 482
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
Sa
f
e
t
y
/
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
$0
(F ed
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
2
,
1
9
3
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
4
7
,
0
0
0
$
2
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
7
3
0
,
0
0
0
$3
4
3
,
0
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$3
9
,
0
0
0
$
3
4
,
0
0
0
$
2
7
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
5
3
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
8
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
4
3
9
,
5
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
1
,
5
0
0
$
3
0
8
,
0
0
0
$4
3
9
,
5
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
1
,
5
0
0
$
3
0
8
,
0
0
0
$8
7
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
6
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
,
8
9
0
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
4
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
8
9
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
4
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
$5
3
6
,
0
0
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
3
2
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
9
,
0
0
0
De
s
i
g
n
$
2
,
9
8
6
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
,
9
8
6
,
0
0
0
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$7
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
6
,
0
0
0
$4
6
6
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
6
6
,
0
0
0
$4
,
1
1
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
6
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
4
5
2
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
2
2
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
2
2
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
2
1
1
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
,
2
1
1
,
0
0
0
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
.
@
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I n te
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
o
im
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
.
Ca
s
p
e
r
s
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
o
im
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
.
21
2
t
h
@
8
4
t
h
(
5
C
o
n
e
r
s
)
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
L
e
v
e
l
of
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
Re
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
b
y
co
n
v
e
r
t
i
n
g
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
(
2
)
l
a
n
e
s
f
o
r
bo
t
h
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
76
t
h
A
v
.
W
@
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Re
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
b
y
co
n
v
e
r
t
i
n
g
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
(
2
)
l
a
n
e
s
f
o
r
bo
t
h
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Ii
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
-
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
L
O
S
an
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
.
SR
5
2
4
(
1
9
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
)
/
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
20
1
5
2
0
1
6
Im
p
r
o
v
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
t
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
y
st
o
p
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
N
B
a
n
d
SB
t
o
a
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Gr
a
n
t
O p po
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
84
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
(
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
2
3
8
t
h
S t .
S
W
)
In
s
t
a
l
l
t
w
o
-
w
a
y
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
t
o
im
p
r
o
v
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
al
o
n
g
t
h
i
s
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
(
5
0
/
5
0
s
p
l
i
t
w
i
t
h
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
;
t
o
t
a
l
c
o
s
t
:
~
2
0
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
)
.
20
1
4
22
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
@
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I n te
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Re
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
E
B
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
a
d
d
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
/
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
v
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
N
B
a
n
d
SB
L
T
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
de
l
a
y
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
.
S
(
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
(
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
So
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
P r oj
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Re
a
l
i
g
n
h
i
g
h
l
y
s
k
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
a d dr
e
s
s
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
c
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
w
e
a
s
t
-
w
e
s
t
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
R
-
9
9
a
n
d
I
-
5
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
22
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
S
a
f
e
t
y
Im
pr
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
_
C
F
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
1
1
-
0
4
-
1
0
.
x
l
s
11
/
4
/
2
0
1
0
16Packet Page 346 of 482
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
5
2
0
1
6
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
20
1
4
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
,
9
3
2
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
$3
,
9
3
2
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
,
0
7
9
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
$4
,
0
7
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$9
0
6
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
$9
0
6
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
No
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$1
,
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
De
s
i
g
n
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$1
,
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
3
2
7
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
2
0
1
1
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
7
2
5
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$7
2
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
2
0
1
1
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
7
7
7
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
4
7
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$7
7
7
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
4
7
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
,
1
1
5
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
6
7
5
,
0
0
0
$2
,
1
1
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$4
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
6
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
2
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
2
,
0
0
0
$3
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
2
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
-
2
4
4
t
h
t
o
2
2
8
t
h
P
a
v
e
,
s
i
g
n
,
a
n
d
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
se
g
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
t
o
M
o
u
n
t
l
a
k
e
Te
r
r
a
c
e
Hw
y
.
9
9
@
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Hw
y
9
9
@
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Wi
d
e
n
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
a
d
d
a
2
n
d
WB
L
T
l
a
n
e
/
w
i
d
e
n
S
R
-
9
9
t
o
a
d
d
a
2n
d
L
T
l
a
n
e
.
2n
d
A
v
e
.
S
f
r
o
m
J
a
m
e
s
S
t
.
t
o
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
Wa
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
mi
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Co
n
v
e
r
t
a
l
l
-
w
a
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
in
t
o
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
.
@
1
7
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
s
t
a
l
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
h
e
LO
S
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Im
p
r
o
v
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sa
f
e
t
y
o
n
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
5
t
h
a
n
d
6t
h
a
l
o
n
g
w
/
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
al
o
n
g
t
h
a
t
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
Ma
d
r
o
n
a
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
23
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
,
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
s
a
f
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
R
-
10
4
a
n
d
M
a
d
r
o
n
a
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
r
o
u
t
e
t
o
Se
v
i
e
w
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
a
n
d
n
e
a
r
b
y
p
a
r
k
s
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
5
t
h
Av
e
.
t
o
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
80
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
f
r
o
m
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Wi
d
e
n
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
a
d
d
a
L
T
l
a
n
e
an
d
a
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
LT
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
N
B
a
n
d
S
B
.
W
i
d
e
n
21
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
a
d
d
a
W
B
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
la
n
e
.
Co
n
v
e
r
t
a
l
l
-
w
a
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
in
t
o
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
I
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
_
C
F
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
1
1
-
0
4
-
1
0
.
x
l
s
11
/
4
/
2
0
1
0
17Packet Page 347 of 482
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
5
2
0
1
6
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
20
1
4
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
3
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$6
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
9
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
9
,
0
0
0
$7
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$7
9
,
0
0
0
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
De
s
i
g
n
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
4
3
,
5
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$2
3
6
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
0
0
0
$4
9
3
,
5
0
0
To
t
a
l
$4
8
6
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
0
0
0
$1
3
9
,
0
0
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
3
9
,
0
0
0
De
s
i
g
n
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$1
3
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
3
9
,
0
0
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
7
5
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
$6
7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
6
0
,
0
0
0
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
6
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
1
,
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
2
7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$8
1
2
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
$8
1
2
,
0
0
0
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
d
.
f
r
o
m
7
6
t
h
Av
e
.
W
t
o
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
li
n
k
.
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
f
r
o
m
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
mi
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
s
h
o
r
t
mi
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Sh
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
Sh
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
w
i
t
h
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
22
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
be
t
w
e
e
n
S
R
-
1
0
4
a
n
d
1
0
5
t
h
P
l
.
W
,
cr
e
a
t
i
n
g
s
a
f
e
r
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
S
h
e
r
w
o
o
d
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
.
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
f
r
o
m
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
t
o
2
0
0
t
h
S
t
.
SW
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
ex
.
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
2
0
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
(M
a
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
)
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
o
r
t
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
4t
h
A
v
e
.
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
C
r
e
a
t
e
m
o
r
e
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
r
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
a
l
o
n
g
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
o
r
t
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
23
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
1
0
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
t
o
10
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
r
o
u
t
e
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
_
C
F
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
1
1
-
0
4
-
1
0
.
x
l
s
11
/
4
/
2
0
1
0
18Packet Page 348 of 482
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
20
1
7
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
5
2
0
1
6
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
20
1
4
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
2
4
9
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
2
4
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
(u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$1
9
,
0
0
6
,
5
0
0
An
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$2
,
5
3
2
,
5
0
0
$
8
0
3
,
0
0
0
9
1
2
,
0
0
0
$
$
4
,
7
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
8
0
1
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
2
3
8
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
,
9
8
8
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
s
So
u
r
c
e
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
-
2
0
2
6
$2
,
2
5
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
9
4
8
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
9
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8
,
2
4
5
,
5
0
0
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
4
7
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
3
8
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
2
9
7
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
0
3
8
,
0
0
0
$0
$7
,
1
5
8
,
0
0
0
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
$0
$0
$0
$
1
,
1
4
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
3
8
8
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
6
2
2
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
,
9
8
8
,
0
0
0
$1
,
3
5
1
,
0
0
0
Lo
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
$4
1
4
,
5
0
0
$
1
8
,
0
0
0
$
3
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
5
7
8
,
0
0
0
$0
To
a
s
s
i
s
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
C
i
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
re
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
t
o
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
is
s
u
e
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
s
p
e
e
d
i
n
g
,
c
u
t
-
th
r
o
u
g
h
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
h
o
r
t
m
i
s
s
i
n
g
l
i
n
k
.
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
A
v
e
f
r
o
m
M
a
i
n
S
t
t
o
S
R
-
5
2
4
/
19
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
(
e
x
.
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
:
ro
l
l
e
d
c
u
r
b
/
u
n
s
a
f
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
)
a
l
o
n
g
a
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
w
i
t
h
h
i
g
h
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
an
d
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
s
c
h
o
o
l
.
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
b
y
Y
e
a
r
84
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
an
d
1
8
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
r
o
u
t
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
th
o
s
e
(
2
)
l
o
c
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
.
23
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
H
w
y
.
9
9
t
o
7
6
t
h
Av
e
.
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
w
a
l
k
i
n
g
r
o
u
t
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
pr
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
m
i
n
o
r
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
.
18
9
t
h
P
l
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
t
o
7
8
t
h
Av
e
.
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Ca
l
m
i
n
g
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
\
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
_
C
F
P
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
1
1
-
0
4
-
1
0
.
x
l
s
11
/
4
/
2
0
1
0
19Packet Page 349 of 482
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 350 of 482
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 351 of 482
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 352 of 482
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 353 of 482
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 354 of 482
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 355 of 482
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 356 of 482
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 357 of 482
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 358 of 482
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 359 of 482
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 360 of 482
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 361 of 482
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 362 of 482
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 363 of 482
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 364 of 482
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 365 of 482
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 366 of 482
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 367 of 482
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 368 of 482
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 369 of 482
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 370 of 482
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 371 of 482
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 372 of 482
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 373 of 482
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 374 of 482
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 375 of 482
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 376 of 482
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 377 of 482
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 378 of 482
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 379 of 482
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 380 of 482
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 381 of 482
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 382 of 482
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 383 of 482
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 384 of 482
CFP
STORMWATER
55Packet Page 385 of 482
Ci
t
y
o
f
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
P
l
a
n
(
C
F
P
)
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$5
4
6
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
4
1
,
0
0
0
$5
4
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
4
1
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$5
5
3
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
4
8
,
0
0
0
$5
5
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
4
8
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
3
9
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$2
3
9
,
0
0
0
$2
3
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
3
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
De
s
i
g
n
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
6
8
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$7
2
,
0
0
0
$
6
9
6
,
0
0
0
$7
6
8
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$7
2
,
0
0
0
$
6
9
6
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
0
7
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$5
5
,
0
0
0
$1
0
2
,
0
0
0
$1
0
6
,
0
0
0
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
1
5
,
0
0
0
$1
1
9
,
0
0
0
$6
0
7
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$5
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
7
2
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$5
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
7
,
0
0
0
$3
7
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$5
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
7
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
2
,
4
2
7
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
9
7
,
0
0
0
$
8
3
1
,
7
5
0
$
1
,
2
9
8
,
2
5
0
$8
0
9
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$9
9
,
0
0
0
$
2
7
7
,
2
5
0
$
4
3
2
,
7
5
0
$3
,
2
3
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
9
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
1
0
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
7
3
1
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
2
,
8
4
0
,
2
5
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
0
9
,
5
0
0
$
9
5
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
4
7
6
,
7
5
0
$9
4
6
,
7
5
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$1
3
6
,
5
0
0
$
3
1
8
,
0
0
0
$
4
9
2
,
2
5
0
$3
,
7
8
7
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$5
4
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
2
7
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
9
6
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
6
,
6
7
9
,
5
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
,
3
9
9
,
2
5
0
$
2
,
1
5
1
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
1
2
9
,
2
5
0
$2
,
2
2
6
,
5
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$7
9
9
,
7
5
0
$
7
1
7
,
0
0
0
$
7
0
9
,
7
5
0
$8
,
9
0
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
,
1
9
9
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
8
6
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
8
3
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$1
9
,
0
1
4
,
0
0
0
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$
3
4
9
,
0
0
0
$
5
9
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
2
5
1
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
4
6
9
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
0
9
9
,
0
0
0
1
-
I
n
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
i
a
l
u
n
d
e
r
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
C
F
P
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
2
0
1
1
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
o
f
$
4
5
,
0
0
0
f
o
r
a
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
v
a
u
l
t
f
r
o
m
s
t
o
m
w
a
t
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
.
N
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
C
F
P
.
To
t
a
l
s
So
u
r
c
e
20
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
$0
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
1
,
9
4
6
,
7
5
0
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
$0
$0
$
3
,
1
0
5
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
9
3
6
,
7
5
0
$
4
,
9
0
4
,
2
5
0
$7
,
0
6
7
,
2
5
0
To
t
a
l
D
e
b
t
/
L
o
c
a
l
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
(S
e
c
u
r
e
d
a
n
d
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
4
9
,
0
0
0
$
5
9
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
1
4
5
,
2
5
0
$
1
,
5
3
2
,
2
5
0
$
2
,
1
9
4
,
7
5
0
St
a
y
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
Wa
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
P
e
r
m
i
t
(
N
P
D
E
S
)
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Da
y
l
i
g
h
t
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
i
n
M
a
r
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
P
a
r
k
20
1
2
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Pe
r
r
i
n
v
i
l
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
H
i
g
h
F
l
o
w
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
h
i
g
h
f
l
o
w
d
i
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
p
i
p
e
th
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
d
i
v
e
r
t
h
i
g
h
p
e
a
k
s
t
r
e
a
m
fl
o
w
s
c
a
u
s
e
d
b
y
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
ru
n
o
f
f
.
Da
y
l
i
g
h
t
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
(
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
a
s
pa
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
)
.
A
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
t
r
e
s
t
l
e
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
pl
a
n
n
e
d
t
o
b
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
S
o
u
n
d
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
/
B
N
S
F
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
La
k
e
B
a
l
l
i
n
g
e
r
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(S
e
e
n
o
t
e
1
)
Wo
r
k
w
i
t
h
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
F
o
r
u
m
o
n
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
Pu
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
Y
a
r
d
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
(
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
W
a
s
h
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
&
C
o
v
e
r
f
o
r
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
P
i
l
e
s
)
So
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
B
a
s
i
n
S
t
u
d
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
2
-
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
S
u
m
p
s
n
e
a
r
R
o
b
i
n
H
o
o
d
La
n
e
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
o
v
e
r
f
l
o
w
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
s
95
t
h
/
9
3
r
d
S
t
.
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ad
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
f
l
o
o
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
.
So
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
B
a
s
i
n
S
t
u
d
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
3
-
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
S
u
m
p
s
o
n
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
t
o
Hi
c
k
m
a
n
P
a
r
k
I
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
Ad
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
f
l
o
o
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
.
Sh
e
l
l
a
b
a
r
g
e
r
/
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
/
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
1
0
0
-
y
e
a
r
f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
u
d
y
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
1
0
0
y
r
f
l
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
de
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
u
d
y
t
o
a
s
s
i
s
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
ow
n
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
f
o
r
ne
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
r
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
th
e
a
r
e
a
.
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
b
y
Y
e
a
r
Gr
a
n
t
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
Gr
a
n
t
/
D
a
t
e
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Co
n
d
u
c
t
r
e
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
e
f
l
a
p
ga
t
e
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
b
e
t
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
th
e
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
,
a
n
d
r
e
m
o
v
e
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
.
20
1
1
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
_
0
9
0
8
1
0
:
S
t
o
r
m
_
C
F
P
9/
2
3
/
2
0
1
0
56Packet Page 386 of 482
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 387 of 482
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 388 of 482
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 389 of 482
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 390 of 482
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 391 of 482
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 392 of 482
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 393 of 482
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 394 of 482
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 395 of 482
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2011 - 2016
1Packet Page 396 of 482
2Packet Page 397 of 482
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 398 of 482
4Packet Page 399 of 482
CIP
GENERAL
5Packet Page 400 of 482
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Fu
n
d
1
1
2
-
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
CF
P
2
0
1
0
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
)
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
/
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Ov
er
l
a
y
-
C
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
$2
0
6
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
-
S
i
g
n
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
Si
g
n
a
l
-
C
a
b
i
n
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
St
r
e
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
-
C
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
$7
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
5
0
0
$
2
2
,
5
0
0
Si
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
-
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
@
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
Ad
m
i
r
a
l
W
a
y
S
t
u
d
y
$6
,
6
0
0
$0
Sa
f
e
t
y
/
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
21
2
t
h
/
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
(
5
-
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
)
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
$2
8
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
9
8
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
5
1
6
,
0
0
0
SR
5
2
4
(
1
9
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
)
/
8
8
t
h
A
v
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
8
7
9
,
0
0
0
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
@
3
r
d
S
i
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
$1
5
3
,
0
0
0
$1
5
3
,
0
0
0
Pu
g
e
t
D
r
.
@
O
V
D
S
i
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
1
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
8
,
0
0
0
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
.
S
(
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
X
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
76
t
h
A
v
W
@
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
8
6
0
,
0
0
0
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
@
9
t
h
A
v
.
S
(
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
X
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
22
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
@
7
6
t
h
A
v
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
22
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
S
a
f
e
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
4
0
2
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
3
3
,
0
0
0
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
No
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
5
t
h
A
v
.
t
o
6
t
h
A
v
.
X
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
9
0
,
0
0
0
$7
0
0
,
0
0
0
SR
5
2
4
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$9
1
,
0
0
0
$0
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
f
r
o
m
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
t
o
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$
8
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
7
,
0
0
0
$7
2
2
,
0
0
0
Ma
d
r
o
n
a
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$4
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
6
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
8
5
,
0
0
0
2n
d
A
v
.
S
f
r
o
m
J
a
m
e
s
S
t
.
t
o
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$3
2
,
0
0
0
$
3
2
,
0
0
0
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
A
v
.
S
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$6
3
,
0
0
0
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
A
v
.
S
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$7
9
,
0
0
0
$7
9
,
0
0
0
Sh
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a
d
X
$1
2
,
0
0
0
$
4
6
3
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
0
0
0
$4
7
0
,
0
0
0
22
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$4
1
,
6
6
4
$
1
2
9
,
0
0
0
$1
2
9
,
0
0
0
AD
A
C
u
r
b
R
a
m
p
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
.
C
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
(
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
)
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
0
,
0
0
0
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
R
o
u
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
n
g
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
.
f
r
o
m
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
t
o
2
0
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
7
5
,
0
0
0
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
d
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
9
0
,
0
0
0
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
3
r
d
A
v
.
t
o
4
t
h
A
v
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
6
t
h
A
v
.
t
o
7
t
h
A
v
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
o
u
n
t
d
o
w
n
S
i
g
n
a
l
s
-
C
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
$3
1
,
6
8
3
$0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
7
5
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
$1
8
0
,
0
0
0
$1
8
0
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
$3
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
3
,
5
0
0
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
3
,
5
0
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$4
2
1
,
9
4
7
$
1
,
2
5
0
,
5
0
0
$
8
0
3
,
0
0
0
$
9
1
7
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
9
1
0
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
7
2
8
,
5
0
0
$
8
,
1
4
3
,
5
0
0
$
1
9
,
7
5
3
,
0
0
0
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
L
o
a
n
(
1
)
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
$1
9
,
2
3
2
$1
9
,
2
3
2
$1
9
,
1
4
1
$1
9
,
0
5
0
$1
8
,
9
6
0
$1
8
,
8
6
9
$1
8
,
8
6
0
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
L
o
a
n
(
2
)
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$2
2
,
6
5
9
$2
2
,
6
5
9
$2
2
,
5
5
3
$2
2
,
4
4
7
$2
2
,
3
4
1
$2
2
,
2
3
5
$2
2
,
2
2
9
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
L
o
a
n
(
3
)
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
R
o
a
d
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
$3
5
,
5
1
2
$3
5
,
5
1
2
$3
5
,
3
4
8
$3
5
,
1
8
3
$3
5
,
0
1
9
$3
4
,
8
5
4
$3
4
,
8
5
4
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
1
-
2
0
1
6
Fu
n
d
1
1
2
11
/
4
/
2
0
1
0
6Packet Page 401 of 482
To
t
a
l
D
e
b
t
$7
7
,
4
0
3
$7
7
,
4
0
3
$7
7
,
0
4
2
$7
6
,
6
8
0
$7
6
,
3
2
0
$7
5
,
9
5
8
$7
5
,
9
4
3
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
a
n
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
2
0
1
0
-
2
0
1
6
20
1
0
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
($
1
84
,
3
9
3
)
$1
0
6
,
6
0
2
$
1
8
1
,
2
1
5
$
3
5
4
,
2
5
4
$
5
5
7
,
5
9
6
$
8
1
4
,
2
5
5
$
8
7
9
,
1
4
0
Mo
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
F
u
e
l
T
a
x
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
5
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
-
f
o
r
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
$5
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
1
2
5
-
(
R
E
E
T
2
T
r
a
n
s
.
)
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
1
0
0
f
o
r
S
h
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$5
5
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
2
0
0
f
o
r
S
h
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$1
9
5
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
1
0
0
f
o
r
D
a
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
$2
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
2
0
0
f
o
r
D
a
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
$2
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
3
0
0
f
o
r
D
a
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
$5
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
1
0
0
f
o
r
S
R
-
5
2
4
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
$6
2
,
4
0
0
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
F
u
n
d
1
1
2
$3
,
0
8
1
$
6
,
0
2
2
$
9
,
4
7
9
$
1
3
,
8
4
2
$
1
4
,
9
4
5
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
1
0
0
(
W
A
T
E
R
)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
2
0
0
(
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
3
0
0
(
S
E
W
E
R
)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$4
8
,
0
0
7
$7
2
6
,
6
0
2
$4
4
9
,
2
9
6
$6
7
5
,
2
7
6
$1
,
1
3
2
,
0
7
5
$1
,
3
9
3
,
0
9
8
$1
,
4
5
9
,
0
8
5
Gr
a
n
t
s
2
0
1
0
-
2
0
1
6
20
1
0
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
(S
t
a
t
e
-
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
)
S
R
5
2
4
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
$1
0
8
,
4
7
8
(S
t
a
t
e
-
T
I
B
)
S
R
5
2
4
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
$6
3
,
7
7
1
(S
t
a
t
e
)
f
o
r
S
h
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$1
3
,
5
0
0
$2
3
6
,
5
0
0
(S
t
a
t
e
)
f
o
r
2
2
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
t
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
)
$2
6
2
,
5
0
0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$2
2
9
,
0
0
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
)
2
2
6
t
h
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$4
3
,
1
6
9
$1
3
8
,
5
1
6
20
0
9
A
R
R
A
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$3
2
9
,
0
2
7
Ye
a
r
l
y
S
u
b
T
o
t
a
l
G
r
a
n
t
s
/
L
o
a
n
s
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
$5
5
7
,
9
4
5
$6
3
7
,
5
1
6
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$2
2
9
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
Fu
n
d
1
1
2
11
/
4
/
2
0
1
0
7Packet Page 402 of 482
Gr
a
n
t
s
2
0
1
0
-
2
0
1
6
20
1
0
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Gr
a
n
t
s
/
L
o
a
n
s
S
o
u
g
h
t
/
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
(
n
o
t
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
A
nn
u
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
s
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
S
i
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
M
a
i
n
/
3
r
d
A
v
e
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
5
3
,
0
0
0
10
0
t
h
@
2
3
8
t
h
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
9t
h
&
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
i
n
t
e
r
i
m
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
/
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
21
2
t
h
@
7
6
t
h
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
4
0
,
0
0
0
9t
h
&
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
i
n
t
e
r
i
m
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
/
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
22
0
t
h
@
7
6
t
h
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
22
8
t
h
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
S
a
f
e
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
,
4
5
2
,
0
0
0
M
a
d
r
o
n
a
S
c
h
o
o
l
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
(
2
3
6
t
h
S
t
.
/
9
4
t
h
A
v
e
)
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
6
7
5
,
0
0
0
2n
d
A
v
.
f
r
o
m
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
t
o
J
a
m
e
s
S
t
.
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
2
,
0
0
0
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
3
,
0
0
0
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
9
,
0
0
0
AD
A
C
u
r
b
R
a
m
p
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
R
o
u
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
n
g
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
d
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
W
a
l
n
u
t
f
r
o
m
3
r
d
t
o
4
t
h
A
v
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
6
t
h
t
o
7
t
h
A
v
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
Gr
a
n
t
(
S
t
a
t
e
)
f
o
r
2
1
2
t
h
&
8
4
t
h
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$2
4
7
,
0
0
0
$
2
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
7
3
0
,
0
0
0
Gr
a
n
t
(
S
t
a
t
e
)
f
o
r
8
8
t
h
@
1
9
6
t
h
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
1
,
5
0
0
$
3
0
8
,
0
0
0
Gr
a
n
t
(
S
t
a
t
e
)
O
V
D
@
P
u
g
e
t
D
r
.
S
i
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
Gr
a
n
t
(
S
t
a
t
e
)
f
o
r
8
0
t
h
A
v
/
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
/
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
4
7
,
0
0
0
Gr
a
n
t
-
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
)
f
o
r
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
$1
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
0
,
0
0
0
Ye
a
r
l
y
S
u
b
T
o
t
a
l
G
r
a
n
t
s
/
L
o
a
n
s
S
o
u
g
h
t
/
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
4
5
,
0
0
0
$
7
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
4
7
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
6
6
9
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
2
9
0
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
3
5
5
,
0
0
0
Gr
a
n
t
/
N
o
t
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
$5
5
7
,
9
4
5
$
7
8
2
,
5
1
6
$
7
8
5
,
0
0
0
$
8
7
6
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
6
6
9
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
2
9
0
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
3
5
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
&
G
r
a
n
t
s
$6
0
5
,
9
5
2
$
1
,
5
0
9
,
1
1
8
$
1
,
2
3
4
,
2
9
6
$
1
,
5
5
1
,
2
7
6
$
6
,
8
0
1
,
0
7
5
$
3
,
6
8
3
,
5
9
8
$
8
,
8
1
4
,
0
8
5
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
($
4
2
1
,
9
4
7
)
(
$
1
,
2
5
0
,
5
0
0
)
(
$
8
0
3
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
9
1
7
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
5
,
9
1
0
,
5
0
0
)
(
$
2
,
7
2
8
,
5
0
0
)
(
$
8
,
1
4
3
,
5
0
0
)
To
t
a
l
D
e
b
t
($
7
7
,
4
0
3
)
(
$
7
7
,
4
0
3
)
(
$
7
7
,
0
4
2
)
(
$
7
6
,
6
8
0
)
(
$
7
6
,
3
2
0
)
(
$
7
5
,
9
5
8
)
(
$
7
5
,
9
4
3
)
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$1
0
6
,
6
0
2
$
1
8
1
,
2
1
5
$
3
5
4
,
2
5
4
$
5
5
7
,
5
9
6
$
8
1
4
,
2
5
5
$
8
7
9
,
1
4
0
$
5
9
4
,
6
4
2
Fu
n
d
1
1
2
11
/
4
/
2
0
1
0
8Packet Page 403 of 482
9
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
4
o
f
4
8
2
1
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
5
o
f
4
8
2
1
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
6
o
f
4
8
2
1
2
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
7
o
f
4
8
2
1
3
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
8
o
f
4
8
2
1
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
0
9
o
f
4
8
2
1
5
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
1
0
o
f
4
8
2
1
6
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
1
1
o
f
4
8
2
1
7
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
1
2
o
f
4
8
2
1
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
1
3
o
f
4
8
2
CIP
PARKS
19Packet Page 414 of 482
2
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
1
5
o
f
4
8
2
2
1
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
1
6
o
f
4
8
2
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 417 of 482
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 418 of 482
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 419 of 482
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 420 of 482
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 421 of 482
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 422 of 482
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 423 of 482
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 424 of 482
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 425 of 482
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 426 of 482
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 427 of 482
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 428 of 482
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 429 of 482
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 430 of 482
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 431 of 482
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 432 of 482
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 433 of 482
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 434 of 482
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 435 of 482
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 436 of 482
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 437 of 482
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 438 of 482
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 439 of 482
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 440 of 482
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 441 of 482
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 442 of 482
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 443 of 482
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 444 of 482
5
0
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
4
5
o
f
4
8
2
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 446 of 482
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 447 of 482
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 448 of 482
5
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
4
4
9
o
f
4
8
2
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 450 of 482
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 451 of 482
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 452 of 482
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 453 of 482
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 454 of 482
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 455 of 482
City of Edmonds Administrative Services
Date: November 12, 2010
To: Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob English, City Engineer
From: Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Subject: CFP List & Comments
There are currently 9 projects on this list, none of which has dedicated funding but some
that may be considered “further along” than others. I have a bit of history/comments for
all of them that I’d like to share that may help understanding where they may or could fall
in the future.
In the order in which they appear on the list (attached) these are my comments and
observations:
Aquatic Center:
The first comprehensive feasibility study for this project was completed in September
2009 and includes consultant’s recommendations and review of 6 different options. Due
to the economic downturn proceeding with a plan to develop an aquatic center appears to
be on hold. I would speculate that the information in this document would remain valid
for approx. 5 years. It is assumed that any of the options for replacement would be
subject to a public vote.
Art Center / Art Museum:
This is a project that will be driven by the arts community and would not likely rely on
the City for any O & M. It could be a new or renovated facility, likely on private land,
perhaps a rental arrangement, and probably best located along or near the future 4th Ave
Cultural Corridor.
INFORMATION
EDMONDS PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Packet Page 456 of 482
Boys & Girls Club Building:
This building has served the needs of the Edmonds B & G Club for decades but is not the
ideal facility for a B & G Club. This aging old field house has plenty of nostalgia but is
lacking in accessibility, space, etc. It is sublet by the City to the B & G Club of Sno. Co.
Generally in this county new Clubs are built through capital campaigns conducted by the
Snohomish Co. B & G Clubs and they naturally seek support (land, cash, other resources)
from the jurisdictions they serve. This location might not be the best for a future
Edmonds club. I think there would be considerable resistance to this building being
demolished though perhaps a major renovation/expansion would be acceptable. The City
at this time does not own the land or the building.
Civic Playfield Acquisition
This 8 acre parcel was leased to the City for $1/year for 40 years and the lease expires in
2021. At this time the School District and the present School Board are not interested in
negotiating for or selling the property. The City should discuss long range plans with
them. An extension of the current lease is possible but it could not be at the current rate
but something reasonable to the City may be negotiable. Of course – the lease has 10
years on it – lots could change.
Edmonds / Sno-Isle Library:
Part of Sno-Isle Library System’s adopted long range plan is to increase meeting space
and improve/increase parking at the Edmonds Library site. I don’t believe any needs or
feasibility studies have been done and this may be more of part of a “wish list”. Although
the city may be asked to participate, there would need to be a long hard look to see if the
current facility is/will meet current and future needs.
Community Park / Athletic Complex @ Old Woodway High School
This facility is owned by the Edmonds School District with an underlying DNR
restriction that the land remains for educational/recreational use. The beauty of this site is
that the property does not need to be purchased, the District is a partner to develop it (they
provided the conceptual plans & have $500,000 in funding set aside), and the
neighborhood is willing. It should not be just an Edmonds project as a facility here would
serve the region. City of Shoreline has field turfed several fields in the past 5 years which
has alleviated some of the pressure on field use. A needs study may be appropriate.
Project has been pitched to the Legislature 3 times (2006, 2007, 2009) for Local
Community Project Capital dollars and has not been successful. No Federal appropriation
has been requested.
Parks & Facilities Maintenance & Operations Building:
This facility was built in the mid-sixties by City staff for a staff of 8-10. It is not “falling
apart” but is inadequate in terms of efficiency, environmental needs, etc. for the staff that
is now double that size (triple in the summer). Like Yost Pool it will continue to function
as long as the City continues to upgrade and fix it but eventually it will not meet the
needs of its users or a major needed “fix” will not be worth the investment.
Packet Page 457 of 482
Senior Center Building:
The Center is a patchwork of waterfront buildings dating from the 1930’s. It has been
home the Senior Center for over 40 years and along the way has seen much renovation,
patching, etc., just enough to protect the asset and the users. The last major effort to
decide how to proceed with the Center (new, renovate, combination) was done in 1998.
Nothing transpired from this so it has been maintained mostly with the help of
CDBG/HUD and CTED funds (approx. $800,000) with City engineering and project
oversite. A much loved site but “sagging” due to location above fill that contains much
bio matter that is deteriorating.
Edmonds Crossing:
Not sure this project should be part of this list as it is a standalone and not City Funded.
Overall Picture in terms of City Responsibility:
Backing out the projects that are not the direct responsibility of the City – though there
could be considerable citizens request/demand for City “support” for of any of them – I
see that the decisions for Council and therefore staff involvement boiled down to five:
Aquatic Center Civic Playfield Old Woodway Athletic Complex
Parks & Facilities Building Senior Center
Prioritizing these by staff is difficult and great cases can be made for all of these. Perhaps
the Council needs a public hearing to help them prioritize. As you know we prioritize in a
combination of different ways with a number of different factors that are dynamic:
Our comp plans Public demand/willingness to pay Emergencies
Efficiency (i.e. combining projects) Funding availability Opportunity
Political will Safety Readiness to proceed
The Parks & Facilities Bldg and Aquatics Center seem to be the furthest along in
feasibility and conceptual preparation. It could be argued the Senior Center is
“deteriorating” at a quicker rate because of its location. Perhaps if there was to be a bond
put forward – these three could be bundled with the other two (Civic & Old WW
Complex) being less critical.
Hope this is helpful!
Packet Page 458 of 482
Packet Page 459 of 482
AM-3505 Item #: 10.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Debi Humann
Department:Human Resources
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Annual Non-Represented Compensation Update.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Staff respectfully requests approval of the updated Non-Represented Compensation Policy along with the
draft ordinance establishing the salary ranges for non-represented exempt personnel for budget year 2011.
Previous Council Action
Per the Non-Represented Compensation policy, these materials are brought annually to Council for
review and approval.
Narrative
As stated in the attached memorandum dated November 2, 2010, the Non-Represented Compensation
policy (NRC) requires the completion of an annual salary survey that compares two non-rep positions to
those to the outside market place (Police Chief and HR Assistant). This year's salary survey showed that
band A, the band containing the position of Police Chief, was slightly below the L-5 position (by $3803
on an annual basis). As a result of the survey (per city policy), Band A requires a slight adjustment
upward to the L-5 position. No movement was warranted for the HR Assistant position.
Please note that this slight movement of the bands does not mean that employees will receive a wage
increase. Per the NRC, merit increases are awarded on the employee's anniversary date and are based on
performance (per the policy). Also, Council should be aware that no employee is paid at the maximum
of their non-represented band therefore, again, the slight movement of the bands will not automatically
result in a pay increase.
Please note that the updated policy and wage information was presented at the October Finance
Committee; it was agreed that the materials should move forward to full Council without
recommendation. Please further note that the Finance Committee requested the changes to 1.3 of the
attached draft ordinance clarifying that this section was to be used on a temporary basis only. Please also
note that it was further requested that both the current band amounts as well as the proposed band
amounts be provided for comparison purposes. This information is contained in the draft ordinance as
well as in Exhibit A, "2011 Non-Represented Employee Pay Schedule."
As stated under "Recommendation from Mayor and Staff", staff respectfully requests Council's review of
the materials provided and further requests approval of both the updated Non-Represented Compensation
Policy and the draft salary ordinance.
Packet Page 460 of 482
Attachments
Annual NRC Materials
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/08/2010 05:05 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:48 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Debi Humann Started On: 11/02/2010 12:54 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 461 of 482
Packet Page 462 of 482
Packet Page 463 of 482
Packet Page 464 of 482
Packet Page 465 of 482
Packet Page 466 of 482
Packet Page 467 of 482
Packet Page 468 of 482
Packet Page 469 of 482
Packet Page 470 of 482
Packet Page 471 of 482
Packet Page 472 of 482
Packet Page 473 of 482
Packet Page 474 of 482
Packet Page 475 of 482
AM-3540 Item #: 11.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:90 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Open discussion of possible budget amendments.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Open discussion of possible budget amendments has been placed on the agenda by Council President
Bernheim.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 11/10/2010 12:12 PM
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 11/10/2010 10:28 AM
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 476 of 482
AM-3542 Item #: 12.
City Council Meeting
Date: 11/16/2010
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of November 9, 2010.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The following City Council Committees met on 11-09-10:
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Finance Committee
Public Safety Committee
The Finance Committee and Public Safety Committee Meeting Minutes are attached.
Copies of the Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting Minutes will be
distributed at the City Council Meeting.
Attachments
11-09-10 Finance Committee Minutes
11-09-10 Public Safety Committee Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Mike Cooper 11/12/2010 08:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 11/12/2010 08:53 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 11/10/2010 12:16 PM
Final Approval Date: 11/12/2010
Packet Page 477 of 482
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
November 9, 2010
6:02 PM
Present: Councilmember Buckshnis
Council President Bernheim
Councilmember Peterson
Staff: Al Compaan, Chief of Police
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic Development Director
Carl Nelson, CIO
Debra Sharp, Accountant
Renee McRae, Recreation Manager
Public: Joe McIalwain, Executive Director, Edmonds Center for the Arts
Steve Shelton, Vice President, ECA Board
Jim Zachor, Prosecutor
Melanie Thomas-Dane, Prosecutor
Bruce Witenberg
Ron Wambolt
Roger Hertrich
Councilmember Buckshnis called the meeting to order at 6:02 PM.
A. Edmonds Public Facilities District/Edmonds Center for the Arts Request for City Grant.
Councilmember Peterson introduced the discussion, explaining the EPFD needs approximately
$100,000 to cover the bond payment that is guaranteed by the City. He requested the Finance
Committee consider all or part of the loan to be a grant so as not to add to the EPFD’s existing debt,
pointing out the City is a partner organization with the ECA and will be the eventual owner of building.
Mr. McIalwain explained the contingent loan agreement attached to the 2008 bond issue allows the
EPFD to request a loan from the City. He will submit a Notice of Insufficiency tomorrow that describes
what the EPFD owes and what it needs from the City. He described their successful fundraiser
Saturday night and the opportunity to reduce the loan/grant if yearend results are better than
expected. Councilmember Buckshnis thanked him for the financial information he provided and asked
how this situation could be avoided in the future. Mr. McIalwain described how the economy had
impacted sales tax revenue and provided a list of potential future revenue options. Councilmember
Peterson emphasized this was a request for capital funds, not operational funds.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested granting the EPFD a loan and after the budget is completed,
determine whether there were funds available for a grant.
B. Approve Contract for Professional Services - City of Edmonds Prosecutor.
Police Chief Compaan introduced this item, explaining it was before the Finance Committee on
October 12 and recommended for the October 19 Consent Agenda. It was pulled from the Consent
Agenda and referred back to the Finance Committee.
Prosecutors Jim Zachor and Melanie Thomas-Dane, Zachor Thomas, Inc., responded to questions.
Ms. Thomas-Dane explained the increase is due primarily to additional time in court as a result of the
increase in video in-custody calendars. Councilmember Buckshnis advised a survey she conducted
Packet Page 478 of 482
Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2
revealed the costs are in line with other cities. It was agreed to forward the contract to the Consent
Agenda.
H. Interlocal Agreement with SNOCOM for Internet Access
CIO Carl Nelson explained the City is currently connected to SNOCOM via fiber. SNOCOM
approached the City about internet access and requested an Interlocal Agreement. The cost of the
contract was discussed and Mr. Nelson explained the costs will go down over time. It was agreed to
place the Interlocal Agreement on the Consent Agenda.
J. Discussion of Mayor Discretionary Pay Increases for Vacant Positions
This item was deferred to a future meeting.
C. Edmonds Historical Museum Repairs Project Costs
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the City provided $100,000 to match a $48,000 grant
from the Historic Preservation office. The base contract was $40,700; two contingency items related
to foundation work and miscellaneous repairs brought the total project cost to approximately $56,700.
The remaining funds are in the Facilities Construction Fund and could be used for other capital
building needs. He recognized Facilities Maintenance Manager Jim Stevens for the great job he did
managing the project. This item was forwarded to the Consent Agenda.
F. Review City of Edmonds Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda
Mr. Clifton reported this item was also reviewed by the other Council Committees: Councilmembers
Fraley-Monillas and Peterson recommended striking Item #6, Red Light Cameras, and
Councilmembers Petso and Peterson requested adding as a top priority support for Extending Sales
and Use Tax Collection from 2027 to 2037 which would provide opportunity for the EPFD to refinance
and reduce their annual debt.
Councilmember Buckshnis requested the addition of State priorities from Watershed Health and
Salmon Habitat Recovery Puget Sound priorities/WRIA 8 Partners. She agreed to send Mr. Clifton
language to include in the Council packet. Mr. Clifton commented on the value of Mr. Doubleday’s
services. It was agreed to schedule the Legislative Agenda on the November 23 full Council agenda.
D. Monthly General Fund Update
This item was for information only.
E. Third Quarter Budget Update
Debra Sharp and Renee McRae responded to questions asked by Councilmember Buckshnis and
Council President Bernheim and several additional questions were referred to staff for response.
G. Review Remaining 2011 Budget Questions
Council President Bernheim explained this was an opportunity to raise any remaining questions. Mr.
Clifton explained directors are responding to the questions related to their department that were asked
at the October 26 Council meeting and submitted via email. The answers are being released as
questions are answered. The remaining questions will be highlighted at tomorrow’s staff meeting with
the goal of having all questions answered by the end of the week.
Packet Page 479 of 482
Finance Committee Minutes, Page 3
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed Councilmember Petso’s question about bonds that can be
restructured.
I. Final 2010 Budget Amendment
Councilmembers reviewed the budget amendments and asked questions of staff. Councilmember
Buckshnis requested exhibits be labeled with the date in addition to exhibit letter. Renee McRae was
asked to prepare a memo regarding public donations made to support Yost Pool. It was agreed the
new budget amendment format was an improvement.
K. 2011 Hourly Employee Wage Schedule
Renee McRae explained when the minimum wage increases, the other wages on the table also
increase. This item was forwarded to the Consent Agenda.
L. Discussion regarding a Policy for a General Fund Reserve
Councilmember Buckshnis explained the Citizen Levy Committee has discussed establishing a policy.
The Government Finance Officers Association standard is 1-2 months. The preliminary budget
contains 2 months. She recommended establishing a policy of 1 month and described General Fund
reserves in other cities. It was agreed to forward this to the full Council for further discussion in
January/February 2011.
M. 2011 Contract for Edmonds City Council Sr. Executive Assistant
Council President Bernheim explained this is a continuation of the current contract, no COLA. The
only change is an increase in carryover vacation credits. This item was forwarded to the Consent
Agenda with a recommendation for approval.
N. Public Comments (3-minute limit per person)
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, recommended making a decision regarding the General Fund reserve
before the budget is finalized. With regard to the 2011 Hourly Employee Wage Schedule, he
expressed concern that all wages were increased when minimum wage increased. He was also
concerned that the budget report is only data and does not contain any narrative. He suggested the
City prepare quarterly budgets as the quarterly budget reports do not reflect seasonality. He reiterated
his question regarding why the 2011 budget is not compared to actuals and asked why the Mayor is
no longer an employee in the 2011 budget. He expressed concern with the information provided by
the Finance Department.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, provided the following suggestions/questions: 1) add to the legislative
agenda lobby for making marijuana criminal offenses an infraction, 2) the water/sewer fund should
pay a portion of the drainage basin project in Hickman Park that was financed with REET funds, 3) did
the City continue to collect the same rate after the bonds in the water/sewer fund are paid off, and 4) if
bonds are refinanced, does the City continue to collect at the same rate. He summarized residents
feel burdened by the increase in utility rates. He commended Ms. Sharp for the financial information
she provided tonight.
Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 7:56 PM.
Packet Page 480 of 482
Public Safety Committee Meeting
November 9, 2010
Page 1 of 2
Minutes
Public Safety Committee Meeting
November 9, 2010
Elected Officials Present: Council Member D. J. Wilson, Committee Chair
Council Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
Mayor Mike Cooper
Staff Present: Community Services Director Stephen Clifton
Assistant Chief of Police Jim Lawless
Fire Marshal John Westfall
The meeting was called to order by Chair Wilson at 6:00 p.m.
A. Review City of Edmonds Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda.
On November 1, 2010, the Edmonds City Council referred the 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.
There was general discussion regarding the legislative priorities of the city. ACOP
Lawless provided input on various issues that may impact the police department.
Councilmember Wilson advised that he would like to reprioritize some items as well as
arrange them by classification, e.g. “concrete asks” in the form of capital requests and
policy requests. Councilmember Wilson advised that he would re-work the wording
and priorities and get a document back to Mr. Clifton.
Councilmember Wilson asked questions about taxation and processes for reverse
annexations and regional fire authority for fire service governance. Councilmember
Wilson made several requests of information from Fire Marshal Westfall relating to
costs, benefits, and asset transfer.
Mayor Cooper advised that the Mayors/City Managers from the majority of South
Snohomish County had been having similar discussions, and the various methods of
governance are currently being evaluated.
It was agreed to have a special Public Safety Committee meeting prior to the regularly
scheduled council meeting on November 23, 2010 with Mayor Cooper, CFO Hines, and
Fire Marshal Westfall in attendance. The meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m., unless there
is an executive session prior to the full Council meeting, in which case the Public Safety
Committee will meet at 5:00 p.m.
Packet Page 481 of 482
Public Safety Committee Meeting
November 9, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Action: Staff was directed to bring the requested regional fire authority and reverse
annexation information back to the special Public Safety Committee meeting to be held
on November 23, 2010.
Meeting concluded at 6:47 p.m.
Packet Page 482 of 482