2011.12.20 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds
DECEMBER 20, 2011
5:30 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
1. (60 Minutes) Convene in executive session regarding potential litigaton per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i),
and a real estate matter per RCW 42.30.110(1)(b).
2. (30 Minutes) Reception in honor of Councilmembers Steve Bernheim and DJ Wilson.
7:00 P.M. - RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION (Flag Salute)
3. (5 Minutes) Approval of Agenda
4. (5 Minutes) Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B. AM-4443 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2011.
C. AM-4446 Approval of claim checks #129221 through #129387 dated December 8, 2011 for
$588,030.36, and claim checks #129388 through #129555 dated December 15, 2011 for
$873,482.27.
D. AM-4450 Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #51050 through #51076 for the period
November 16, 2011 through November 30, 2011 for $713,624.43.
E. AM-4409 Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from James Kreider (amount
undetermined), Frontier (amount undetermined), Monique Walsh (amount
undetermined), and Kimberly Cole (amount undetermined).
F. AM-4436 Report on final construction costs for the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir
Improvement Project and acceptance of project.
Packet Page 1 of 404
G. AM-4442 Orchid Cellmark DNA Testing
H. AM-4453 Proposed Ordinance adopting the following amendments to the Comprehensive Plan:
removing certain properties from the Medical / Highway 99 Activity Center; revising
policy language describing the Medical / Highway 99 Activity Center; redesignating
certain properties from "Single Family Urban 1" to "Multi Family - Medium Density";
and fixing a time when the same shall become effective.
I. AM-4449 Proposed Ordinance adopting a new Chapter 6.90, Food Packaging, in the Edmonds City
Code to prohibit certain uses by the City of Edmonds and on City property of
Polystyrene and nonrecyclable for disposable food packaging and to require instead the
use of recyclable or compostable food packaging; requiring food service businesses to
recycle food waste; providing for enforcement; and establishing an effective date.
J. AM-4451 Proposed Ordinance – BD1 Zone designating 45 foot street fronts.
K. AM-4452 Proposed Ordinance – Amend ECDC 20.40.030 and ECDC 17.40.020 adding limited
exceptions from building height limits for (1) certain solar energy installations and (2)
replacement of existing rooftop equipment with energy efficient upgrades.
L. AM-4439 2012 CDBG Application Resolution.
M. AM-4430 Resolution in recognition of Councilmember Steve Bernheim.
N. AM-4431 Resolution in recognition of Councilmember D. J. Wilson
5. (5 Minutes)
AM-4445
Community Service Announcement - Historic Preservation Commission
6. (10 Minutes)
AM-4432
Presentation of Resolution and plaque in recognition of Councilmember Steve
Bernheim.
7. (10 Minutes)
AM-4433
Presentation of Resolution and plaque in recognition of Councilmember D. J.
Wilson.
8. (20 Minutes)
AM-4441
Discussion and potential action on a proposed Draft City of Edmonds 2012
Legislative Agenda and Professional Services Agreement between City of Edmonds
and Mike Doubleday.
9. (60 Minutes)
AM-4438
Public Hearing on the possible removal of the 212th at 84th (5 Corners)
Intersection Improvements and the Caspers St. at 9th Ave W Intersection
Improvements from the 2012-2017 Capital Facilities Plan, Capital Improvement
Program and Six Year Transportation Improvement Program.
10. (15 Minutes)
AM-4440
Proposed Ordinance adopting amendments to the Capital Facilities Plan Element
of the Comprehensive Plan.
11.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings.
12. (30 Minutes)
AM-4447
Non Represented Salary and Benefits Study: Survey Comparators
Packet Page 2 of 404
13. (15 Minutes)
AM-4417
Extension of sunset date for Citizens Economic Development Commission.
14. (15 Minutes)
AM-4428
Transportation Partnership - Seeking City of Edmonds Support.
15. (5 Minutes)
AM-4435
Report on final project costs for 1025 12th Ave N Storm System Improvement
Project and Council acceptance of Project.
16. (15 Minutes)
AM-4444
Report on City Council Committee Meetings of December 13, 2011.
17. (5 Minutes) Mayor's Comments
18. (15 Minutes) Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 3 of 404
AM-4443 Item #: 4. B.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
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 December 6, 2011.
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
12-06-11 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:48 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:51 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/15/2011 08:43 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 4 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
December 6, 2011
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember (Arrived at 7 p.m.)
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Alex Springer, Student Representative
(Arrived at 7 p.m.)
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Carl Nelson, CIO
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Frances Chapin, Cultural Services Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER RCW
42.30.140(4)(B).
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety
Complex. No action was anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials
present at the executive session were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Bernheim, Plunkett, Fraley-
Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, and Petso. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Police Chief
Al Compaan, Interim Human Resources/Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Human Resources
Manager MaryAnn Hardie, Human Resources Consultant Tara Adams, Rosa Fruehling-Watson, City
Attorney’s Office, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 7:02 p.m.
At 7:05 p.m., Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting in open session and led the flag
salute.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council President Peterson requested Agenda Item 9 be moved to precede Agenda Item 8, noting there is
an hourly consultant present to provide a report regarding Agenda Item 9.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 5 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 2
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT,
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda
items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22, 2011.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #129029 THROUGH #129068 DATED NOVEMBER
21, 2011 FOR $559,705.28, AND CLAIM CHECKS #129069 THROUGH #129220 DATED
DECEMBER 1, 2011 FOR $392,447.78.
D. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH PARAMETRIX FOR DESIGN SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO
THE MAIN STREET DECORATIVE LIGHTING AND SIDEWALK ENHANCEMENTS
PROJECT.
4. ADOPTION OF BOND ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTION.
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock explained there are two ordinances for consideration; one related to
LTGO bonds and the other related to revenue bonds. Page 161 of the packet contains options for the
portion of the bonds proposed to be refunded related to the Marina Beach project, the 2001B bonds. The
LTGO bond ordinance is on packet page 90 and details regarding the savings from the bonds begins on
page 158. The LTGO bonds are not to exceed $12.5 million for refunding of the 1998, 2001A, 2011B and
2002 bonds; this bond issuance is all refunding with no new money. The total savings for this refunding is
approximately $956,000; present value approximately $806,000.
Mr. Hunstock explained the ordinance regarding the revenue bond is on packet page 115 and details
regarding the savings from the portion that is being refunded is on page 164. The revenue bond ordinance
is not to exceed $16.5 million, approximately $2 million is refunding; the remainder is new money.
Revenue bonds are paid by the City’s utility funds. The two refundings are the 1998 bonds and the 2003
bonds, both used for past water and sewer projects. There is approximately $11 million in new money;
$6.5 million for water, $1.1 million for sewer and $3.2 million for stormwater.
Alan Dashen, A. Dashen & Associates, explained the City is doing two bond issues, one for water and
sewer which they plan to sell next week. The other bond issue for the LTGO refunding bonds will be sold
in early 2012. The water and sewer bond is part new money, part refunding; the LTGO bonds are all
refunding. He displayed and reviewed a graph of the bond market from December 2001-December 2010,
summarizing rates are at rock bottom and it is a great time to borrow money.
Scott Bauer, A. Dashen & Associates, referred to a graph of the outstanding water and sewer revenue
bonds, explaining next week’s sale will refinance the 2003 and 1998 water and sewer bonds, present
value savings of approximately $84,000. In addition to refunding those issues is a 20-year bond issue for
new money to pay for capital projects.
Mr. Bauer displayed a graph of all the City’s outstanding LTGO bond issues; the bonds being refunded
are the 2002, 2001, 2001B and 1998 bonds for a total present day savings of approximately $806,000. He
anticipated that bond issue would occur in early 2012.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether the 2007 LTGO bonds would also be refunded. Mr. Bauer
answered those were not proposed to be refinanced at this time. Their call date is 2016; if it were
Packet Page 6 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 3
refinanced now, the money would be put in the bank for about five years which would not be cost
effective.
Alice Ostdiek, Foster Pepper, recalled she was here in February 2011 regarding an authorization to do
some the same refundings which did not occur. The Council’s action tonight will repeal the prior
ordinance and adopt the proposed ordinance. There are two ordinances and a resolution, the first
ordinance is for LTGO bonds, the second ordinance is for the water and sewer revenue bonds and the
resolution is in regard to post issuance compliance with tax and security laws.
With regard to the LTGO bond issue, Ms. Ostdiek explained the ordinance authorizes the issuance of
bonds to refund the bonds identified by Mr. Bauer. If one of the refundings did not produce savings,
under this ordinance, the City’s Finance Director has the authority to pull it to ensure the savings
threshold is met. The ordinance authorizes the team to price the bonds and ensure the savings threshold is
met and if so, sign the final documents. This is the final action that the Council will take with regard to
these bonds. The LTGO bond issue is a straight forward pledge of the City’s full faith, credit and taxing
power; it also includes a pledge of certain Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenues and certain revenue
that the City receives from the Public Facilities District (PFD).
Council President Peterson referred to the Wenatchee PFD. Ms. Ostdiek answered this is nothing like the
Wenatchee PFD issue that has been in the news. Edmonds has an agreement with the Edmonds PFD; the
City originally issued the 2002 LTGO bonds in order to start construction and renovation of the Edmonds
Center for the Arts (ECA). The 2002 bonds are City bonds. On a later date, the PFD issued bonds which
the City guaranteed; those are not included in this bond refunding. She assured the agreements between
the City and the Edmonds PFD are very different than the Wenatchee PFD.
Ms. Ostdiek referred to the water and sewer revenue bond ordinance, explaining it is for new water, sewer
and stormwater projects. The ordinance includes an exhibit describing the projects; stormwater projects
were inadvertently omitted from that exhibit and will be included in the ordinance when it is finalized.
The stormwater projects are included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Plan. Because all the
City’s outstanding revenue obligations were refunded, they provided a new, clean, modern revenue bond
ordinance, updating the covenants, coverage and reserve requirements, etc. There were some provisions
in the old ordinance that related to bond issuances in the 1970s and 1980s that were cleaned up in the
proposed ordinance. The standard provisions are the City pledges to maintain rates and charges for all
three utilities sufficient to support the debt service and take care of operation and maintenance of all three
utilities, the City will maintain a reserve to provide for debt service in case of any shortfalls and will not
sell or dispose of the utility without making provisions to provide for the bond holders.
Ms. Ostdiek explained the resolution adopts a post issuance compliance policy. Over the last several years
the IRS and SCC have become increasingly concerned about municipalities’ ability and willingness to
track their continued compliance with certain tax and security law requirements after bonds are issued.
The resolution establishes a system for the City to ensure those laws are complied with, ensuring certain
disclosures are made to the bond market on an annual basis and when certain events occur and that the
use of the bond finance facilities is still within the parameters set by federal tax law.
Mr. Hunstock displayed and reviewed a spreadsheet with options for extending terms of 2001B bonds
(packet page 169). He explained the question is whether it makes sense at the same time the bonds are
refinanced to extend the life of the bonds. Option 1, equal savings, is recommended by administration.
Option 2, front-loaded savings, would defer principal payment to later years with upfront savings. Option
3, extended debt service, extends the debt service an additional 10 years to 2031. The cost of extending
the bonds due to additional interest during the 10 years is approximately $166,000. He explained the
$166,000 is compared to the current bond; comparing it to Option 1, refinancing the bonds, the bottom
Packet Page 7 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 4
line is $1,609,911 for debt service in Option 1 compared to debt service of $1,996,202 in Option 3, a cost
of $386,000 to extend the life of the bonds versus refinancing at the current rate.
Mr. Hunstock explained approximately $300,000 in debt service will come off the books in 2015, freeing
up some capacity for additional debt should the City Council choose to do so. If the life of the bonds is
not extended there would be some savings now via refunding. If an opportunity arises in the next year, a
debt service could be structured so that principal repayment begins in 2015 after the $300,000 comes off
the books with interest payments made in the meantime. The savings on the refinancing would cover the
additional interest payment during that time period. He summarized it was not necessary to extend the life
of the bonds to free up capacity; the City would have the capacity with the $300,000 coming off the books
in 2015. Administration’s recommendation is to refund via Option 1, with savings through 2021.
Councilmember Wilson asked why not Option 3, pointing out the City can lock in very low interest rates
for the foreseeable future, particularly if in 2015 the Council may decide to take on more debt. The City
has a cash flow problem now and it makes sense to lower the cash outlay, save $80,000 in cash flow even
if that costs a little more by 2031. Mr. Hunstock referred to packet pages 170-172 which project out the
finances for the bond through 2021 and through 2031. He relayed his and Parks & Recreation Director
Carrie Hite’s belief that the City can afford to pay the refunding amount which would save approximately
$21,000/year. He acknowledged it would be tight with a $20,000/year savings; the $80,000/year savings
by extending the life of the bonds would help although it may result in less flexibility in addressing
emergent needs that may arise between now and 2015. He noted the cost of extending the life of the
bonds, $386,000, with a limited revenue source, REET. He acknowledged that cost was over a 20 year
time period.
Councilmember Wilson understood the logic but to the extent it is a cost/benefit analysis, he said 20 years
of savings equal to $386,000 is approximately $16,000/year. He supported savings of $80,000/year versus
$16,000/year and extending the bonds with a very low interest rate rather than paying it off to take on
more debt at a future, more uncertain time. If that logic were the best logic, the argument would be to pay
all the bonds off today rather than refund them.
Councilmember Petso commented she was initially in favor of extending the bonds. If the Council
approves the extended payment, it would free up $80,000/year for other needs. Mr. Hunstock agreed. She
inquired about work-arounds if the Council did not approve that option. Mr. Hunstock explained for
example if the Council identified property they wanted to purchase next year, it could be structured so
that principal repayment begins in 2015 when the $300,000 in debt services come off the books,
essentially freeing up that capacity. Another potential solution is an interfund loan for the time period
between now and 2015 when the debt services come off the books and the interfund repaid in 2015 from
the 126 fund.
Councilmember Petso recalled the City was receiving approximately $600,000 in REET revenue per year
and has debt service of approximately $700,000. She asked if refinancing alone solves that imbalance.
Mr. Hunstock answered with the refunding, there is approximately no loss/no income in the REET fund.
If REET revenue continues to decline, there will be a cash flow issue.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Councilmembers Petso and Wilson, expressing her support for
locking in the lower interest rate and extending the term, saving $80,000/year.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILSON, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3862, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO CONTRACTING INDEBTEDNESS; PROVIDING FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $12,500,000 OF THE CITY’S LIMITED TAX GENERAL
OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS TO CARRY OUT THE REFUNDING OF CERTAIN
OUTSTANDING LIMITED TAX GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY AND TO
Packet Page 8 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 5
PAY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF SUCH REFUNDINGS AND THE COSTS OF
ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE BONDS; FIXING OR SETTING PARAMETERS WITH
RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERMS AND COVENANTS OF THE BONDS; APPOINTING THE
FINANCE DIRECTOR AS THE CITY’S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO APPROVE THE
FINAL TERMS OF THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS, TO APPOINT A REFUNDING
TRUSTEE AND TO TAKE CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO CARRYING
OUT THE REFUNDINGS AND THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS; AND REPEALING
ORDINANCE NO. 3837 OF THE CITY AND EXTENDING THE 2001B ISSUE AN EXTRA 20
YEARS.
Councilmember Plunkett did not support the motion, explaining it is based on the premise that the
Council will choose to take on more debt so why not extend the debt. He felt this simply extended the
bond and increased the debt when there are other options. He did not support extending the bonds to
increase debt for a short term gain.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed with Councilmember Plunkett. He questioned the rationale for
extending the bonds in light of Mr. Hunstock’s recommendation to pay the bonds off in a shorter period
of time.
Councilmember Wilson commented locking in debt at the lowest possible rate is a good thing because it
frees up the ability to do a number of other things. In the past few years the Council has placed five
matters on the ballot for citizens to increase the City’s cash flow: the EMS levy, the TBD ordinance and
the three recent levies. If cash flow is enough of a concern that citizens are asked to assist, the Council
should do whatever possible to help the cash flow situation. In this case an improvement in the cash flow
situation is achieved via a low interest payment over an extended period of time. It increases interest costs
nominally as they are spread over 20 years. He summarized this is smart cash flow management.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND BERNHEIM VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3863, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO THE COMBINED WATER AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
COMPRISING THE WATERWORKS UTILITY OF THE CITY; SPECIFYING, ADOPTING AND
ORDERING THE CARRYING OUT OF A SYSTEM OR PLAN OF ADDITIONS TO AND
BETTERMENTS AND EXTENSIONS OF THE COMBINED WATERWORKS UTILITY;
PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $16,500,000 OF THE CITY’S WATER
AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS: (A) TO PAY ALL OR A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF
CARRYING OUT THAT PLAN OF ADDITIONS, (B) TO CARRY OUT THE REFUNDING OF
THE CURRENTLY OUTSTANDING WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY
AND PAY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF SUCH REFUNDING, (C) TO FUND THE
RESERVE REQUIREMENT, AND (D) TO PAY THE COSTS OF ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE
BONDS; FIXING OR SETTING PARAMETERS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN TERMS AND
COVENANTS OF THE BONDS; AND APPOINTING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AS THE
CITY’S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE TO APPROVE THE FINAL TERMS OF THE SALE
AND ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS, TO APPOINT A REFUNDING TRUSTEE AND TO TAKE
CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO CARRYING OUT THE REFUNDING AND
THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1265, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A POLICY FOR POST-ISSUANCE
COMPLIANCE AND PROCEDURES FOR BOND ISSUES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 9 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 6
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
MAP THAT WOULD ADJUST THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MEDICAL/HIGHWAY 99
ACTIVITY CENTER.
Planning Manager Rob Chave advised the Council previously discussed this matter, referred it to
committee and the Planning Board. The question to the Planning Board was:
• Is single family development appropriate to be included in designated Activity Centers?
• Specifically, should the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center boundary be redrawn to remove
single family areas from being part of the activity center?
Goals for activity centers include the following:
A. Provide a pedestrian-oriented streetscape environment for residential and commercial activity.
B. Encourage mixed-use development patterns that provide a variety of commercial and residential
opportunities, including both multi-family and small-lot single family development.
C. Build on historical character and natural relationships, such as historic buildings, slopes with
views, and the waterfront.
D. Encourage transit service and access.
E. Strategically plan for development and redevelopment that achieves a balanced and coordinated
approach to economic development, housing, and cultural goals.
Mr. Chave explained the City has two activity centers, the Downtown Waterfront and the
Medical/Highway 99. This concept has been included in the Comprehensive Plan for the past ten years.
He displayed a map of the Downtown Waterfront and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Centers,
explaining there are a variety of uses within the boundaries of both activities centers including single
family. The intent was to show that single family development is compatible with walkable, transit-
oriented neighborhoods. This was partially in response to the regional effort to encourage density in areas
with transit opportunities. In Edmonds, small lot single family is part of walkable areas, thus it was a
positive statement to include them in activity centers rather than an indication that the areas should
change. The only change that has occurred in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is the
neighborhood along 215th was changed from multi-family to single family. There are many single family
areas in the Downtown Waterfront area as well as many pedestrians, illustrating single family
neighborhoods contribute to the walkability, character and flavor of the area.
Mixed use includes small lot single family and single family is specified in the land use map and zoning
for those areas. Any change to those single family areas would require a rezone as well as a
Comprehensive Plan amendment, providing them strong protection. The Planning Board felt it
appropriate to include more specific language regarding the protection of single family in the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. The Planning Board recommended adding the following clarifying
language to the goals for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center:
To discourage the expansion of strip commercial development and encourage a cohesive and
functional activity center that allows for both neighborhood conservation and targeted
redevelopment that includes an appropriate mixes of single family and multiple dwelling units,
offices, retail, and business uses, along with public facilities
The Community Services/Development Services committee considered this matter and received
additional testimony from residents in the southwest corner of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
who suggested the Council consider removing single family areas from the Activity Center. Staff still
supports the Planning Board recommendation to change the language. He acknowledged the single family
area in the southwest corner of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center includes large lot patterns and
large ownerships potentially targeted by developers that are different than the other single family
neighborhoods that are platted and built out. Given the lot pattern it makes some sense although staff feels
the single family protections are strong.
Packet Page 10 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 7
If the Council is persuaded by the residents of the single family neighborhood along 220th, he urged the
Council only to remove that area and allow the other areas to be considered in the next major overhaul of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Colleen McDonald, Edmonds, explained she lives within 300 feet of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center boundary. She supported the CS/DS Committee’s recommendation to redraw the boundary to
exclude the area bordered by 220th on the south, 218th on the north and west from 76th to 80th, omitting the
strip of mixed use. The residents of the neighborhood support the change as it removes the impetus for
developers to target their neighborhood such as they experienced with the failed proposal last year to
build a 35,000 square foot medical building in the heart of their neighborhood. Removing their
neighborhood will take away the perception that it is a good place for commercial development due to the
large lots and location within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. Residents purchased their homes
in this neighborhood because it is a neighborhood, not because their homes are in the Medical/Highway
99 Activity Center. She urged the Council to preserve the neighborhood by removing that area from the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
Joe Lyon, Edmonds, explained he lives just outside the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. He urged
the Council to support the CS/DS Committee’s recommendation, explaining that change would help keep
their neighborhood a place for homes and families rather than businesses.
Kathy Lester, Edmonds, explained her family has lived within the boundary of the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center for 12 years. With the exception of medical buildings on 76th Avenue W, the
neighborhood is purely residential. Swedish Edmonds has stated they have no plans to expand beyond
their current footprint. She felt hospital expansion should be within the Highway 99 corridor as the best
and highest use of land near Highway 99 includes medical buildings. The best and highest use of land in
their neighborhood is residential housing. Removing the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
designation from their neighborhood would help preserve it as residential, preserving affordable single
family housing in Edmonds. She relayed that she spoke for other residents in the neighborhood who feel
the same way.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, a resident of the Aurora Marketplace neighborhood, member of the
Highway 99 Task Force and the Economic Development Commission, spoke on his own behalf as an
advocate for preserving established single family neighborhoods. He agreed with the proposed changes to
the Comprehensive Plan policy but felt it did not go far enough to protect single family residences in the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. Many of the neighborhoods in or bordering the Medical/Highway
99 Activity Center are long standing and deserve protection and represent some of the most affordable
single family housing in Edmonds. He supported development in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center or along Highway 99 that gives a high priority to the protection of single family. Protections for
these neighborhoods are needed beyond the Comprehensive Plan language such as zoning. Appropriate
development on Highway 99 and in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center should be permitted but not
without providing protection from the adverse impact of such development on single family
neighborhoods. At a minimum he recommended replacing “allow for neighborhood conservation and
targeted redevelopment” with “allows for preservation of established single family residential
neighborhoods” to the language recommended by the Planning Board.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Petso asked staff to comment on the language proposed by Mr. Witenberg. Mr. Chave
answered it is worthy of consideration but preferred it be considered during the Comprehensive Plan
Packet Page 11 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 8
update process. He felt “neighborhood conservation” had the same meaning and was possibly stronger
and broader as it implied protection of multi-family as well as single family neighborhoods.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether further language changes would be required if the single family
area on 220th were removed from the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. Mr. Chave answered the
ordinance would include an amended map; the only change would be the boundary along 80th would jog
east and then south to 220th. If the other single family areas remain in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center, he recommended the Council accept the language recommended by the Planning Board. The
Council could request the overall boundary, concepts and the language Mr. Witenberg proposed be
considered during the Comprehensive Plan update.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if Planning Board review of the language proposed by Mr. Witenberg
would be required. Mr. Chave explained the language has a slightly different meaning and he preferred to
have the Planning Board review it. The Council could accept the Planning Board’s recommended
language and omit the 220th single family neighborhood. Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the
Council could include the language Mr. Witenberg proposed tonight. Mr. Chave responded neither he nor
the Planning Board have had an opportunity to review the language in detail.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD
AND ALSO CHANGE THE BOUNDARY TO EXCLUDE ALL THE SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN THE MEDICAL/HIGHWAY 99 ACTIVITY CENTER.
Council President Peterson clarified the motion is to exclude all single family areas. Councilmember
Petso agreed the motion was not to just exclude the area on 220th. Mr. Chave asked whether it was her
intent to exclude the single family neighborhood next to the hospital. Councilmember Petso responded
her intent was to exclude the single family areas along the boundary.
Councilmember Wilson commented this was a substantively different amendment than was considered as
part of the docket process and asked if another public hearing and process would be required. Mr. Chave
answered yes and no, the Council’s question to the Planning Board was fairly broad, consider the entire
boundary. Testimony at the Planning Board and their discussion focused on 220th area and the Planning
Board did not consider the other areas. Staff also felt that area was somewhat different than the other
areas. The other areas are platted and built out and there is little threat as a developer would need to
purchase a number of properties to pursue a development. In the case of the 220th neighborhood, there is
an arterial along the boundary; the other single family areas have cul-de-sacs and there is little possibility
of a successful Comprehensive Plan or zoning change. He summarized the danger is very remote in the
other single family areas because they are substantially different than the area on 220th.
Mr. Chave pointed out the language in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center needs to be changed if all the single family areas are excluded from the Medical/Highway
99 Activity Center. The basis for the concept is connecting single family and multi-family neighborhoods
to services in the area. Wholesale removal of the single family neighborhoods also removes that
emphasis. He recommended a larger view of the concept rather than redrawing the boundary.
Councilmember Wilson asked if the proposed motion was a significant enough change with so many
implications that it exceeds the scope of this docketing process. Mr. Chave answered changing all the
boundaries is a substantial change that goes beyond the intent of this public hearing. He preferred the
Council only make the boundary change along 220th.
Councilmember Wilson commented there are some parcels north of Lake Ballinger east of Highway 99
that are single family but in various levels of disrepair. He asked whether the southern boundary included
those properties. Mr. Chave answered it did not.
Packet Page 12 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 9
Councilmember Plunkett noted Council’s original interest was in all the single family areas; the Council
did not narrow the focus, the Planning Board narrowed the focus to the 220th. He asked if another public
hearing would be required if Council was interested in considering their original intent, all the residential
areas within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. Mr. Chave stated the advertisement for this hearing
was broad enough that it included all the single family areas on the outskirts. He was uncomfortable
making that wholesale change as it implied policy changes that are not under consideration.
Councilmember Plunkett asked what policy changes would be required. Mr. Chave stated Council could
exclude the single family area on the periphery, which would be within what was advertised. However,
some of policies would need to be amended which would require consideration by the Planning Board.
Councilmember Plunkett summarized the Council could exclude all the single family areas tonight and
consider the implications to the language next year. Mr. Chave responded the next major Comprehensive
Plan update will occur in 2014/2015. Removing single family in their entirety from the Medical/Highway
99 Activity Center is a different direction.
Councilmember Plunkett requested staff expand the map to the west so that the Council could see that
area. He questioned why a small area of single family was included in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center when they are adjacent to other single family development. If the Council does accept
Councilmember Petso’s motion, there will be a small strip included in an area more prone to development
and the neighborhoods to the west are not included.
Council President Peterson referred to the land use map for the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center,
pointing out it includes single family neighborhoods. He feared in the future the Council may want to
remove all the single family neighborhoods from the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center which he did
not support. The proposed motion supports the language change recommended by the Planning Board that
addresses neighborhood conservation and an appropriate mix of single family and multiple dwelling
units, yet that language does not need to be included because the motion removes the single family areas.
The motion changes the definition of an activity center. He agreed defining single family areas as part of
an activity center provided greater protection because they are part of the concept. Conversely, pockets of
single family may be less protected when commercial development is proposed. He summarized his
concern with including language that references single family and conserving neighborhoods in activity
centers and then excluding single family from the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the language was included to encourage the Council to accept the
map. The language can be changed or removed; the important part is the boundary. The language was the
Planning Board’s proposal rather than working through the Council’s suggestion. He agreed the Planning
Board’s language may be irrelevant if the map is amended to remove single family areas from the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
With regard to Council President Peterson’s comparison of the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center
and the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, Councilmember Plunkett pointed out people who move to
the downtown bowl do so because they want to live in a residential area within walking distance of
downtown. The people living in residential areas near Five Corners and east toward the Medical/Highway
99 Activity Center moved there for a different reason, because they wanted to be in a residential area.
Councilmember Petso did not find it contradictory to adopt the single family language recommended by
the Planning Board. The single family neighborhood on 215th will remain because they are not on the
perimeter and there are single family dwellings in areas zoned multi-family. She recalled this issue arose
as a result of a proposed change to lower SEPA thresholds; the Planning Board recommended lowering
SEPA thresholds, environmental and quality of life protections, only in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Packet Page 13 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 10
Center and nowhere else. The Planning Board may not have considered the amount of single family
neighborhood within the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. If specific zoning and code changes are to
be made for designated properties, she preferred they have similar characteristics. With the proposed
change, the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center comes closer to a true hospital or Highway 99
neighborhood.
Councilmember Wilson referred to the Comprehensive Plan map, asking where the Highway 99 Activity
Center ends on the south. Mr. Chave identified the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center, explaining it
includes part of the Highway 99 corridor and the area around the high school and hospital. There is no
separate Highway 99 Activity Center, the Highway 99 Corridor is the entire length of Highway 99. The
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center is generally from 228th to 208th.
Mr. Chave observed the Council seems to be indicating the Downtown Waterfront Activity Center is
different than the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center; that needs to be discussed as part of the overall
Comprehensive Plan. They were both identified as activity centers because the Downtown Waterfront is
recognized as a current activity center and it was hoped the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center might
become more like that. If the Council wants to deemphasize the inclusion of single family in activities
centers, he suggested that be considered as part of the Comprehensive Plan update.
Councilmember Wilson relayed from his ridealong with the Edmonds Police Department, he learned that
66-75% of the criminal activity in Edmonds happens on Highway 99. That is not typically in the Lake
Ballinger neighborhoods, in many cases it is in this area, particularly the single family neighborhoods in
the southeast corner of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. He estimated 20% of the Edmonds
Police Department calls are from that area. By taking this action, the Council is saying it does not want to
see any integrated development into these single family neighborhoods; he preferred to see some
redevelopment happen in the southeast corner of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas proposed removing the areas north and south of Edmonds-Woodway
High School from the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center. She asked about the designation of those
properties. Mr. Chave explained these areas have been designated and zoned single family for a very long
time. They have been included in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center since that concept was
adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. The only proposed change is removing them from the boundaries of
the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
WILSON, TO AMEND THE MOTION TO EXCLUDE ONLY THE SINGLE FAMILY AREAS
NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST OF THE HIGH SCHOOL AND THE HOSPITAL.
City Clerk Sandy Chase clarified the amendment as follows: to limit the areas withdrawn from the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center to the two distinct areas Councilmember Fraley-Monillas identified.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3), COUNCILMEMBERS WILSON, BERNHEIM,
BUCKSHNIS AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS
PLUNKETT AND PETSO AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO ECDC 20.40.030 AND ECDC
17.40.020 ADDING LIMITED EXCEPTIONS FROM BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS FOR (1)
CERTAIN SOLAR ENERGY INSTALLATIONS AND (2) REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING
ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT WITH ENERGY EFFICIENT UPGRADES.
Planning Manager Rob Chave reviewed the request by the Council to the Planning Board:
• Consider a code amendment that would provide a limited height exception (3 feet) for roof-
mounted solar installations.
Packet Page 14 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 11
• Similar to the exceptions granted for other rooftop appurtances such as vent pipes (18 inches),
standpipes (30 inches), elevator penthouses (3 feet) or chimneys (3 feet).
The Planning Board recommended:
• Exception for solar installations to exceed the height limit by up to 3 feet, permitted as a staff
decision with notice
• Exception for solar installations on non-conforming buildings to allow up to an additional 3 feet,
permitted as a staff decision with notice
• Exception for replacement of existing rooftop HVAC equipment with Energy Star equipment, up
to 12 inches above existing equipment
Mr. Chave displayed photographs of rooftop solar installations, noting the solar installations on the
Anderson Center confirmed that 3 feet was reasonable. The Planning Board also discussed solar
installations on single family; most installations in single family neighborhoods are on peaked roofs. The
Planning Board recommended the review consider reasonable solar access while minimizing view
blockage. Staff’s review would include notice to surrounding properties. If issues arose with regard to
view or other aspects of the design, staff would act as mediators to bring the parties together to address
view considerations while providing reasonable access for the solar installation. The Planning Board also
suggested setting fees equal to “zero” for solar installations which could also apply to both building
permit fees and staff decisions on the height exception.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Chave described existing exceptions for rooftop appurtances.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if the exceptions were granted via a staff decision. Mr. Chave stated no,
they are reviewed as part of the building permit. If they meet the standard, they are allowed by right.
Councilmember Petso asked what happens if reasonable solar access requires blocking a view. Mr. Chave
answered there is a right to some solar access. If there is a choice regarding the location, it needs to be
installed where it blocks the least view possible.
Councilmember Petso asked whether there could be a claim that an installation is not cost effective even
if it does not block another person’s view. Mr. Chave answered cost effective is not the standard;
reasonable access is the standard. He acknowledged reasonable access is not always the least expensive.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed his support for the Planning Board’s recommendation.
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, recalled Mr. Chave’s comment that most single family homes have pitched
roofs and existing height limits are important in residential areas where views exist. He asked how the
value of single family views differed from the value of multi-family views and if they are protected
differently. He anticipated a 3-foot structure on a flat roof could eliminate a person’s peek-a-boo view,
compared to the size of the current exceptions. Under the proposal, a solar installation could be
constructed from corner to corner over the entire flat roof of a building, basically raising the building
height by 3 feet. He recommended there be a limitation on the use of solar to avoid this negative affect.
He noted a Seattle provision that prohibits solar installations from blocking an adjacent property owner’s
solar access. He questioned whether there were criteria for the staff to use in making their decision.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BERNHEIM, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO
IMPLEMENT THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING SOLAR
PANELS.
Packet Page 15 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 12
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO STRIKE THE LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS FOR A STAFF
DECISION.
Councilmember Bernheim asked how the decision would be made. Councilmember Plunkett assumed to
be granted an exception, the exception standards would need to be met and the decision would be
appealable to the Hearing Examiner and the City Council. Mr. Chave responded if that language is
removed, the exception would be handled the same as other exceptions; it is allowed by right and there is
no notice or appeal.
Councilmember Plunkett suggested the exception would be accepted unless appealed to the Hearing
Examiner whose decision is appealable to the City Council. Mr. Chave explained there can be only one
appeal. The Council would need to determine who makes the decision and who would be the appellate
body. That is not addressed in the existing code regarding exceptions for rooftop appurtances. A staff
decision is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. If the Council wants to hear appeals, the open record
hearing would need to be at the Hearing Examiner.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the Planning Board is making a judgment that there be no fee for solar
because of the value of solar. He noted the other rooftop appurtances also have a social value and did not
accept that solar had a greater value that other rooftop appurtances.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCORPORATE A FEE FOR SOLAR PANELS.
Mr. Chave explained unless the Council approved the Planning Board’s recommendation that there be no
fee for solar installations, there will be fees. There is currently a building permit fee for large installations
such as the Anderson Center.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT WITHDREW THE AMENDMENT WITH THE AGREEMENT
OF THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
REFER THIS MATTER TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
COMMITTEE. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS
BUCKSHNIS, PLUNKETT AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BERNHEIM AND WILSON
VOTING NO.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked the amount of the fee. Mr. Chave answered fees could be
considered separately in a discussion that includes the Building Official. For small residential installations
there is no building permit fee but there is an electrical fee; the City does not control the electrical fee.
Larger commercial installations do require a building permit fee.
Councilmember Petso expressed support for the motion and for imposing fees appropriate to cover staff
time. Recognizing there are reasons for subsidizing solar installations, the City is not in the subsidy
business now and needs to charge fees necessary to recover staff time.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED (5-2),
COUNCILMEMBERS BERNHEIM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, BUCKSHNIS, AND WILSON AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND
PLUNKETT VOTING NO.
Packet Page 16 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 13
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Bill Lambert, President, Edmonds South Snohomish County Museum & Historical Society Board,
explained their organization was founded in 1973, set up to administer the Society and oversee the
operation for the museum in the Carnegie library building. They signed their first lease with the City in
1973 and currently operate with a lease that expires in February 2012. They plan to request the City
extend that lease. Edmonds has benefited from their initiation and sponsorship of the markets. The market
is annually rated a regional best by vendors and the public and people are often surprised the market is
managed by the museum. He expressed the Board’s willingness to continue to manage the public market
and work with the City on the expansion or creation of a year-round public market. The market brings
visitors to the city who patronize businesses and restaurants and the market aids in building the
community’s reputation and quality of life. Although the City provides the museum building, they raise
all the funds to operate the Society. He requested the Society be part of the discussion of a year-round
public market due to the potential unintended consequences on the successful operation of their non-profit
business. He invited Councilmembers to become members of the Society at www.historicedmonds.com.
Dave Page, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 4, recalling in 1984/1985 the City was refinancing 17%
bonds to 11%. When the Public Safety Complex was built, bonds were 9-10%. During most of his real
estate, mortgage and banking career, interest rates have been above 7%. Never has money been as
inexpensive as it is now, forced down arbitrarily by the federal reserve which will never happen again in
this lifetime. He recommended refinancing everything such as a 30 year bond to 15 years at the same
payment.
Don Hall, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 10. As a member of the Economic Development
Commission (EDC), he explained their work is just beginning. The EDC has accomplished much in a
short time but there is much more to do. The EDC is made up of 17 diverse community members. The
economy is not improving and the City needs all the ideas the Commission can develop to facilitate
recovery. He supported extending the term of the EDC.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, expressed concern there was no public hearing scheduled regarding
transportation projects in the CFP/CIP. He recommended removing the traffic signal project at 9th &
Caspers from the CIP. Next he commented on the use of grant funding, pointing out grants are public
money. He objected to spending $400,000 in grant funds to begin a $2 million roundabout project with
over $70,000 in City money. He anticipated a poll of the neighbors would find a roundabout is the least
favorable improvement for Five Corners. If a roundabout is constructed, he preferred a double lane versus
a single lane as it was much safer. He relayed his experience driving through two roundabouts in Lake
Stevens today, comparing it to a game of chicken. Edmonds has an older population who may have
difficulty navigating a roundabout. He agreed roundabouts save time and reduce idling and emissions but
is not what Edmonds needs.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, one of the original members of the EDC, expressed his support for
extending the sunset date of the EDC as proposed. He recalled all the Council and Mayoral candidates
campaigned on platforms supporting economic development and clearly economic development is a high
priority for moving the community beyond the current fiscal crisis. The EDC is a diverse group of
individuals who put aside their personal agendas and worked to build consensus on a variety of projects
with input from the community. He commented on staff time to educate the EDC on economic
development in Edmonds, emphasizing the importance of reappointing a significant number of the current
Commissioners in order to provide continuity as well as avoiding losing time and momentum.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, agreed with Mr. Hertrich’s comments. He agreed grants are public money,
recalling a recent comment that if the roundabout project does not proceed, much of the grant money will
need to be repaid. He was strongly opposed to a roundabout at Five Corners, relaying his experience with
Packet Page 17 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 14
roundabouts in England, Montreal and Halifax, Nova Scotia. He pointed out Halifax has had traffic
circles for at least 50 years; they all now have traffic lights due to numerous accidents in the roundabouts.
Regardless of the amount of money that has been put into the design of the Five Corners roundabout, he
preferred not to spend good money after bad.
9. NON REPRESENTED SALARY AND BENEFITS STUDY: SURVEY COMPARATORS.
Interim Human Resources/Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the Council recently
awarded a contract to Public Service Personnel Consultants (PSPC) to complete a job description update,
a Non Represented employee market survey, and update the Non Represented compensation policy.
PSPC provided a presentation regarding the scope of work to the Council on October 25, 2011. Since that
time PSPC has been working to complete the job description update and tonight PSPC will present their
recommendation on the survey comparators in order to proceed with the Non Represented salary and
benefit survey and the Non Represented compensation policy update.
Matt Weatherly, President, Public Sector Personnel Consultants, reviewed the project scope and
deliverables:
• City-wide classification and job description updating study as authorized by Council.
• Project to include direct employee participation and input. Employees have completed a position
analysis questionnaire describing their duties and responsibilities which will provide information
for PSPC to propose updated and ADA and EEO compliant job descriptions for every position.
Job duty information will be the basis for external comparisons.
• Non-represented Compensation Survey comparing City’s total compensation plans by benchmark
job, as well as benefits offerings and salary policies, to the appropriate marketplace(s).
• Updating of compensation policies for non-represented job titles and development of updated pay
structure to ensure a fair, appropriate and competitive pay system.
He referred to the PSPC memo that identifies nearby and/or similarly sized jurisdictions with whom they
proposed comparing Edmonds’ jobs. He recommended comparing Edmonds jobs to similar jobs at the
listed agencies; they would not be comparing cities but jobs based on job duties. He provided the
following recommended data sources for the survey: Auburn, Kirkland, SeaTac, Bellevue*, Lynnwood,
Seattle*, Bothell, Marysville, Shoreline, Burien, Puyallup, Everett*, Redmond, Snohomish County*,
Issaquah, Renton*, King County*, Kent*, and Sammamish. Differentials will be applied for size-sensitive
occupations in the cities with an *.
They will also include private sector data from published surveys for some occupations, such as finance,
IT, engineering etc. They will attempt to collect base pay information from salary range entry to salary
range top out as well as a comprehensive list of employee benefits or total compensation elements to
include insurances, pension contributions, employer paid benefits of significance and cost. This may also
result in the collection of anecdotal information regarding benefits that other cities offer non-represented
positions that Edmonds may not. He summarized total compensation will include all benefits Edmonds
offers compared to benefits offered by other cities.
Mr. Weatherly reviewed a sample base salary survey illustration that includes recommended job class,
survey job class, participation organization, current midpoint, external aged midpoint and variance,
individual employer rate, private sector ERI salary, published survey rate and prevailing rate. The actual
comparison will include insurances, pension contributions, auto allowances, education incentives, etc. He
anticipated designing a salary range table that includes minimum, mid-point and maximum. He suggested
aligning the middle of the City’s structure with market values, using midpoint to midpoint comparisons.
The goal is to allow enough room toward the minimum for hiring an entry level person, driving people
toward market value as they approach journey level of experience and competence.
Packet Page 18 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 15
Mr. Weatherly provided a pay range illustration where the minimum is 80% of midpoint, midpoint is
100% of pay range and maximum is 120% of midpoint.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out the City’s policy has been to pay at the L-5 median of comparable
cities. The proposal appears to be a policy change to set the center of the range at market value versus the
maximum at L-5 in the current policy. Mr. Weatherly acknowledged it could be a diversion from existing
policy. His preference would be to compare the City’s current top-out to market top-out. His proposed
method alleviates what could be fairly large discrepancies in range width from agency to agency. The
compensation theory suggests the City’s market value of a value is somewhere near the journey rate,
leaving room at the bottom for a new hire and at the top for a star performer but driving the organization’s
compensation philosophy to ensure journey-level individuals able to competently perform all job duties
are paid in the middle of the scale/range. The range width can be adjusted to be narrower or wider to
ensure the minimum is 80-85% of midpoint and the maximum is 115-120% of midpoint.
Mr. Weatherly explained the goal, and what is missing in the City’s existing policy, is an objective and
sustainable mechanism to move people through pay ranges. The most common criticism of the existing
policy is placing a maximum or L-5 value that no one can obtain. Some combination of market plus merit,
potentially plus COLA would achieve some range penetration to ensure an individual with 5-7 years in
their job reaches around the market value which is calculated at the mid-point. He will provide the
Council with flexible and adaptable options in order to make a statement regarding overall goals and
objectives with respect to total compensation.
Councilmember Wilson explained the Council has on occasion approved a scope of work that makes
sense and consultants do the work but the process develops a disconnect between what the Council
thought they were asking for and what they received. To the extent that Mr. Weatherly is working down a
logical process that the Council approved, he encouraged Mr. Weatherly to check in with staff regarding
how their work matches the Council’s intent. He anticipated if the result was logical and fit within the
scope but resulted in a substantive and major change from the L-5 policy, it was unlikely to be well
received by the Council. Mr. Weatherly was hopeful their presence before the Council at least three times
would alleviate those concerns and potential disconnects.
Councilmember Wilson clarified he had never heard the Council say they wanted to set the mid-range of
the band at market; it has always been the top end of the range at the L-5 level. Mr. Weatherly explained
the current minimums place the City at a distinct disadvantage in the market which was within the
Council’s right. Their survey will compare minimums and maximums and bring forward all that
information to the Council to make an informed policy decision either within the framework of the
existing policy or a new policy. There are significant differences between the historic mechanisms to
move pay in union positions compared to non-represented positions; union salary growth is far outpacing
non-represented positions. He clarified that just because a survey is done does not mean pay will increase.
The policy will be a combination of the Council’s desire to attract and retain high skilled staff as well as
create and maintain a mechanism to incentivize employees to leave the union to take non-represented
positions. There is currently significant compression between represented and non-represented positions
due to the non-represented policy, structure development and historic lesser salary administration within a
reasonable pay range. He wanted to ensure the City was compensating journey-level professionals and
above individuals at market rates. His understanding of the RFP and scope of work is an exercise in due
diligence to ensure the City is neither under or over compensating but fairly, equitably and consistently
compensating non-represented positions. The goal is to present a survey model that is part of the policy to
provide a tool/pattern to follow in subsequent budget years based on refreshing the survey data.
Mr. Weatherly described elements of the policy development:
• Survey comparators–model for now and future updates.
• Application of market data–pay structure comparisons and desired competitiveness level.
Packet Page 19 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 16
• Objective and sustainable in-range pay adjustments to assure retention and alleviate compression.
• Hiring, placement, and merit/market guidelines.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Weatherly explained there are two main issues, compression between
represented and non-represented positions and historic practice of aligning the top of the pay scale that no
one can reach with market values. Councilmember Plunkett asked what Mr. Weatherly was suggesting
instead of L-5. Mr. Weatherly answered it would be a mid-point compensation policy. The current L-5
approach aligns the top of the pay scale with market value. Historically employees are hired at entry
which is 20-30% away from market values which places the City at a distinct market disadvantage.
Responding to Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Weatherly stated not allowing employees to reach market
value at the top places the City at a disadvantage.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked if unemployment rates are factored into recruitment and retention.
Mr. Weatherly stated factors such as furloughs, tiered approaches to total compensation, etc. would be
considered. Due to higher unemployment, in theory the City should be able to be more conservative with
its total compensation approach than 5 years ago. The City may be able to adopt a compensation plan at
the 50th percentile or slightly less. He recommended non-represented pay growth be similar to what union
employees experience. It may not be via COLAs or negotiated increases but may be merit-based.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained she mentioned unemployment as a factor because the City has
received 46 applications for the Mayor’s executive assistant position and expect to receive up to 80
applications. Mr. Weatherly noted the pay band for that position is $57,000 - $87,000; to his knowledge
the City had not hired anyone above the entry rate although there could be exceptions. The City’s policy
would not allow that person to ever reach $87,000 at the top of the pay range. He acknowledged the City
could be more conservative with its pay approaches in this economy. He expected the City would be able
to hire a very qualified individual, perhaps one with experience in the public sector. He reiterated the goal
was not to give all employees an increase. Their mission is to provide true and fair total compensation
market value of all the jobs. He was seeking input regarding what agencies the City was most susceptible
to loss, recognizing that nearly all employees were already within commuting distance when they accept
their position with Edmonds. There are few positions within cities where an employee is expected to
relocate. He invited questions regarding the cities or the data sources.
Councilmember Petso recalled her concern when the current policy was developed with only looking at
King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties for comparables and excluding cities that are logically within the
marketplace such as Bremerton. She noted Bremerton was not on the list of cities but seems to be
comparable to Edmonds with regard to size and possibly duties and a recent hire still lives there. She was
not happy with the old comparable cities and is less happy with the proposed comparable cities. She
suggested adding Olympia, Bremerton, Des Moines, and University Place, cities that seem more like
Edmonds than Bellevue, Everett and Seattle. Mr. Weatherly answered he prepared the list, not staff. He
suggested identifying cities that are within reasonable commuting distance that compete for employees.
The intent of this discussion is to get Council feedback on the list of cities. He asked what made Bellevue
less like Edmonds and Bremerton more like Edmonds.
Based on the last two director hiring experiences, Councilmember Petso preferred not to limit cities to
commuting distance. She noted the other person interviewed for the Parks & Recreation Director position
was from Ellensburg and the runner up for the Finance Director position was from Bellingham. Because
the City receives applications from a wide distance, she suggested broadening the comparisons to include
at least statewide.
Councilmember Wilson commented 13 of the 19 comparable cities are in King County and they will
likely have higher cost of living than Marysville for example. He suggested if SeaTac is included, also
including Stanwood which would lower the band’s net average. Mr. Weatherly commented there is a
Packet Page 20 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 17
significant cost of living differential between western and eastern Washington, 15-20% in some instances.
Although an eastern Washington city may have a similar population, he would recommend adding 15% to
their data. He invited the Council’s feedback now rather than in 90 days when they present data.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the WCIA survey. Mr. Weatherly responded they will be
referencing that in the data and analysis.
Councilmember Bernheim observed 10 of the comparable cities have higher populations than Edmonds
and six have lower populations. Larger cities may have characteristics less like Edmonds; Edmonds may
have more characteristics in common with smaller cities such as being primarily residential without a
larger commercial base. He suggested comparing Edmonds’ mid-point to similar cities. Mr. Weatherly
responded the City’s existing policy identifies comparable as four cities above and four cities below
Edmonds’ population within King and Snohomish Counties. He explained there is not a direct correlation
between size and pay.
Ms. Hite inquired about next steps, observing the Council wanted to change the comparator cities.
Councilmember Wilson suggested Ms. Hite and Mr. Weatherly prepare three groups of cities with clear
rationale regarding their grouping and the Council vote on the three. This could be accomplished via a
written report and would not require Mr. Weatherly’s presence. The Council agreed with that approach.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 90 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. DISCUSSION ON FIVE PROJECTS RELATED TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
ELEMENT UPDATE (2012-2017) TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: FIVE CORNERS ROUNDABOUT, 9TH AVE
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS, TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM, 4TH AVE
CULTURAL CORRIDOR AND PUBLIC MARKET.
Council President Peterson explained this agenda item was a discussion to narrow the focus and a public
hearing is scheduled on December 20.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
(Councilmembers Wilson and Fraley-Monillas left the meeting at 10:00 p.m.)
Public Works Director Phil Williams explained the Council held a public hearing in October regarding
the Capital Facilities element of the Comprehensive Plan as well as discuss projects in the Capital
Facilities Plan (CFP). At the conclusion of that meeting, the Council requested additional information
regarding six separate projects:
1. Five Corners roundabout
2. 9th Avenue & Walnut
3. 9th Avenue & Main
4. 9th Avenue & Caspers
5. 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
6. Public Market
Mr. Williams introduced the team: City Engineer Rob English; Transportation Engineer Bertrand Hauss,
Brian Walsh; Washington State Department of Transportation, Traffic Design and Operations Engineer;
and Victor Salzman, Project Manager for the design and right-of-way phase of the Five Corners
roundabout, David Evans and Associates.
Packet Page 21 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 18
Roundabout
Mr. Williams recognized the question of whether a roundabout is the right answer for Five Corners. He
explained the roundabout will:
• Dramatically reduces traffic congestion
• Reduces air pollution
• Reduces accidents
• Improves aesthetics
• Facilities future development in the area of Five Corners
• The design and right-of-way phase is grant funded (Congestion Relive and Air Quality grant)
He displayed a rendering of the roundabout, identifying the splitter islands at each intersection. He
described the current status of the intersection:
• Stop controlled at all 5 approaches
• 1700 vehicles go through during the week during the average PM peak hour or 1,015,000
vehicles/year
• The need for improvement is identified as a concurrency project in the 2002 and 2009
Transportation Plan
• Level of service (LOS) exceeds the City’s LOS standard D
Mr. Williams recognized:
• Drivers are generally opposed to roundabouts when first suggested
• Most opposition is from a lack of experience driving modern roundabouts
• Some equate roundabouts to east coast rotaries or traffic calming circles
• Roundabouts are broadly accepted after construction and acceptance tends to increase over time
Mr. Williams provided a graph illustrating only 31% of people surveyed favor a roundabout when first
proposed and 41% strongly oppose it. After the roundabout is built, the numbers change to 63% in favor
and only 15% strongly opposed. In the State of Washington 205 roundabouts have been built since 1997
and over 3000 nationwide. He provided feedback from Gig Harbor which has 7, Sammamish which has 3
and Woodinville which has 6 regarding initial opposition to roundabouts and support of roundabouts
since their installation. He summarized reasons for a roundabout at Five Corners:
• Congestion relief
• Air quality improvement
• Accident reduction
• Restore LOS
• Other reasons
o Facilitate future development
o Stormwater quality/quantity improvements
o Financial prudence
Mr. Williams provided a projected intersection delay comparison:
Item Existing Conditions Traffic Signal Roundabout
2009 115 seconds (LOS F) 50 seconds (LOS D) 10 seconds (LOS A)
2015 172 seconds (LOS F) 61 seconds (LOS E) 12 seconds (LOS B)
2025 204 seconds (LOS F) 83 seconds (LOS F) 12 seconds (LOS B)
Meets required service level No No Yes
With regard to air quality, Mr. Williams explained the improvement to air quality is the reason the City
received the grant. He provided the following facts with regard to air quality:
• Reduces vehicle delay by 145,400 hours/year
Packet Page 22 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 19
• Cost savings to citizens of $2.54 million/year
• 92,880 gallon/year fuel savings
• 80,168 lbs. carbon reduction, carbon footprint reduced by 40 tons
• 2,500 lbs. NOx reduction
• 4,000 lbs. hydro carbon reduction
With regard to accident reduction, Mr. Williams provided diagrams and described eight accidents that
have occurred at the Five Corners intersection 2007-2010. He displayed a drawing of the current
intersection and identified the 18 potential vehicle conflict points and 13 potential conflict points between
vehicles and pedestrians. He displayed a drawing of the conflict points in a roundabout, pointing out there
are fewer potential conflict points and they are in more predictable locations.
Mr. Salzman displayed a video of vehicles and pedestrians navigating the current intersection.
Mr. Williams provided a graph regarding collision reduction in roundabouts, relaying a 37% reduction in
overall collisions, 75% reduction in injury collisions, 90% reduction in fatality collisions and 40%
reduction in pedestrian collisions.
With regard to aesthetics, Mr. Williams displayed a photograph of a large utility pole, explaining the pole
will be relocated as part of the project and it is hoped the utilities can be undergrounded as part of the
project. He displayed a rendering of the roundabout, commenting it is a major aesthetic improvement over
the existing intersection. He displayed photographs and renderings of existing and proposed conditions.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the rendering of the roundabout, explaining she grew up in an area
of Portland where there are roundabouts. In response to concern with walking in a roundabout, she
explained pedestrians know the direction of cars and the islands make crossing much safer. Bicyclists also
like roundabouts because they are safer. Mr. Williams agreed pedestrian safety was improved due to the
reduced crossing distance and pedestrians only need to reach the splitter island rather cross than the entire
width of the roadway.
With regard to business impacts, Mr. Williams explained:
• No changes in access are required
• Business visibility is unchanged
• Parking impacts: 1 or fewer stalls per parcel
• 2-3 signs relocated or replaced
• Access improved
• Redevelopment potential realized by improved LOS
Mr. Williams explained a concurrency ordinance would be needed in Edmonds but the principal is that
development that adds new traffic movements cannot be approved without addressing the problem. It will
be difficult to increase the intensity of development at Five Corners if the intersection does not meet the
City’s LOS. With regard to right-of-way requirements, Mr. Williams displayed a drawing illustrating
where right-of-way will be needed and areas where there may be surplus property that could be traded for
right-of-way. Minor acquisitions are required at each corner. There will be no business relocations.
With regard to the statement that trucks cannot use roundabouts, Mr. Williams displayed a drawing
illustrating the path of a semi-tractor trailer making a left turn. He also noted the following:
• Splitter islands designed for trucks
• Central island includes truck apron
• Current intersection design does not accommodate trucks for all movements
• 212th and 84th are designated truck haul routes
Packet Page 23 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 20
• Buses and emergency vehicles require less space than this vehicle
Mr. Salzman provided a video of a semi-tractor trailer making a U-turn in the existing intersection.
Mr. Williams provided a summary of roundabout benefit:
• Traffic flow improved by 90%+
• Concurrency failure eliminated through 2025
• Gateway treatment at Five Corners and into downtown
• Utilities undergrounded by the project
• Air quality improvement
• Non-motorized transportation improvements
o Bike lanes
o Flashing beacons
o Reduction in pedestrian crossing distance with splitter island
• Drainage improved
• Encourages future development
• Grant funded: 87.5% of the cost of the design and right-of-way phase is funded. Would seek
construction funding from the same grant source.
Mr. Williams displayed a video of a 5-legged roundabout in Glen Falls, New York with people
commenting about initial opposition to the roundabout and support once it was constructed. He
summarized he is convinced the roundabout at Five Corners is the right project at the right location.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if installing stop signs in the roundabout would affect the financing. Mr.
Williams answered yes. The roundabout would not provide the benefits he outlined if stop signs were
installed. Councilmember Plunkett asked if stop signs could be installed. Mr. Williams answered he did
not think the City would receive grant money for a design that included stop signs. Councilmember
Plunkett asked if the funds the City has received would need to be returned if the design included stop
signs. Mr. Williams answered the City will need to submit a design package to WSDOT that meets their
approval. He anticipated a design that included stop signs would not be approved and would not be built.
Councilmember Plunkett summarized if the design included stop signs it would be a different project and
the City would need to reapply for grants. Mr. Williams explained the point of a roundabout is not having
vehicles stop. Mr. Salzman commented since all roundabouts utilize yield signs in accordance with the
Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, installing stop signs would increase the City’s liability.
Council President Peterson assumed with stop signs, the LOS would still be failing. Mr. Walsh explained
a yield sign serves the purpose of giving right-of-way to the circulating roadway, operating like a partial
stop sign and improving efficiency at the intersection. Including stop signs as part of a roundabout would
result in discussions between Mr. Williams and WSDOT to describe the logic.
Council President Peterson asked if businesses in Five Corners, in the Medical/Highway 99 Activity
Center and Swedish would have difficulty expanding due to the failed intersection. Mr. Williams
answered if the City had a concurrency ordinance, that would be the tool to require transportation
improvements. According to the principal of concurrency, if Swedish Edmonds’ expansion added traffic
movements in this intersection, the intersection’s failed condition would need to be addressed.
Councilmember Bernheim commented on the lack of hard data regarding the Five Corners intersection.
He found the table regarding delays difficult to believe, commenting the source of the data had not been
provided. Residents have lived with this intersection for a long time and have figured out how to get
through it, often using one lane as two lanes. Delays only occur 10-15 minutes/day. He was concerned
Packet Page 24 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 21
with the $2 million cost of the project compared to other uses of those funds. His observation of the
intersection was 100 cars every 5 minutes at 5:00 p.m. on a weekday. He was in favor of the project for
many of the reasons expressed but it is a lot of money for a marginal improvement. Taxpayers want to get
by without paying more for something better.
Mr. Williams responded 100 cars every 5 minutes was similar to the data he presented, 1700 cars/hour.
He agreed the grant funds were public money from the Air Quality grant program. The City applied on a
competitive basis and the panel decided that the Five Corners roundabout was the best investment. If the
City turned the money down, it would likely go toward building a roundabout in another community
where similar benefits would be affected. He agreed local funds would be required; a 13.5% match that
would come from the City’s gas tax revenues that are dedicated to transportation uses. The other 87.5%
would come from the federal grant.
Councilmember Petso asked how much the City would need to pay back if the Council bailed on the
project now. Mr. Williams explained approximately $65,000 has been spent to date plus internal costs for
a total of approximately $70,000. If the Council decided not to do any more work on the project, any
grant reimbursements received to date and expenses incurred to date would be the City’s responsibility. If
the design and right-of-way phase are completed, the complete grant is accessible. The local share of the
funds, 13.5% or $73,000-$77,000 is approximately the same as the amount spent to date.
Councilmember Buckshnis recalled standing on the corner in Five Corners for three days during her
campaign and finding it scary. She did not like to drive through the intersection due to the amount of
traffic and was surprised pedestrians walk in the area. She compared this project to the marsh; the project
was selected and the funds were provided. She anticipated people would say not in my back yard but once
it was constructed they would love it. Although the roundabout is controversial she felt it was the smart
thing to do.
Recognizing stormwater improvements will be part of the project, Council President Peterson asked if a
portion of the design or construction phase of the project could be funded by utility funds. Mr. Williams
answered there may be elements of the project that could be funded by stormwater funds. Traffic Impacts
Fees are another potential revenue source. Council President Peterson summarized the design phase needs
to be completed before other funding sources can be identified. This is a fantastic project that helps
traffic, pedestrians, and the environment.
Caspers St. @ 9th Avenue
Mr. Hauss displayed a photograph of the northbound movement from 9th Avenue. He described existing
conditions:
• Stop- controlled for northbound movement only (from 9th Avenue N accessing SR-524)
• Currently meetings LOS standards for Highways of Regional Significance (LOS E)
• Identified as a concurrency project in 2002 and 2009 Transportation Plan
• Project included in 2002 and 2009 TIF calculations
He provided a LOS comparison for this intersection:
Year LOS with existing conditions LOS with traffic signal
2009 LOS C (24 seconds)
2015 LOS E (37 seconds)
2025 LOS F (74 seconds) LOS B (16 seconds)
Mr. Hauss reviewed the proposed improvement:
• Traffic signal installation
• Included in CFP, scheduled between 2018 and 2025
Packet Page 25 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 22
• Not included in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or the Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP) as those only include projects schedule in the next six years
• Estimated cost for design, right-of-way and construction: $1 million.
Main Street @ 9th Avenue and Walnut St. @ 9th Avenue
Mr. Hauss displayed photographs of northbound movements on 9th Avenue. He described existing
conditions at both intersections:
• All way stop controlled intersections
• Single lane intersections
• Parking allowed on all approaches
• Identified as concurrency projects in the 2002 and 2009 Transportation Plans
• Projects included in 2002 and 2009 TIF calculations
Main Street @ 9th Avenue
Year LOS with existing conditions LOS with interim solution LOS with traffic signal
2009 LOS E (48 seconds)
2015 LOS E (89 seconds) LOS D (26 seconds) LOS B (13 seconds)
2025 LOS F (132 seconds) LOS D (29 seconds) LOS B (16 seconds)
Walnut Street @ 9th Avenue
Year LOS with existing conditions LOS with interim solution LOS with traffic signal
2009 LOS E (48 seconds)
2015 LOS E (89 seconds) LOS D (26 seconds) LOS B (13 seconds)
2025 LOS F (132 seconds) LOS D (29 seconds) LOS B (16 seconds)
Mr. Hauss reviewed the interim solution:
• Striping revisions only
o 9th Avenue from Walnut to Main Street
2 lanes for both north and southbound
Remove parking on both sides of the street
o Main Street
2 lanes for westbound movement
Remove parking for short stretch east of intersection only
• Scheduled for 2013 in TIP, CIP and CFP
• Estimated total cost $20,000 ($10,000 for each project)
Mr. Hauss reviewed the proposed long term improvement:
• Installation of traffic signal at each intersection
• Included in CFP, scheduled between 2018 and 2015
• Individual project estimated cost: $1.1 million
Traffic Calming Program
Mr. Hauss described traffic calming expenditures in 2011:
• Citywide speed studies along 23 segments
o Evaluation based on set of criteria
o Priority list developed
• Radar feedback signs to be installed at three locations
o Northbound Olympic Ave.
o Northbound Olympic View Dr.
o Southbound Olympic View Dr.
• Sunset Avenue Walkway project (between Bell and Caspers)
Packet Page 26 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 23
o Conceptual drawing with sidewalk, parking, and bike lane on west side of Sunset Avenue
o Lane width reduction
o Non-motorized transportation improvements
Mr. Hauss described future traffic calming program (annual budget 2012-2014: $10,000)
• Additional speed studies/evaluations
• Install traffic calming devices on 1-2 segments
o Semi-permanent radar feedback signs
o Bulb-outs
o Refuge islands
o Speed cushions
The following could be funded if additional traffic calming program funds become available:
• Install mid-block pedestrian crossing in the Main Street project from 5th Avenue to 6th Avenue
(estimated cost $15,000)
• Additional traffic calming devices throughout the City where warranted
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the failed LOS on 9th @ Walnut and 9th @ Main is due to the signal at
220th @ 9th. Mr. Hauss answered he did not believe the 200th @ 9th signal impacted the delay at those
intersections. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to retain the 4-way stop at the Main @ 9th and the
Walnut @ 9th intersections, anticipating that a 20 second wait was not problematic for most motorists. Mr.
Hauss explained the interim solution retains the all way stop and creates a two lane approach.
Councilmember Buckshnis questioned whether the traffic signals needed to be retained in the CFP. Mr.
Hauss advised the City’s level of service standard would be achieved until 2025.
Mr. Williams commented the interim solutions at Main @ 9th and Walnut @ 9th could be very effective,
were relatively inexpensive and provide a significant improvement for a long period of time although it
results in the loss of a few on street parking spaces. There is no downside to leaving the ultimate, more
expensive solution, the traffic signals, in the CFP. The City would not apply for or receive funding for a
signal before one was warranted. The CFP requires looking into the future. There is no interim solution
proposed for 9th @ Caspers. Retaining that signal in the CFP indicates that a signal will be warranted at
that intersection in the future.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the Sunset Avenue project preserves the ability to park on Sunset
Avenue. Mr. Williams answered the intent is to maintain the majority of the existing parking. A
pedestrian walkway and bike lane will be added on the water side parallel to the existing parking.
Councilmember Plunkett asked the impact of the Council taking no action. Mr. Williams answered the
CFP remains unchanged. The Council will need to take action to adopt the CFP. Councilmember Plunkett
asked how projects could be removed from the CFP. Mr. Williams answered if the proposal is to remove
a concurrency project, a public hearing is required. Both the Five Corners roundabout and the traffic
signal at 9th @ Caspers are concurrency projects.
Council President Peterson commented there may be an opportunity to shift the dates in the CFP. City
Attorney Taraday explained the CFP and CIP are tools for the Council to prioritize capital projects and
forecast when they will be constructed. To the extent there is concern with a project, the CFP is not the
go/no go decision. The construction phase of a project can be pushed out without making a definitive
go/no go decision. Removing a project from the CFP has more significant ramifications from a
concurrency standpoint than deferring it for a year.
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor
Cultural Services Manager Francis Chapin explained the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor project identifies
the potential of 4th Avenue as a key economic development project to create a pedestrian friendly corridor
Packet Page 27 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 24
to connect the Edmonds Center for the Arts at the north end of 4th Avenue and the core retail south of
Main Street to encourage economic development. The 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor project has been
included in a variety of plans. The City received a federal grant to develop a 15% level plan for the
corridor.
Ms. Chapin displayed a drawing of the corridor, explaining it is a challenging roadway with only a 50-
foot right-of-way. The corridor also contains a number of unique, historic buildings. The Planning Board
created a unique zone for the corridor, BD-5. The concept for the corridor is to still have vehicular traffic
while encouraging pedestrian flow, making it safer and more inviting for pedestrians. The project
recommendation includes interpretive signage to highlight historic attributes. A piece of this project that
will be undertaken in the next two years, artistic markers for the Cultural Heritage Tour, is funded by a
matching grant from Preserve America and other grant funds. The Cultural Heritage Tour will be
incorporated into the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor but is a separate project in the CIP under the 4th
Avenue Cultural Corridor.
Ms. Chapin summarized the 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor project will not move forward without grant
funding from a wide variety of sources. The total estimated project cost in 2008 was $5.2-$5.6 million.
The project is currently at a 15% level design and needs to be at 30% level design to be competitive for
larger grants. The project needs to be included in the CFP/CIP to be eligible for grants. It will not
necessarily proceed on the schedule identified in the CFP but inclusion in the CFP allows the opportunity
to explore funding for the project in the future.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmembers Wilson and Fraley-Monillas were not present for the vote.)
Downtown Year Round Public Market
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite recalled a few Councilmembers expressed interest last year in
discussing a Downtown Year Round Public Market this year during the CFP process. The proposal is to
include the Downtown Year Round Public Market in the CFP. It is in alignment with the Parks,
Recreation and Open Space Plan. There is no particular property identified or any funding. Including it
will allow it to be prioritized with other CFP projects.
Councilmember Plunkett observed a year round public market could drive the existing summer market
out of business, resulting in their inability to maintain the museum building, etc. He asked whether there
was any reason the Historic Society could not operate the year round market. Ms. Hite answered that
would not be prohibited. It would be the Parks Department’s intent to work in collaboration with the
current market operator. Mr. Taraday explained a more detailed discussion regarding how to involve the
current market operator would occur in the future.
Councilmember Petso asked whether a public hearing was required on this item. Ms. Hite answered it was
part of the previous CFP public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO
INCLUDE THE PUBLIC MARKET IN THE CFP. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmembers Wilson and Fraley-Monillas were not present for the vote.)
Council President Peterson suggested scheduling a public hearing on the Five Corners roundabout project
and the transportation improvement at 9th @ Caspers on December 20. Since the interim solution on 9th
Avenue at Main Street and Walnut are already in the CFP, a public hearing is not required. The issue of
traffic calming was raised in the event additional funding was provided. Given the state of the budget, he
suggested funding for traffic calming remain as proposed. The 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor is also
already in the CFP.
Packet Page 28 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 25
Councilmember Plunkett inquired whether the public hearing notice needed to state the potential of the 9th
@ Caspers and the Five Corners roundabout have the potential to be removed from the CFP. Mr.
Williams answered yes.
10. EXTENSION OF SUNSET DATE FOR CITIZENS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE THIS ITEM TO THE DECEMBER 20 MEETING. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmembers Wilson and Fraley-Monillas were not present for the vote.)
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported he has enjoyed his first week in office enormously. He expressed his appreciation
for staff’s input and assistance. There are a lot of issues to undertake and staff is eager to address them.
Mayor Earling reported the selection process for the Mayor administrative assistant is underway. As of
yesterday 46 applications for the position have been submitted and he expected 70-80 applications by the
time the position closed on Wednesday. The plan is to screen applications by Friday, hold interviews
December 13 and hopefully offer the position by the end of next week.
Mayor Earling reported he has begun visitations to City departments to learn the job descriptions of all
staff members and to inform them of his open door. He anticipated it would take a month to visit all
departments.
Mayor Earling expressed concern with the status of the Human Resources Department. Last Friday he
signed a time sheet for Human Resources Manager MaryAnn Hardie for 60 hours and understood that has
not been uncommon during the past several weeks. Interim Human Resources Director Carrie Hite who is
also the Human Resources Director spends approximately half her time on Human Resources issues. In
addition the City has contracted with Human Resources Consultant Tara Adams to work on personnel
policies as well as work with the compensation consultant. There are 4-5 cases, 1 from Police, 2 from the
Municipal Court and 2 from Public Works and a few personnel issues remaining from the last
administration. In addition, Human Resources staff is in the process of hiring an accountant, a utility
account technician, a records clerk, a plans examiner and administrative assistant as well as beginning
negotiations with the Police Department. He was concerned the Council’s decision a few weeks ago
constrained his ability to address the workload. He has authorized up to 10 hours a week for an assistant
to do filing. He was also concerned with the workload and potential legal exposure in the Human
Resources Department.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Peterson thanked Mayor Earling and members of Fire District 1 for their participation
in the acceptance of a 2-ton girder from the World Trade Center that is now on display at Station 17.
Council President Peterson reported there have been a number of burglaries in Edmonds. There have been
some arrests but a large group of people are involved. The police remind residents to lock their doors, get
to know their neighbors, set their alarm and call 911 if they see anything suspicious.
Councilmember Bernheim thanked Mr. Lambert for bringing the issue of the operation of the public
market to the Council. He provided a reminder of the dedication of the Shell Creek emergency access
road on December 8 at 2:20 p.m.
Packet Page 29 of 404
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
December 6, 2011
Page 26
Councilmember Bernheim provided photographs of parking meters in Bellingham, noting economic
development would not raise as much money as parking could. He anticipated the installation of
electronic parking meters for commuter parking along Admiral Way could raise $50,000 - $100,000/year.
He proposed this to the Parking Committee but they were all opposed.
Councilmember Bernheim congratulated Mayor Earling and commended him on his decision to open the
administrative assistant position to an application process. He assured the City Council was ready to
support his plan for the Human Resources Department.
Councilmember Bernheim presented Mayor Earling the last two No Idling signs to be installed in the
City.
Councilmember Plunkett congratulated Mayor Earling and commended him on his first Council meeting.
13. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Packet Page 30 of 404
AM-4446 Item #: 4. C.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #129221 through #129387 dated December 8, 2011 for $588,030.36, and claim
checks #129388 through #129555 dated December 15, 2011 for $873,482.27.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2011
Revenue:
Expenditure:1,461,512.63
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $1,461,512.63
Attachments
Claim Checks 12-8-11
Claim Checks 12-15-11
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 12/15/2011 09:32 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 09:37 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:48 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:51 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 12/15/2011 09:16 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 31 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129221 12/8/2011 072627 911 ETC INC Dec 2162 Svc NOV-11 911 DATABASE MAINT
Nov-11 911 database maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 101.50
Total :101.50
129222 12/8/2011 064622 A.I.R. EMISSIONS 111107 Units 31 & 55 - Emission Testing
Units 31 & 55 - Emission Testing
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 319.00
Fees
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 2.00
Total :321.00
129223 12/8/2011 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 301276 RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 82.12
RODENT CONTROL301288
RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 93.08
Total :175.20
129224 12/8/2011 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101626044 M5Z34
CAL GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 27.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.61
Total :30.11
129225 12/8/2011 001057 ALMY, DON ALMY1207 VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SUPERVISION
VOLLEYBALL LEAGUE SUPERVISION @ EDMONDS
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 918.00
Total :918.00
129226 12/8/2011 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 14493 BRONZE PLAQUE
PLAQUE FOR EAGLE SCOUT AGILITY COURSE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 169.40
1Page:
Packet Page 32 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129226 12/8/2011 (Continued)069667 AMERICAN MARKETING
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.75
Total :193.05
129227 12/8/2011 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 040706-1187 APA Membership 8 PB members-Chapter
APA Membership 8 PB members-Chapter
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 500.00
Total :500.00
129228 12/8/2011 064335 ANALYTICAL RESOURCES INC TV42 EDMONDS
NPDES SAMPLING
411.000.656.538.800.410.31 130.00
Total :130.00
129229 12/8/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5896325 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86
PW MATS655-5900874
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
2Page:
Packet Page 33 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129229 12/8/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5900875
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5900876
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.95
Total :76.95
129230 12/8/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5896324 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 28.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.74
Total :31.55
129231 12/8/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5884303 21580001
3Page:
Packet Page 34 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129231 12/8/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 70.36
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.68
21580001655-5896331
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 71.66
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.81
Total :155.51
129232 12/8/2011 073877 ARRINDELL, DAEMOND ARRINDELL1025 PRESENTATION SERVICES
POETRY WORKSHOPS FOR YOUTH
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 800.00
Total :800.00
129233 12/8/2011 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0239958-IN 01-7500014
HYDRALIC OIL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,390.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 132.06
Total :1,522.19
129234 12/8/2011 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0242684-IN Fleet - Regular 6300 Gal
Fleet - Regular 6300 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 18,007.29
St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.657.548.680.340.11 2,222.07
St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 1,621.46
Biodiesel 200 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 963.16
St Excise Tax Gas, WA Oil Spill
511.000.657.548.680.340.13 89.55
BIO Blend Addetive
4Page:
Packet Page 35 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129234 12/8/2011 (Continued)071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 279.62
WA St Svc Fee
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 50.00
Service Fees
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 4.76
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 31.77
Diesel 3800 Gal
511.000.657.548.680.340.10 12,787.00
Total :36,056.68
129235 12/8/2011 073878 ASTROF CONCRETE HARDWARE 071013-1132 Street - Sunset Sidwalk Forms - Rental
Street - Sunset Sidwalk Forms - Rental
111.000.653.542.310.450.00 36.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.450.00 3.42
Street - Sunset Sidewalk Curb Forms -071018-0926
Street - Sunset Sidewalk Curb Forms -
111.000.653.542.310.450.00 23.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.450.00 2.19
Street - Sunset Sidewalk - Division071020-1248
Street - Sunset Sidewalk - Division
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 429.56
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 40.81
Total :534.98
129236 12/8/2011 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 78031 City Hall - Mayor Directory Signs
City Hall - Mayor Directory Signs
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 97.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 9.22
Total :106.22
5Page:
Packet Page 36 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129237 12/8/2011 069076 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS INC COE1111 Background check services
Background check services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 45.00
Total :45.00
129238 12/8/2011 072276 BADGER METER INC 92880601 Meter Inventory - m-meter-01.5-010
Meter Inventory - m-meter-01.5-010
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 1,250.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 89.61
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 127.26
Water Meters - m-meter-0.625-01092880602
Water Meters - m-meter-0.625-010
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 420.00
Freight
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 53.56
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.342.00 44.99
Total :1,985.42
129239 12/8/2011 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON BAILEY14547 TAEKWON DO CLASSES
TAEKWON DO CONTINUING #14547
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 874.75
TAEKWON DO CONTINUING #14543
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 641.20
TAEKWON DO #14531
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 136.50
TAEKWON DO #14535
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 312.00
Total :1,964.45
129240 12/8/2011 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 7145 DISPLAY AD/CEMETERY
DISPLAY AD/EDMONDS CEMETERY &
130.000.640.536.200.440.00 108.00
6Page:
Packet Page 37 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :108.00129240 12/8/2011 066891 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC
129241 12/8/2011 073853 BECKWITH CONSULTING GROUP 03-111201 STRATEGIC PLAN TASK 3, 5, 6, 7
Strategic plan & visioning tasks 3, 5,
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 3,990.00
Total :3,990.00
129242 12/8/2011 073760 BLUELINE GROUP LLC 5502 E1JA.SERVICES THRU 11/30/11
E1JA.Services thru 11/30/11
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 12,832.50
Total :12,832.50
129243 12/8/2011 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 903263 INV#903263 - EDMONDS PD - CRYSTAL
WOOL UNIFORM PANTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 325.50
S/S UNIFORM SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 131.32
CLOTH NAME TAGS "CRYSTAL"
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.90
L/S/ UNIFORM SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 269.61
CLOTH NAME TAGS "CRYSTAL"
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.90
511 JACKET
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 229.00
NAME TAG "CRYSTAL"
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.90
HEAT STAMP REFLECTIVE POLICE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00
REFLECTIVE POLICE PANEL
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 8.00
SERVICE BARS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 13.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 96.12
INV#904970 - EDMONDS PD - SHOEMAKE904970
7Page:
Packet Page 38 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129243 12/8/2011 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP
S/S UNIFORM SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.700.240.00 80.94
CLOTH NAME TAGS "SHOEMAKE"
001.000.410.521.700.240.00 9.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.240.00 8.63
INV#907401 - EDMONDS PD - YAMANE907401
L/S UNIFORM SHIRTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 179.74
CLOTH NAME TAGS "YAMANE"
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 9.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 18.02
INV#910928 - EDMONDS PD - SACKVILLE910928
TACLITE BOOTS 8" ZIP
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 129.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 12.35
Total :1,557.37
129244 12/8/2011 073881 BOYER, ERWIN E2DB.Boyer E2DB.BOYER, ERWIN: DRIVEWAY REPAIR
E2DB.Boyer, Erwin: Driveway Repair
132.000.640.594.760.410.00 2,875.40
Total :2,875.40
129245 12/8/2011 060141 BRANOM INSTRUMENT 468878 3083
PLASTIC VALVE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 159.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 14.46
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 16.48
Total :189.94
129246 12/8/2011 002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC IM50996 Unit 18 Supplies
8Page:
Packet Page 39 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129246 12/8/2011 (Continued)002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC
Unit 18 Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 583.44
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.45
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 57.08
Total :657.97
129247 12/8/2011 067947 BROWNELLS INC 07071273.00 INV#07071273.00 ACCT#00557761 EDMONDS PD
.38-.45 CAL MALE THREADS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 12.60
EXTRACTOR, .223
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 57.96
BOLT CATCH PIN PUNCH
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 11.76
GREEN RIFLE BENCH BLOCK
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 16.99
AR-15 GAS TUBE CLEANERS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 24.99
BOLT GAS RING-MCFARLAND
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 13.04
COTTON APPLICATORS #861
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 31.53
.223 BOLT BRUSH
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 11.16
.223 CHAMBER MOP
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 16.70
AR-15 EXTRACTOR SPRG CHRM
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 3.62
.41/10MM PISTOL BORE BRUSH
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 11.65
COMBAT APPLICATION TOOL
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 26.49
Freight
9Page:
Packet Page 40 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129247 12/8/2011 (Continued)067947 BROWNELLS INC
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 12.95
Total :251.44
129248 12/8/2011 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11457156 CONTRACT 001-0572105-003 3RD FLOOR COPY
Copier contract charge 3rd floor IRC5051
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 83.32
Copier contract charge 3rd floor IRC5051
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 83.32
Copier contract charge 3rd floor IRC5051
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 83.35
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 7.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 7.91
Total :273.74
129249 12/8/2011 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 11453893 572105
COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 85.80
Total :85.80
129250 12/8/2011 073872 CARBONNEAU, SUE F CARBONNEAU1021 REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 20.00
Total :20.00
129251 12/8/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY RN11111048 HELIUM FOR GYMNASTICS PARTIES
HELIUM FOR BIRTHDAY BALLOONS IN
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 11.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.550.450.00 1.05
Total :12.05
10Page:
Packet Page 41 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129252 12/8/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 174601 Shop Supplies -
Shop Supplies -
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.12
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.48
Shop SuppliesLY 174606
Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 74.01
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.03
Total :109.64
129253 12/8/2011 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9020 MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
MONTHLY MAINT/OPERATIONS SEWER COSTS
411.000.655.535.800.472.00 27,602.00
Total :27,602.00
129254 12/8/2011 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC SE78539801 PW - Padlocks and Parts
PW - Padlocks and Parts
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 475.50
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 11.76
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 46.28
Street/ Fac Maint - Padlock SuppliesSE78575301
Street/ Fac Maint - Padlock Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 158.50
Street/ Fac Maint - Padlock Supplies
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 158.50
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.79
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 4.79
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 15.53
9.5% Sales Tax
11Page:
Packet Page 42 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129254 12/8/2011 (Continued)073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 15.51
Storm - Padlock SuppliesSE78700101
Storm - Padlock Supplies
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 237.75
Freight
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 8.50
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 23.40
Total :1,160.81
129255 12/8/2011 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2378860 FAC - Waterborne, Recoat Adhesion
FAC - Waterborne, Recoat Adhesion
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1,483.68
Fac Maint - TT, Towels, Cleaners
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 387.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 177.72
Total :2,048.47
129256 12/8/2011 070323 COMCAST 0721433 CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES
CEMETERY BUNDLED SERVICES
130.000.640.536.200.420.00 114.14
Total :114.14
129257 12/8/2011 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING NOV 2011 DRY CLEANING - EDMONDS PD - OCT/NOV 2011
DRY CLEANING/LAUNDRY 10 & 11/11
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 752.36
Total :752.36
129258 12/8/2011 072189 DATASITE 71856 INV#71856 - EDMONDS PD - NOV 2011
SHREDDING 1 TOTE - 11/17/11
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 40.00
Total :40.00
129259 12/8/2011 072189 DATASITE 71855 SHREDDED FEE
12Page:
Packet Page 43 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129259 12/8/2011 (Continued)072189 DATASITE
SHREDDED FEE
001.000.230.512.500.490.00 50.00
Total :50.00
129260 12/8/2011 072189 DATASITE 25243 STORAGE
Records Storage
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 65.00
SHREDDING SERVICES/CABINETS71820
Doc Shred Services City Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 25.00
Doc Shred Services Finance
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 25.00
Total :115.00
129261 12/8/2011 061570 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS - 16 152099 Unit 337 - Radio Supplies
Unit 337 - Radio Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 67.30
9.2% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 6.19
Unit 680 - Radio Supplies152668
Unit 680 - Radio Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 206.50
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 20.29
Total :307.28
129262 12/8/2011 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY Cert # 3972 Grp OIT WASTEWATER OPERATOR CERT 2012 ANNUAL
WASTEWATER OPERATOR CERT 2012 ANNUAL
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 30.00
Total :30.00
129263 12/8/2011 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2011110027 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
M6D-00005 Product license MVL annual
13Page:
Packet Page 44 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129263 12/8/2011 (Continued)047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 53,033.48
P71-01031 MVL annual license
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 10,735.32
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 5,038.17
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 1,019.86
Total :69,826.83
129264 12/8/2011 047450 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES 2011110343 CUSTOMER ID# D200-0
Scan Services for November 2011
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 940.00
Total :940.00
129265 12/8/2011 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS November DRS NOVEMBER 2011 DRS
November 2011 DRS
811.000.000.231.540.000.00 193,794.85
Total :193,794.85
129266 12/8/2011 047610 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE 41 JA6953 L011 E9DA.REVIEW/APPROVE PLANS
E9DA.Review/Approve Plans
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 232.65
E7CB.DEVELP RECORDS OF MATERIALSRE 41 JA7581 L001
E7CB.DEVELP RECORDS OF MATERIALS
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 308.64
Total :541.29
129267 12/8/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-32 MINUTE TAKER ECON DEV COMMISSION
Minute taker for Economic Development
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 336.00
Total :336.00
129268 12/8/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3241 MINUTE TAKING
11/22 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 306.00
14Page:
Packet Page 45 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :306.00129268 12/8/2011 064531 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
129269 12/8/2011 073772 DIRECT MATTERS 51632 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 457.66
SUPPLIES51633
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 368.65
SUPPLIES51634
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 368.65
Total :1,194.96
129270 12/8/2011 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 11302011 STATE LOBBYIST FOR NOVEMBER 2011
State lobbyist for November 2011
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 2,391.25
Total :2,391.25
129271 12/8/2011 007253 DUNN LUMBER 977417 MILLTOWN COURTYARD
LUMBER/MILLTOWN COURTYARD
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 108.40
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 10.30
MILLTOWN COURTYARD978286
SUPPLIES FOR MILLTOWN COURTYARD
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 212.59
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 20.20
Total :351.49
129272 12/8/2011 007253 DUNN LUMBER 980445 MCH - Corner Braces
MCH - Corner Braces
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 21.48
Fac Maint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 24.28
9.5% Sales Tax
15Page:
Packet Page 46 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129272 12/8/2011 (Continued)007253 DUNN LUMBER
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.34
Total :50.10
129273 12/8/2011 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP GIFFORD1129 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: ANDREW GIFFORD
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 75.00
Total :75.00
129274 12/8/2011 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-07490 16113 75TH PL W
16113 75TH PL W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 55.99
18410 92ND AVE W3-38565
18410 92ND AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 27.50
CITY MARINA BEACH PARK6-00025
CITY MARINA BEACH PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 401.18
CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM6-00200
CITY FISHING DOCK & RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 409.26
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH6-00410
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 315.51
MINI PARK6-00475
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 706.22
CITY PARK BALLFIELD6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 795.66
CITY PARK PARKING LOT6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 907.84
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 259.50
16Page:
Packet Page 47 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129274 12/8/2011 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
310 6TH AVE N6-02727
310 6TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 202.75
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRINKLER6-02730
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD - SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 157.87
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER)6-02900
ANDERSON CULTURAL CENTER (SPRINKLER)
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 460.22
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 307.16
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 221.66
CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK6-03575
CITY MAPLEWOOD PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 211.39
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 1,183.04
8100 185TH PL SW6-04425
8100 185TH PL SW
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 344.48
SIERRA PARK6-04450
SIERRA PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 538.30
BALLINGER PARK6-07775
BALLINGER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 201.57
YOST PARK SPRINKLER6-08500
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 836.42
YOST PARK POOL6-08525
YOST PARK POOL
17Page:
Packet Page 48 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129274 12/8/2011 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 651.96
Total :9,195.48
129275 12/8/2011 031060 ELECSYS INTERNATIONAL CORP 100836 RADIX MONTHLY MAINT AGREEMENT
Radix Monthly Maint Agreement -
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 152.00
Total :152.00
129276 12/8/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 071165 COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.230.512.501.450.00 17.48
Total :17.48
129277 12/8/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 071082 CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER
Meter charges 10/30/11 - 11/30-11 B&W,
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 127.43
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 12.11
Total :139.54
129278 12/8/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 071081 COPIER LEASE
COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 76.79
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 7.30
Total :84.09
129279 12/8/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 070703 A6898
COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 31.22
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 2.97
Total :34.19
129280 12/8/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 070754 METER READING
Recept.desk copier 7/21-8/21
18Page:
Packet Page 49 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129280 12/8/2011 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 9.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 0.92
METER READING071116
11/30 to 12/30 Meter reading
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 168.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 16.02
Total :195.25
129281 12/8/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 070755 1 CUST# MK5510
Fleet - Meter charges dd/yy B&W, Color
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 4.74
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 0.45
Total :5.19
129282 12/8/2011 009327 EVERETT ENGINEERING INC 23555 TPG STEEL SHAFT
TPG STEEL SHAFT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 391.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 35.99
Total :427.22
129283 12/8/2011 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU24197 Unit 46 - Supplies
Unit 46 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 143.12
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.20
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 14.76
Total :170.08
129284 12/8/2011 065427 FCS GROUP 1893-21111069 E1JC.SERVICES THRU 11/18/11
E1JC.Services thru 11/18/11
19Page:
Packet Page 50 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129284 12/8/2011 (Continued)065427 FCS GROUP
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 730.00
E1JC.Services thru 11/18/11
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 730.00
E1JC.Services thru 11/18/11
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 730.00
E1GB.SERVICES THRU 11/18/111930-21111071
E1GB.Services thru 11/18/11
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 2,916.67
E1GB.Services thru 11/18/11
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 2,916.67
E1GB.Services thru 11/18/11
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 2,916.66
Total :10,940.00
129285 12/8/2011 070271 FIRST STATES INVESTORS 5200 DEC-11 TENANT #101706 4TH AVE PARKING LOT RENT
4th Avenue Parking Lot Rent for Dec-11
001.000.390.519.900.450.00 300.00
Total :300.00
129286 12/8/2011 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 185942 November 2011 Section 125 FSA plan fees
November 2011 Section 125 FSA plan fees
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 54.40
Flexi-Commute - December 2011 plan fees186874
Flexi-Commute - December 2011 plan fees
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 25.00
Total :79.40
129287 12/8/2011 010660 FOSTER, MARLO 76 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 3.61
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 120.00
Total :123.61
129288 12/8/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-771-0158 FS # 16
20Page:
Packet Page 51 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129288 12/8/2011 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
FS #16
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 165.66
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM425-776-6829
CITY HALL FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 111.10
1ST & PINE CIRCUIT LINE PT EDWARDS425-AB9-0530
1st & Pine Circuit Line for Pt Edwards
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 40.75
Total :317.51
129289 12/8/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 41.53
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL425-745-5055
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 66.63
CREDIT425-775-2645
CREDIT/425-775-2645
001.000.640.575.510.420.00 -9.95
Total :98.21
129290 12/8/2011 061589 GALLS INC 511773923 INV#511773923 ACCT#3736713 - EDMONDS PD
TACTICAL BODY ARMOR CARRIER
001.000.410.521.210.240.00 116.99
Freight
001.000.410.521.210.240.00 12.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.240.00 12.34
Total :142.32
129291 12/8/2011 012199 GRAINGER 9694946014 HAND WARMERS
HAND WARMERS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 55.08
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.24
21Page:
Packet Page 52 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :60.32129291 12/8/2011 012199 012199 GRAINGER
129292 12/8/2011 012355 GRCC/BAT B1862/B1917 BAT Certifications 2012 Renewal for J
BAT Certifications 2012 Renewal for J
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 84.00
Total :84.00
129293 12/8/2011 012560 HACH COMPANY 7502946 112830
ORP SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 101.70
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 27.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 12.32
1128307506738
DO PROBE CLEANING HEAD
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 214.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.33
1128307508671
GLASS FBR FILTER
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 221.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 21.03
Total :618.73
129294 12/8/2011 073876 HARDAN, CAROL HARDAN1201 REFUND
REFUND OF MONEY FOR GIFT CATALOG
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 3,500.00
Total :3,500.00
129295 12/8/2011 012900 HARRIS FORD INC FOCS301743 Unit 649 - Service Repairs
Unit 649 - Service Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 116.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 11.02
22Page:
Packet Page 53 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :127.02129295 12/8/2011 012900 012900 HARRIS FORD INC
129296 12/8/2011 073873 HARRIS, MICHEL HARRIS1021 REFUND
REFUND OF CREDIT ON ACCOUNT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 10.00
Total :10.00
129297 12/8/2011 013140 HENDERSON, BRIAN 74-1 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement - adjustment to
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement - adjustment to
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 4.00
Total :4.00
129298 12/8/2011 073880 HITE, CARRIE HITE1205 TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES TO
001.000.640.574.100.430.00 154.40
Total :154.40
129299 12/8/2011 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1030220 Shop Supplies & Unit #26
Shop Supplies & Unit #26
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 263.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 25.05
Milltown Courtyard Project1030222
Milltown Courtyard Project
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 57.34
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 5.45
MIlltown Courtyard Project1044934
MIlltown Courtyard Project
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 212.66
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 20.20
Bow rake1063874
Bow rake
111.000.653.542.710.350.00 143.86
9.5% Sales Tax
23Page:
Packet Page 54 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129299 12/8/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
111.000.653.542.710.350.00 13.67
PS2564646
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.53
PS
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.62
#26 Supplies3035837
#26 Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 327.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 31.07
Milltown Courtyard Project3035839
Milltown Courtyard Project
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 122.82
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 11.67
Milltown Courtyard Project34639
Milltown Courtyard Project
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 123.85
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 11.77
Supplies4031525
Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 4.97
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 0.47
PB Blaster4031608
PB Blaster
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 25.62
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.43
Milltown Courtyard Project45246
Milltown Courtyard Project
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 63.98
24Page:
Packet Page 55 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129299 12/8/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 6.08
Eye bolts for Shell Valley access4593879
Eye bolts for Shell Valley access
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 3.15
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.640.310.00 0.30
#265031428
#26
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 213.22
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 20.26
Milltown Courtyard Project5031430
Milltown Courtyard Project
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 93.31
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 8.86
City Hall Per CC Request5262725
City Hall Per CC Request
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 299.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 28.41
Unit #55262727
Unit #5
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 46.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 4.46
#267031000
#26
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 1,065.76
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 101.25
Shop supplies7591916
Shop supplies
25Page:
Packet Page 56 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129299 12/8/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 11.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.11
Supplies8035008
Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 71.18
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.76
Shop Supplies8035046
Shop Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 53.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 5.10
Yost Pool8042395
Yost Pool
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.47
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.37
Shut off CPL8591816
Shut off CPL
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 35.82
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 3.40
Total :3,569.30
129300 12/8/2011 070896 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8941 Fleet - Unit PW1 - Supplies
Fleet - Unit PW1 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 85.39
Fac Maint- Towels, Mats
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 243.25
PS - Mat
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 46.75
Total :375.39
129301 12/8/2011 070042 IKON 85990219 COPIER LEASE
26Page:
Packet Page 57 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129301 12/8/2011 (Continued)070042 IKON
PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 23.00
Total :23.00
129302 12/8/2011 070042 IKON 86026631 DSD Reception Copier Lease
DSD Reception Copier Lease
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 30.66
Total :30.66
129303 12/8/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1969845 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 -111.62
SUPPLIES1984798
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 24.07
SUPPLIES1985066
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 51.73
SUPPLIES1985967
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 76.64
SUPPLIES1988434
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 43.79
SUPPLIES1988739
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 58.02
Total :142.63
129304 12/8/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1984321 Copy paper - Mayor's Office, Community
Copy paper - Mayor's Office, Community
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 29.67
Copy paper - Mayor's Office, Community
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 29.66
Copy paper - Mayor's Office, Community
27Page:
Packet Page 58 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129304 12/8/2011 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 29.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 2.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 2.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 2.81
Total :97.44
129305 12/8/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1980348 pens for counter/hanging file folder
pens for counter/hanging file folder
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 100.46
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 9.55
Total :110.01
129306 12/8/2011 068952 INFINITY INTERNET 2995766 PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL INTERNET ACCESS
001.000.640.575.560.420.00 15.00
Total :15.00
129307 12/8/2011 073518 INNOVYZE 13968AM WATER SOFTWARE
Water Software
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 1,095.00
Total :1,095.00
129308 12/8/2011 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 586572 Unit PS 17 - Batteries
Unit PS 17 - Batteries
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 271.90
Core Fees
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 80.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 25.83
Shop Supplies794214
Shop Supplies
28Page:
Packet Page 59 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129308 12/8/2011 (Continued)014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 132.21
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 12.56
Total :522.50
129309 12/8/2011 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 529790 54278825
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,329.36
Total :3,329.36
129310 12/8/2011 063493 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 13055627-00 Fac Maint - Supplies
Fac Maint - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 9.21
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 0.88
Total :10.09
129311 12/8/2011 070285 KPLU-FM IN-1111127366 RADIO AD 11/14-11/20 EDMONDS PROMOTION
Radio ad 11/14-11/20 Edmonds promotion
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 1,135.00
Total :1,135.00
129312 12/8/2011 060132 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1018199790 INV#1018199790 - EDMONDS PD
S&W SAFETY GLASSES
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 42.60
EARPLUGS CLASSIC SOFT
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 33.70
EARPLUGS EARSOFT SUPERFIT
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 59.60
Freight
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 11.37
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 13.99
Total :161.26
29Page:
Packet Page 60 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129313 12/8/2011 069634 LEXISNEXIS 1201641-20111130 INV 1201641-20111130
NOV 2011 MINIMUM COMMITMENT
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 50.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.410.00 4.75
Total :54.75
129314 12/8/2011 073874 LIFE LINE SCREENING LIFELINE1110 REFUND
RETURN OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 200.00
Total :200.00
129315 12/8/2011 066064 LISTEN AUDIOLOGY SERVICE INC 2940 11/17/11 hearing testing & reports for
11/17/11 hearing testing & reports for
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 1,141.00
Total :1,141.00
129316 12/8/2011 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 760315 Fleet - Unit M16 - Supplies
Fleet - Unit M16 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 99.33
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.44
Total :108.77
129317 12/8/2011 073429 MALLOY, GLORIA MALLOY14559 ZUMBA CLASSES
ZUMBA #14559
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 175.50
Total :175.50
129318 12/8/2011 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 382147-00 Fac Maint - Unit 37 - Matsushita Tool
Fac Maint - Unit 37 - Matsushita Tool
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 24.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 2.37
Total :27.36
129319 12/8/2011 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 831 INTERPRETER FEES
30Page:
Packet Page 61 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129319 12/8/2011 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
INTERPRETER FEES
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE833
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.32
Total :176.64
129320 12/8/2011 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 11010783 123106800
THREADING OIL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 41.50
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.92
12310680011488871
STEEL ENCLOSURE/PANEL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 298.67
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 20.77
12310680011605873
GRIPPING RETRIEVER/STEEL PIPE/FITTING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 231.42
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 32.86
Total :634.14
129321 12/8/2011 020120 MEB MANUFACTURING CO 29531 Unit 18 - Supplies
Unit 18 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 86.25
9.2% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 7.94
Total :94.19
129322 12/8/2011 072223 MILLER, DOUG MILLER1130 GYM MONITOR @ ANDERSON CENTER
GYM MONITOR FOR 3 ON 3 BASKETBALL @
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 120.00
31Page:
Packet Page 62 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :120.00129322 12/8/2011 072223 072223 MILLER, DOUG
129323 12/8/2011 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC 138615 Water - Cutoff Saw Parts for repair
Water - Cutoff Saw Parts for repair
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 33.69
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 3.20
Total :36.89
129324 12/8/2011 073870 MM COMFORT SYSTEMS BLD2011.0991 Refund BLD 2011.0991 duplicate permit
Refund BLD 2011.0991 duplicate permit
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 115.00
Total :115.00
129325 12/8/2011 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC 1-10239447 Unit 11 - Housings
Unit 11 - Housings
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,026.07
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 97.48
Unit 11 - Housing Return1-10240332
Unit 11 - Housing Return
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -337.50
9.2% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -31.05
Total :755.00
129326 12/8/2011 065315 NEWCOMB, TRACY NEWCOMB14384 FUN FACTORY
FUN FACTORY #14384
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 824.60
FUN FACTORY #14382
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 868.00
Total :1,692.60
129327 12/8/2011 025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS 43807 CITYEDMOND
FLUSHFACE COUPLER
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 288.39
32Page:
Packet Page 63 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129327 12/8/2011 (Continued)025217 NORTH SOUND HOSE & FITTINGS
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 26.53
CITYEDMTRE43829
BLACK PIPE/COUPLER/PLUG
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 299.73
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 27.58
Total :642.23
129328 12/8/2011 073835 NORTHEND EXCAVATING INC E9DA.Pmt 2 E9DA.PMT 2 FINAL
E9DA.Pmt 2 FINAL
112.200.630.595.330.650.00 10,330.63
E9DA.Ret 2
112.200.000.223.400.000.00 -516.53
Total :9,814.10
129329 12/8/2011 073869 NORTON CORROSION LIMITED LLC 246403 001078
CORROSION INSPECTION
411.000.656.538.800.410.21 12,358.00
Total :12,358.00
129330 12/8/2011 025690 NOYES, KARIN 000 00 257 HPC Minutes 11/10/11
HPC Minutes 11/10/11
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 128.00
Total :128.00
129331 12/8/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 348178 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 64.50
Total :64.50
129332 12/8/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 435952 OFFICE SUPPLIES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 1.90
KLEENEX, FILE FOLDERS, COLORED PAPER
33Page:
Packet Page 64 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129332 12/8/2011 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 35.83
CLOCK
001.000.640.574.200.310.00 20.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.40
Total :61.13
129333 12/8/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 392347 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 44.59
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 4.24
Total :48.83
129334 12/8/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 390480 Street - Desk Calendar
Street - Desk Calendar
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 11.15
PW - Batteries
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 54.81
Water/Sewer - Batteries
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 28.80
Water/Sewer - Batteries
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 28.80
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 1.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 5.21
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2.74
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 2.72
Street - Desk Calendar390646
Street - Desk Calendar
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
34Page:
Packet Page 65 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129334 12/8/2011 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
111.000.653.542.900.310.00 0.95
Total :146.24
129335 12/8/2011 073751 OKANOGAN COUNTRY SHERIFF NOV 2011 OKANOGAN NOV 2011 OKANOGAN JAIL - EDMONDS PD
INMATE HOUSING - NOV 2011
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 3,162.00
INMATE MEDICAL VISIT
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 32.00
Total :3,194.00
129336 12/8/2011 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0054671 23700 104TH AVE W
WATER/23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 17.57
23700 104TH AVE W0060860
WATER/SEWER 23700 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 75.98
Total :93.55
129337 12/8/2011 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 123260 DUMP FEES
CLEAN GREEN DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 42.00
DUMP FEES123271
CLEAN GREEN DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 42.00
DUMP FEES123281
CLEAN GREEN DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 73.50
DUMP FEES123885
BRUSH DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 84.00
DUMP FEES123892
BRUSH DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 84.00
DUMP FEES123903
BRUSH DUMP
35Page:
Packet Page 66 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129337 12/8/2011 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 84.00
DUMP FEES124471
CLEAN GREEN DUMP FEELS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 52.50
DUMP FEES124481
CLEAN GREEN DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 52.50
DUMP FEES124567
CLEAN GREEN DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 52.50
DUMP FEES124580
CLEAN GREEN DUMP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 52.50
DUMP FEES124592
CLEAN GREEN DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 72.50
DUMP FEES124604
CLEAN GREEN DUMP FEES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 52.50
Total :744.50
129338 12/8/2011 073019 PARAGON HEATING BLD2011.0963 Refund - took gas piping off permit
Refund - took gas piping off permit
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 20.00
Refund-applicant applied for wrong typeBLD2011.1003
Refund-applicant applied for wrong type
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 20.00
Total :40.00
129339 12/8/2011 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC 97683 INV#97683 - EDMONDS PD
TOWING 2000 CROWN VIC #579VEX
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 316.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 30.02
36Page:
Packet Page 67 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :346.02129339 12/8/2011 070962 070962 PAULSONS TOWING INC
129340 12/8/2011 073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC 98854 INV 98854 EDMONDS PD
PEP START-UP KIT
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 250.00
PEP PROFILE - STRONG
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
PEP PROFILE - NEAL
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
PEP PROFILE - HERRERA
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
PEP PROFILE - CAMPBELL
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
PEP PROFILE - HOIRUP
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
PEP PROFILE - BAR
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
PEP PROFILE - BREDIGER
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
PEP PROFILE - OSBORN
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
PEP PROFILE - SHEPHERD
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
PEP PROFILE - LACLAIRE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
PEP PROFILE - CUFFEE
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
PEP PROFILE - CONNELLY
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
PEP PROFILE - NESS
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
PEP PROFILE - STOTTS
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 20.00
Freight
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 7.40
37Page:
Packet Page 68 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :537.40129340 12/8/2011 073871 073871 PERSONNEL EVALUATION INC
129341 12/8/2011 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 27096.000-35 E7CB.SERVICES THRU 10/30/11
E7CB.Services thru 10/30/11
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 2,247.50
Total :2,247.50
129342 12/8/2011 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 196559 2000
UPS/ONYX VALVE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 17.98
Total :17.98
129343 12/8/2011 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0000953-IN CAL GAS
CAL GAS
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 199.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 28.60
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 21.63
Total :249.23
129344 12/8/2011 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 20120376 14063
REGISTRATION FEES
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 6,250.00
Total :6,250.00
129345 12/8/2011 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 3689976003 200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
200 Dayton St-Vacant PW Bldg
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 492.07
Total :492.07
129346 12/8/2011 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 084-904-700-6 WWTP WA NATURAL GAS
WWTP WA NATURAL GAS
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 224.02
Total :224.02
129347 12/8/2011 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE 11-775 COURT SECURITY FEE
38Page:
Packet Page 69 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129347 12/8/2011 (Continued)070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE
COURT SECURITY FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.00 2,879.38
Total :2,879.38
129348 12/8/2011 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 123219 MARKER
MARKER: MARKHAM
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 530.00
VASE BLOCK123220
BLUE VASE BLOCK: JAKOBSEN
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 95.00
Total :625.00
129349 12/8/2011 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 73311 INV#73311 - EDMONDS PD
TOWING 2011 FORD VAN #AE17921
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
129350 12/8/2011 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0129380-IN Unit 681 - Hardware Kit
Unit 681 - Hardware Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 199.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.75
Total :212.75
129351 12/8/2011 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-242159 Unit 11 - Supplies
Unit 11 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 42.42
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.03
Unit 11 - Supplies14-242174
Unit 11 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.64
9.5% Sales Tax
39Page:
Packet Page 70 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129351 12/8/2011 (Continued)036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.25
Unit 11 - Return1-742226
Unit 11 - Return
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -3.34
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -0.32
Total :45.68
129352 12/8/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 201103561 SIGNAL LIGHT 23800 FIRDALE AVE
SIGNAL LIGHT - 23800 Firdale Ave
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 71.22
TRAFFIC SIGNAL 900 PUGET DR201690849
Traffic Signal - 900 Puget Dr
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 32.05
STREET LIGHTING (150 WATTS = 183 LIGHTS201711785
Street Lighting (150 Watts = 183 lights
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 1,429.64
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES)202529186
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (200WATTS:303 LITES)
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 2,658.48
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 13,780.53
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES)202579488
MUNICIPAL ST LIGHTS (250WATTS:58 LITES)
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 596.97
Total :18,753.13
129353 12/8/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2013-2711-1 610 PINE ST
610 PINE ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.04
40Page:
Packet Page 71 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :31.04129353 12/8/2011 037375 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
129354 12/8/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 110450067 2019-9517-2
9805 EDMONDS WAY
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 31.04
2025-7952-0153477935
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 7.82
Total :38.86
129355 12/8/2011 038500 SO COUNTY SENIOR CENTER INC 340 12/11 RECREATION SERVICES CONTRACT FEE
12/11 Recreation Services Contract Fee
001.000.390.519.900.410.00 5,000.00
Total :5,000.00
129356 12/8/2011 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103584 RECYCLE
RECYCLE
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 29.95
Total :29.95
129357 12/8/2011 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4191713-01 Sewer - Work Coveralls - D Crawford
Sewer - Work Coveralls - D Crawford
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 100.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.240.00 9.50
Total :109.50
129358 12/8/2011 069997 SRI TECHNOLOGIES INC 121957 E1JF.SERVICES THRU 11/19/11
E1JF.Services thru 11/19/11
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 1,820.00
Total :1,820.00
129359 12/8/2011 009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 3093590 Water/ Sewer - Shovels, Rakes, Supplies
Water/ Sewer - Shovels, Rakes, Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 155.25
Water/ Sewer - Shovels, Rakes, Supplies
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 155.25
41Page:
Packet Page 72 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129359 12/8/2011 (Continued)009400 STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 14.75
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 14.74
Total :339.99
129360 12/8/2011 073549 STERRETT CONSULTING LLC 0902-05 Consultant for Edmonds Special District
Consultant for Edmonds Special District
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 544.75
Total :544.75
129361 12/8/2011 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100011809.004 Fac Maint - Fluorescent Lamps, Elect
Fac Maint - Fluorescent Lamps, Elect
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 239.33
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 22.74
PS - Duplex RecepticalsS100046692.001
PS - Duplex Recepticals
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 28.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.73
City Hall - Xenon LampsS100048223.001
City Hall - Xenon Lamps
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 30.58
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.91
Total :326.99
129362 12/8/2011 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18954348 100323
SPLINE BIT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 72.97
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.93
Total :79.90
42Page:
Packet Page 73 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129363 12/8/2011 041100 TED'S CUSTOM UPHOLSTERY INC 27182 Unit 70 - Recover Seat
Unit 70 - Recover Seat
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 372.50
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 35.39
Total :407.89
129364 12/8/2011 067375 TERRACON CONSULTANTS INC T257790 E7CB-TASK ORDER 11-01 THRU 10/29/11
E7CB-Task Order 11-01 thru 10/29/11
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 2,285.95
Total :2,285.95
129365 12/8/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 11302011 NEWSPAPER AD
Council & Plan Brd Agendas
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 1,575.20
NEWSPAPER AD1758354
Ordinance 3856
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 31.08
NEWSPAPER AD1758355
Ordinance 3858
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 29.36
NEWSPAPER AD1758356
Ordinance 3859
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 29.36
NEWSPAPER AD1758394
Hearing Bldg Height Limits
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 62.04
NEWSPAPER AD1758395
Hearing amend. Comp Plan map
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 56.88
NEWSPAPER AD1758398
Ordinance 3857
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 192.76
NEWSPAPER AD1759106
Ordinance 3861
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 24.08
43Page:
Packet Page 74 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129365 12/8/2011 (Continued)009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
NEWSPAPER AD1759107
Ordinance 3860
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 32.68
Total :2,033.44
129366 12/8/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 0001758530 Classico -APL2011.0005
Classico -APL2011.0005
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 55.16
Legal notice - Linehan -PLN2011.00680001758531
Legal notice - Linehan -PLN2011.0068
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 29.36
Legal Notice-Stonebridge PLN2007.00200001758533
Legal Notice-Stonebridge PLN2007.0020
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 87.84
Total :172.36
129367 12/8/2011 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION 10925948 2012 NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION
2012 NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 177.00
Total :177.00
129368 12/8/2011 027269 THE PART WORKS INC 322059 E2DB.DRINKING FOUNTAIN
E2DB.Drinking Fountain
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 4,205.50
Total :4,205.50
129369 12/8/2011 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 107578 Elevator Maintenance
Elevator Maintenance
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 199.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 19.00
Elevator Telephone Monitoring107579
Elevator Telephone Monitoring
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 44.29
Elevator Maintenance112884
44Page:
Packet Page 75 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129369 12/8/2011 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
Elevator Maintenance
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 163.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 15.56
Elevator Telephone Monitoring112885
Elevator Telephone Monitoring
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 13.33
Total :455.93
129370 12/8/2011 073875 TORRES, MONIKA TORRES1129 REFUND
REFUND DUE TO CANCELLED CLASS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 41.00
Total :41.00
129371 12/8/2011 061233 TOWN & COUNTRY CHRYSLER 334530 Unit 791 - Oxy sensor
Unit 791 - Oxy sensor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 42.36
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.02
Unit 126 - Engine Repairs751595
Unit 126 - Engine Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,207.84
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 114.74
Total :1,368.96
129372 12/8/2011 042800 TRI-CITIES SECURITY 18351 Fleet - Keys
Fleet - Keys
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.16
Total :13.41
129373 12/8/2011 073781 TRICO CONTRACTING INC E8GA.Pmt 4 E8GA.PMT 4 THRU 11/28/11
E8GA.Pmt 4 thru 11/28/11
45Page:
Packet Page 76 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129373 12/8/2011 (Continued)073781 TRICO CONTRACTING INC
412.300.630.594.320.650.00 62,434.60
E8GA.Pmt 4 thru 11/28/11
412.300.000.223.400.000.00 -2,850.90
Total :59,583.70
129374 12/8/2011 044960 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOC CTR 1110117 utility locates
utility locates
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 63.64
utility locates
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 63.64
utility locates
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 65.57
Total :192.85
129375 12/8/2011 073879 UTILITY SERVICES ASSOCIATES 123694 Water Lne Survey and Pinpointing
Water Lne Survey and Pinpointing
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 550.00
Total :550.00
129376 12/8/2011 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 1033341917 C/A 571242650-0001
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Bld Dept
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 99.96
Blackberry Cell Phone Service City Clerk
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 76.97
iPad Cell Phone Service Council
001.000.110.511.100.350.00 2,895.68
iPad Cell Phone Service Council
001.000.110.511.100.420.00 103.05
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Court
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 115.06
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Planning
001.000.620.558.600.420.00 76.97
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Econ
001.000.610.519.700.420.00 76.97
Blackberry Cell Phone Service
46Page:
Packet Page 77 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129376 12/8/2011 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 331.06
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Facilities
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 114.47
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Finance
001.000.310.514.230.420.00 156.91
Blackberry Cell Phone Service HR
001.000.220.516.100.420.00 86.97
Blackberry Cell Phone Service IT
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 411.33
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Mayor's
001.000.210.513.100.420.00 186.93
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Parks Dept
001.000.640.574.100.420.00 57.25
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Police
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 1,042.11
Blackberry Air Cards Police Dept
001.000.410.521.110.410.00 774.15
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Admin
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 295.96
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW St Dept
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 66.82
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Fleet
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 58.41
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water/
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 50.27
Blackberry Cell Phone Service PW Water/
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 50.26
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Sewer Dept
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 100.53
Blackberry Cell Phone Service WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 883.98
Blackberry Cell Phone Service Water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 142.97
47Page:
Packet Page 78 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
48
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :8,255.04129376 12/8/2011 067865 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
129377 12/8/2011 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 26102520 Alecia Cox- clerical services (w/e
Alecia Cox- clerical services (w/e
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 650.38
Alecia Cox - clerical services (w/e26144856
Alecia Cox - clerical services (w/e
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 671.36
Total :1,321.74
129378 12/8/2011 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2013-0360 INV 2013-0360 EDMONDS PD - ROSSI FTO
COURSE 0681-3 FTO - NAT ROSSI
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 75.00
Total :75.00
129379 12/8/2011 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 2012 Waterworks Cert Water Dept Renewals - J Waite, L
Water Dept Renewals - J Waite, L
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 294.00
Sewer Dept Renewals - T Harris, ~
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 210.00
Total :504.00
129380 12/8/2011 069922 WA TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERV Chave, R. Membership Membership renewal Chave, R - Planning
Membership renewal Chave, R - Planning
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 100.00
Total :100.00
129381 12/8/2011 045515 WABO 23603 Plans Examiner, #11-29 ad
Plans Examiner, #11-29 ad
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 50.00
Total :50.00
129382 12/8/2011 045912 WASPC DUES 2011-00717 INV DUES 2011-00717 ANDERSON EDMONDS
2011 ASSOCIATE DUES
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 75.00
INV 23809 FALL CONF - EDMONDS PDINV023809
FALL CONF REG - ANDERSON
48Page:
Packet Page 79 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
49
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129382 12/8/2011 (Continued)045912 WASPC
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 300.00
FALL CONF REG - LAWLESS
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 300.00
Total :675.00
129383 12/8/2011 068106 WELCOME COMMUNICATIONS 7379 Unit 649 - Supplies
Unit 649 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 227.97
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.79
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 22.58
Total :260.34
129384 12/8/2011 073739 WH PACIFIC INC 37306-04 E9DA.SERVICES THRU 10/09/11
E9DA.Services thru 10/09/11
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,819.41
E9DA.SERVICES THRU 11/6/1137306-05
E9DA.Services thru 11/6/11
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 2,868.06
Total :4,687.47
129385 12/8/2011 066678 WSDA PESTICIDE MGMT DIVISION DILL/CURRAN2012 2012 PESTICIDE RENEWALS
2012 PESTICIDE LICENSE RENEWAL
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 66.00
PESTICIDE RENEWAL APPLICATIONROCKNE2012
2012 PESTICIDE LICENSE RENEWAL FOR
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 33.00
Total :99.00
129386 12/8/2011 067374 XPEDITER TECHNOLOGY LLC 3439 INV#3439 - EDMONDS PD
ANN MAIN AGMT TO 12/1/2012
001.000.410.521.100.410.00 5,237.54
Total :5,237.54
129387 12/8/2011 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 941 NOV-11 RETAINER
49Page:
Packet Page 80 of 404
12/08/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
50
7:55:34AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129387 12/8/2011 (Continued)070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC
November-2011 Retainer
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 13,000.00
Total :13,000.00
Bank total :588,030.36167 Vouchers for bank code :front
588,030.36Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report167
50Page:
Packet Page 81 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129388 12/15/2011 073862 ADAMS CONSULTING SERVICES LLC 2078/2 Professional consulting services 11/7 -
Professional consulting services 11/7 -
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 5,297.50
Total :5,297.50
129389 12/15/2011 066417 AIRGAS NOR PAC INC 101638790 M5Z34
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 93.75
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 8.91
Total :102.66
129390 12/15/2011 000850 ALDERWOOD WATER DISTRICT 9098 MONTHLY WHOLESALE CHARGES FOR NOV 2011
Monthly Wholesale Charges for Nov
411.000.654.534.800.330.00 89,866.35
Total :89,866.35
129391 12/15/2011 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001412786 3-0197-001412786
RECYCLE ROLL OFF
411.000.656.538.800.475.66 10.64
Total :10.64
129392 12/15/2011 061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES 0197-001412090 FIRE STATION #20
FIRE STATION #20
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 127.24
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY0197-001412170
Public Works Facility
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 25.76
Public Works Facility
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 97.88
Public Works Facility
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 97.88
Public Works Facility
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 97.88
Public Works Facility
1Page:
Packet Page 82 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129392 12/15/2011 (Continued)061540 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 97.88
Public Works Facility
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 97.88
GARBAGE FOR F/S #160197-001412234
garbage for F/S #16
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 132.52
garbage for MCC0197-001412992
garbage for MCC
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 60.02
Total :834.94
129393 12/15/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5908301 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 28.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.74
Total :31.55
129394 12/15/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5908308 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 71.66
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 6.81
Total :78.47
129395 12/15/2011 069751 ARAMARK 655-5908302 FAC MAINT UNIFORM SVC
Fac Maint Uniform Svc
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86
PW MATS655-5912825
PW MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PW MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
2Page:
Packet Page 83 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129395 12/15/2011 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK
PW MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PW MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.83
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 0.10
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 0.37
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
STREET/STORM UNIFORM SVC655-5912826
Street Storm Uniform Svc
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.00
Street Storm Uniform Svc
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 0.48
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 0.47
FLEET UNIFORM SVC655-5912827
Fleet Uniform Svc
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 13.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 1.24
3Page:
Packet Page 84 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :80.2412939512/15/2011 069751 069751 ARAMARK
129396 12/15/2011 068379 ARCHITECREATION INC UA-11-0316 INTERURBAN TRAIL BENCH
INTERURBAN TRAIL BENCH
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 1,400.00
Freight
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 252.00
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 156.94
Total :1,808.94
129397 12/15/2011 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM 0246225-IN 01-7500014
DIESEL FUEL
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 4,607.01
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 437.66
01-75000140247873-IN
DIESEL FUEL
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 4,890.53
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.320.00 464.60
01-75000140249092-IN
OIL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 4,552.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 432.50
Total :15,385.00
129398 12/15/2011 064343 AT&T 425-776-5316 PARKS FAX MODEM
PARKS FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 44.98
Total :44.98
129399 12/15/2011 001795 AUTOGRAPHICS 78013 Unit 135 - Graphics
Unit 135 - Graphics
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 138.00
4Page:
Packet Page 85 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129399 12/15/2011 (Continued)001795 AUTOGRAPHICS
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.11
Total :151.11
129400 12/15/2011 068362 BAINBRIDGE ASSOCIATES INC BAI 11-1123-004 TSS SENSOR/CABLE
TSS SENSOR/CABLE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 3,940.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 45.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 378.58
Total :4,363.58
129401 12/15/2011 069226 BHC CONSULTANTS LLC 4228 E8GA.SERVICES THRU 11/18/11
E8GA.Services thru 11/18/11
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 776.76
E8GA.Services thru 11/18/11
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 2,330.29
Total :3,107.05
129402 12/15/2011 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 903263-80 INV#903263-80 - EDMONDS PD - CRYSTAL
SERVICE BARS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -13.65
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 -1.30
INV#908759 - EDMONDS PD - MACK908759
STRIKER BOOTS
001.000.410.521.710.240.00 209.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.710.240.00 19.95
INV#910075 - EDMONDS PD - POFF910075
KHAKI PANTS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 49.99
BADGE HOLDER, CLIP ON
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 10.95
5Page:
Packet Page 86 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129402 12/15/2011 (Continued)002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.79
INV#910199 - EDMONDS PD - DRUG KITS910199
NIK TEST KIT "U"
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 103.80
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.910.310.00 9.86
INV#910208 - EDMONDS PD - BROMAN910208
NEW BALANCE SHOES
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 109.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.110.240.00 10.45
INV#911880 - EDMONDS PD - EQUIPMENT911880
HANDCUFF/CHAIN/NICKLE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 114.52
BELT KEEPERS
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 40.05
KEYHOLDER-BLACK
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 19.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 16.57
Total :706.78
129403 12/15/2011 002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC IM51136 Unit 8 - Switch
Unit 8 - Switch
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 37.39
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.45
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.21
Unit 18 - SuppliesIM51331
Unit 18 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 27.70
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.45
6Page:
Packet Page 87 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129403 12/15/2011 (Continued)002840 BRIM TRACTOR CO INC
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.29
Unit 18 - TapIM51376
Unit 18 - Tap
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 28.54
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.66
Total :151.64
129404 12/15/2011 069295 BROWN, CANDY BROWN1211 BIRD NATURALIST CLASSROOM VISITS
BIRD NATURALIST CLASSROOM VISITS SEPT -
001.000.640.574.350.410.00 44.10
Total :44.10
129405 12/15/2011 003001 BUILDERS SAND & GRAVEL 296035 Roadway / Water/Sewer - Crushed Rock
Roadway / Water/Sewer - Crushed Rock
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 1,436.43
Roadway / Water/Sewer - Crushed Rock
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 718.21
Roadway / Water/Sewer - Crushed Rock
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 718.21
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.310.310.00 136.46
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 68.23
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 68.23
Total :3,145.77
129406 12/15/2011 073884 CAROL/JOHN AUSTENFELD2007TRUST 3-41060 RE:625625 UTILITY REFUND
RE:#625625 Utility Refund due to
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 79.44
7Page:
Packet Page 88 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :79.4412940612/15/2011 073884 073884 CAROL/JOHN AUSTENFELD2007TRUST
129407 12/15/2011 003330 CASCADE TROPHY 31950 EMPLOYEE PLAQUES
EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR AND OTHER
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 998.60
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 94.87
Total :1,093.47
129408 12/15/2011 068484 CEMEX LLC 9422663181 Storm - Dump Fees
Storm - Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 881.32
Water Dept - Asphalt Cold Mix9422663182
Water Dept - Asphalt Cold Mix
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 158.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 15.10
Total :1,055.37
129409 12/15/2011 003510 CENTRAL WELDING SUPPLY LY 175740 2954000
GLOVES/WELDING SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 226.04
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 21.47
2954000RN11111049
CYLINDER RENTAL
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 36.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.21 3.47
Total :287.48
129410 12/15/2011 064291 CENTURY LINK 206-Z02-0478 332B TELEMETRY
TELEMETRY
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 138.52
Total :138.52
129411 12/15/2011 070792 CH2O 198673 FAC - Supplies
8Page:
Packet Page 89 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129411 12/15/2011 (Continued)070792 CH2O
FAC - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 608.91
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 100.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 67.43
Total :777.18
129412 12/15/2011 064840 CHAPUT, KAREN E CHAPUT14638 FRIDAY NIGHT OUT
FRIDAY NIGHT OUT #14638
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 56.00
Total :56.00
129413 12/15/2011 066070 CIT TECHNOLOGY FIN SERV INC 20508014 COPIER LEASE PW
copier lease for PW
001.000.650.519.910.450.00 201.07
Total :201.07
129414 12/15/2011 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9035 INV#9035 CUST#1430 - EDMONDS PD
VERIZON PHONE NARCS 11/2011
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 74.94
INV#9049 CUST#45 - EDMONDS PD9049
NEXTEL PHONE FOR NARCS 11/11
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 57.36
Total :132.30
129415 12/15/2011 022200 CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE 2243 E1FC.MCALEER CULVERT RPLCMNT DESIGN
E1FC.McAleer Culvert Replacement and
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 9,529.30
Total :9,529.30
129416 12/15/2011 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC SE018272SC Svc Fee
Svc Fee
001.000.651.519.920.490.00 4.30
Total :4.30
9Page:
Packet Page 90 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129417 12/15/2011 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2378860-1 Fac Maint - Buffer Supplies
Fac Maint - Buffer Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 63.67
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.05
Total :69.72
129418 12/15/2011 071680 CODE 4 LLC 120711 INV#120711-CREDIT FOR FIREARM TRADED IN
SIG SAUER P239-TRADED IN
001.000.410.521.400.350.00 -315.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.350.00 -29.93
INV#120711 - EDMONDS PD120711
S&W M&P40 COMPACT FIREARM
001.000.410.521.400.350.00 410.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.350.00 38.96
Total :104.03
129419 12/15/2011 073135 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS INC DEC-11 C/A CITYOFED00001
Dec-11 Fiber Optics Internet Connection
001.000.310.518.870.420.00 916.20
Total :916.20
129420 12/15/2011 062891 COOK PAGING WA 8522490 PAGER - WW
pagers-water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 3.95
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 0.30
Total :4.25
129421 12/15/2011 004867 COOPER, JACK F 81 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 70.60
Total :70.60
10Page:
Packet Page 91 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129422 12/15/2011 005965 CUES INC 355232 Unit 62 - Generator Parts
Unit 62 - Generator Parts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,951.88
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 167.16
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 201.33
Total :2,320.37
129423 12/15/2011 060914 CUMMINS NORTHWEST LLC 001-89419 Unit 138 - Repair and Service
Unit 138 - Repair and Service
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 750.25
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 71.27
Total :821.52
129424 12/15/2011 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3257203 E1FN.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT
E1FN.RFQ Advertisement
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 378.00
Total :378.00
129425 12/15/2011 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 11-3244 MINUTE TAKING
12/6 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 477.00
Total :477.00
129426 12/15/2011 007253 DUNN LUMBER 989949 Wade James Theater - Supplies
Wade James Theater - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 23.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.24
Total :25.90
129427 12/15/2011 068803 EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS 3443667 Storm Grate Assemblies and Parts
Storm Grate Assemblies and Parts
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 3,040.56
11Page:
Packet Page 92 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129427 12/15/2011 (Continued)068803 EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.400.310.00 288.86
Total :3,329.42
129428 12/15/2011 071596 EBORALL, STEVE EBORALL14402 ART CLUB
ART CLUB #14402
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 140.00
Total :140.00
129429 12/15/2011 008410 EDMONDS PRINTING CO R23361 Tree Recycle Door Hangers (13600)
Tree Recycle Door Hangers (13600)
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 920.70
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.537.900.490.00 87.47
PW - Action Report Forms (500)R23397
PW - Action Report Forms (500)
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 136.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 12.92
Total :1,157.09
129430 12/15/2011 008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL 197892 INV#197892 CLIENT #308 - EDMONDS PD
WELLNESS EXAM - KIRA
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 21.90
RABIES CANINE BOOSTER - KIRA
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 19.00
BORDETELLA VACCINE - KIRA
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 19.00
DHPP 3YR/LEPTO 1 YR - KIRA
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 38.00
INTERNAL PARASITE EXAM - KIRA
001.000.410.521.260.410.00 26.50
INTERCEPTOR 23MG
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 97.99
FRONTLINE FOR DOGS
12Page:
Packet Page 93 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129430 12/15/2011 (Continued)008688 EDMONDS VETERINARY HOSPITAL
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 180.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.260.310.00 26.50
Total :429.87
129431 12/15/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 071276 COPIER LEASE
PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE CHARGES
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 8.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 0.80
Total :9.21
129432 12/15/2011 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 071277 Meter charges for Plannings
Meter charges for Plannings
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 26.93
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 2.56
Meter charges for Building071278
Meter charges for Building
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 21.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 2.04
Total :53.03
129433 12/15/2011 073883 ESTATE OF CLYDE DIMMICK 1-06200 RE:4201-1760295 UTILITY REFUND
RE:#4201-1760295 Utility Refund due to
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 155.66
Total :155.66
129434 12/15/2011 065789 ESTES, KEN 77 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 664.40
Total :664.40
129435 12/15/2011 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAMOU24603 SUPPLIES
13Page:
Packet Page 94 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129435 12/15/2011 (Continued)066378 FASTENAL COMPANY
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.87
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.84
SUPPLIESWAMOU24632
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.88
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.65
SUPPLIESWAMOU24642
SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.72
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.26
Total :20.22
129436 12/15/2011 062290 FEDEX KINKOS OFFICE AND PRINT 517400010445 MILLTOWN COURTYARD
MILLTOWN COURTYARD EXPENSES
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 121.50
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 11.54
Total :133.04
129437 12/15/2011 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0320395 Water - Supply Parts
Water - Supply Parts
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 2,310.07
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 219.45
Water - Supplies0320395-1
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 11.29
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 1.07
Total :2,541.88
14Page:
Packet Page 95 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129438 12/15/2011 062297 FOSS MARITIME COMPANY 12132011 2012 TIDE CHART CALENDAR
2012 TIDE CHART CALENDAR
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 10.00
Total :10.00
129439 12/15/2011 010660 FOSTER, MARLO 80 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 47.80
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 4,627.50
Total :4,675.30
129440 12/15/2011 073265 FREESE LAW OFFICES INC PS CR27158 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 200.00
Total :200.00
129441 12/15/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-744-1681 SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
SEAVIEW PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 41.53
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM425-744-1691
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 40.87
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM425-776-5316
GROUNDS MAINTENANCE FAX MODEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 110.10
Total :192.50
129442 12/15/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425 771-5553 03 0210 1014522641 07
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 95.04
03 0210 107956913 10425 NW1-0060
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.47
03 0210 1099569419 02425 NW1-0155
AUTO DIALER
15Page:
Packet Page 96 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129442 12/15/2011 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 218.12
Total :354.63
129443 12/15/2011 011900 FRONTIER 425-197-0932 TELEMETRY WATER & LIFT STATIONS
TELEMETRY WATER & LIFT STATIONS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 261.47
TELEMETRY WATER & LIFT STATIONS
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 261.46
SEWER - PW TELEMETRY425-774-1031
SEWER - PW TELEMETRY
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 45.93
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE425-776-1281
LIBRARY ELEVATOR PHONE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 41.53
LS 7425-776-2742
LS 7
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 25.56
Total :635.95
129444 12/15/2011 068265 FRONTIER ONLINE 42960624 WATER - BROADBAND SERVICE
Water- Broadband Service for
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 81.49
Total :81.49
129445 12/15/2011 063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 102940 Unit 39 - 2 Tires
Unit 39 - 2 Tires
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 177.14
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.83
Unit 6 - 2 Tires103007
Unit 6 - 2 Tires
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 257.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 24.51
Unit 70 - 2 Tires103060
16Page:
Packet Page 97 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129445 12/15/2011 (Continued)063137 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
Unit 70 - 2 Tires
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 177.14
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 16.83
Total :670.43
129446 12/15/2011 072515 GOOGLE INC 242519 INTERNET ANTI-VIRUS & SPAM MAINT FEE
Internet Anti-Virus & Spam Maint Fee -
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 523.33
Total :523.33
129447 12/15/2011 012560 HACH COMPANY 7522128 112830
LAB SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 862.51
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 47.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 86.50
Total :996.96
129448 12/15/2011 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 38190 Unit 405 - Repairs
Unit 405 - Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 581.62
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 57.26
Unit 582 - Repairs40397
Unit 582 - Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 203.15
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 19.30
Unit 582 - Parts40417
Unit 582 - Parts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 348.82
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.17
17Page:
Packet Page 98 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129448 12/15/2011 (Continued)070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE
Unit 582 - Pursuit Switch40581
Unit 582 - Pursuit Switch
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.79
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.22
Unit 582 - Switch40631
Unit 582 - Switch
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.59
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.81
Total :1,266.73
129449 12/15/2011 013500 HINGSON, ROBERT 79 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 8.00
Total :8.00
129450 12/15/2011 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 1034440 6035322500959949
FITTINGS/DRAIN CAP
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 19.16
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.82
60353225009599492593179
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.23
60353225009599496074456
SHUT OFF COUPLING/HOSE REPAIR KIT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 16.47
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1.56
60353225009599498567304
DISCONNECT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.98
18Page:
Packet Page 99 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129450 12/15/2011 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 0.76
60353225009599499042278
HOLESAW
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 27.81
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2.64
Total :80.82
129451 12/15/2011 067171 HUSKY TRUCK CENTER 254871T Unit 31 - Reservoir
Unit 31 - Reservoir
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 123.79
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.76
Total :135.55
129452 12/15/2011 067171 HUSKY TRUCK CENTER 662358 Unit 22 - New Head
Unit 22 - New Head
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 106.44
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.11
Total :116.55
129453 12/15/2011 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 22717 E8GA.TASK ORDER 11-04 SRVC THRU 11/26/11
E8GA.Task Order 11-04 Services thru
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 237.50
E8GA.Task Order 11-04 Services thru
412.300.630.594.320.410.00 712.50
Total :950.00
129454 12/15/2011 070042 IKON 86073257 Rent on large copier for pay period
Rent on large copier for pay period
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 443.48
Rent on large copier for billing period86073261
Rent on large copier for billing period
19Page:
Packet Page 100 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129454 12/15/2011 (Continued)070042 IKON
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 827.00
Total :1,270.48
129455 12/15/2011 006841 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 5021678232 Meter charges for large copier from
Meter charges for large copier from
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 48.22
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 4.58
Meter charges for Engineering color5021678233
Meter charges for Engineering color
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 328.48
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 31.21
Total :412.49
129456 12/15/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1991127 Coffee Maker - CS & HR
Coffee Maker - CS & HR
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 15.71
Coffee Maker - CS & HR
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 15.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 1.49
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.49
Total :34.39
129457 12/15/2011 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 1984048 Backordered calendars.
Backordered calendars.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 31.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 3.03
Misc. office supplies including folders1990507
Misc. office supplies including folders
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 185.44
9.5% Sales Tax
20Page:
Packet Page 101 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129457 12/15/2011 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 17.62
Misc. office supplies including heater1992274
Misc. office supplies including heater
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 82.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 7.88
Total :328.74
129458 12/15/2011 068814 INDUSTRIAL FABRICS CORP 395922 5840
DUROTEX BELTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6,764.00
Total :6,764.00
129459 12/15/2011 069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS 540449 Correction for Dbl Credits
Correction for Dbl Credits
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 19.98
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.90
Fleet Supplies546228
Fleet Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 23.88
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.27
Fleet - Shop Supplies546249
Fleet - Shop Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 24.56
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 2.33
Fleet Tool - Pry Bar Set546560
Fleet Tool - Pry Bar Set
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 139.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.350.00 13.30
Fleet Tools546986
Fleet Tools
21Page:
Packet Page 102 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129459 12/15/2011 (Continued)069040 INTERSTATE AUTO PARTS
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 105.10
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 8.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 10.83
Total :353.05
129460 12/15/2011 015270 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 531598 54278825
HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 3,184.91
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.53 300.46
Total :3,485.37
129461 12/15/2011 067330 KAR-VEL CONSTRUCTION INC E7JA.Pmt 7 E7JA/E0JA.PMT 7 THRU 11/20/11
E7JA/E0JA.Pmt 7 thru 11/20/11
412.100.630.594.320.650.00 208,824.79
E7JA/E0JA.Ret 7
412.100.000.223.400.000.00 -9,535.38
Total :199,289.41
129462 12/15/2011 017050 KWICK'N KLEEN CAR WASH 12052011-01 INV#12052011-01 - EDMONDS PD
26 CAR WASHES @ $5.03 FOR 11/11
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 130.78
INV#12052011-03 - EDMONDS PD12052011-03
3 CAR WASHES @ $5.03 FOR 11/11
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 15.09
Total :145.87
129463 12/15/2011 073136 LANG, ROBERT Lang, Robert City Hall Lobby Monitor for Tree Board
City Hall Lobby Monitor for Tree Board
001.000.110.511.100.410.00 36.00
Total :36.00
129464 12/15/2011 073887 LAURITZEN, NORMAN 3-53900 OVERPAYMENT UTILITY REFUND
22Page:
Packet Page 103 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129464 12/15/2011 (Continued)073887 LAURITZEN, NORMAN
Overpayment refund per customer request
411.000.000.257.000.000.00 150.00
OVERPAYMENT UTILITY REFUND3-53900
Refund per customer request
411.000.000.257.000.000.00 135.00
Total :285.00
129465 12/15/2011 067746 LAW ENFORCEMENT TARGETS INC 0179414-IN INV#0179414-IN CUST#0098020 - EDMONDS PD
HYGIENE KITS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 179.40
Freight
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 13.37
Total :192.77
129466 12/15/2011 068711 LAWN EQUIPMENT SUPPLY 12011-122 BLOWER PARTS
BAND ASSEMBLY
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 54.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.21
Total :60.05
129467 12/15/2011 069509 LAWRENCE, LYNN LAWRENCE1214 REFUND
REFUND FOR CANCELLED CLASS
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 41.00
Total :41.00
129468 12/15/2011 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC DEC-11 12-11 LEGALS FEES
12-11 Legal fees
001.000.360.515.100.410.00 32,000.00
Total :32,000.00
129469 12/15/2011 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 30969 2795
REPAIR HVAC
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 160.00
9.5% Sales Tax
23Page:
Packet Page 104 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129469 12/15/2011 (Continued)067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 15.20
Total :175.20
129470 12/15/2011 018950 LYNNWOOD AUTO PARTS INC 646013 Unit 337 - Halogen Bulbs
Unit 337 - Halogen Bulbs
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.76
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 0.93
Fleet Supplies646401
Fleet Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 21.29
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 2.02
Fleet - Return Exchange Credit646410
Fleet - Return Exchange Credit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -7.30
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -0.69
Total :26.01
129471 12/15/2011 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 763308 Unit 62 - Motor
Unit 62 - Motor
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 191.21
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 18.16
Total :209.37
129472 12/15/2011 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 383295-00 Parks - Clamp
Parks - Clamp
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 4.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.38
Total :4.38
129473 12/15/2011 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 834 INTERPRETER FEE
24Page:
Packet Page 105 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129473 12/15/2011 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE835
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE860
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE861
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.32
Total :353.28
129474 12/15/2011 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 82 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 6,993.00
Total :6,993.00
129475 12/15/2011 066397 MCCONNELL, JEANIE 12/2011.McConnell MCCONNELL REIMBURSEMENT FOR CAMERA
McConnell Reimbursement for Camera
001.000.620.532.200.350.00 147.09
Total :147.09
129476 12/15/2011 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 11846071 123106800
SQUARE-SOCKET PLUG/NEEDLE VALVE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 235.28
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7.00
12310680012074640
WRENCH SET
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 216.84
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.86
12310680012127471
FIBERGLASS ENCLOSURE
25Page:
Packet Page 106 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129476 12/15/2011 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 81.99
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 11.32
Total :559.29
129477 12/15/2011 063773 MICROFLEX 00020353 11-11 TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
TAX AUDIT PROGRAM
001.000.310.514.230.410.00 116.52
Total :116.52
129478 12/15/2011 021983 MOTOR TRUCKS INC 1-10241824 Unit 21 - Rain Cap
Unit 21 - Rain Cap
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.70
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1.08
Total :12.78
129479 12/15/2011 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0465124-IN Fleet Filter Inventory
Fleet Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 715.55
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 67.99
Fleet Bulk Oil Inventory0465954-IN
Fleet Bulk Oil Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 1,563.61
Filter Inventory
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 70.65
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.21 148.55
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.340.40 6.71
Total :2,573.06
129480 12/15/2011 072032 NORR, JULIE NORR14504 GINGERBREAD HOUSE CLASS
GINGERBREAD HOUSE #14504
26Page:
Packet Page 107 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129480 12/15/2011 (Continued)072032 NORR, JULIE
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 78.40
GINGERBREAD HOUSE #14505
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 212.80
Total :291.20
129481 12/15/2011 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY S4289027.001 2091
CONDUIT/COUPLING/PLUG
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 257.21
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 23.66
Total :280.87
129482 12/15/2011 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-393761 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: CIVIC FIELD
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 194.62
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-394815
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL: MADRONA ELEMENTARY
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 102.50
Total :297.12
129483 12/15/2011 066628 NORTHWEST DISTRIBUTING CO 045130 Unit 648 - Aquapel
Unit 648 - Aquapel
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 132.00
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 11.75
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.33
Total :147.08
129484 12/15/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 541696 INV#541696 ACCT#520437 250POL EDMONDS PD
BLACK RETRACTABLE PENS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 113.50
REAMS OF 8.5" x 14" PAPER
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 35.30
PATROL MEMO BOOKS
27Page:
Packet Page 108 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129484 12/15/2011 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 12.18
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 15.29
Total :176.27
129485 12/15/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 489376 SUPPLIES
SUPPLIES
001.000.230.512.500.310.00 50.36
Total :50.36
129486 12/15/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 604502 OFFICE SUPPLIES
COPY PAPER, SHARPIES
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 186.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 17.69
Total :203.83
129487 12/15/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 548746 Appt Calendar/Poly File
Appt Calendar/Poly File
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 26.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 2.54
Return Appt Calendar origianal inv569108
Return Appt Calendar origianal inv
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -11.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 -1.07
Total :17.04
129488 12/15/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 555036 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 168.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 16.03
Total :184.78
28Page:
Packet Page 109 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129489 12/15/2011 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 538876 PW Office Supplies
PW Office Supplies
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 183.16
Water - Ink
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 139.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 17.39
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 13.29
Total :353.66
129490 12/15/2011 070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER Nov, 2011 COURT, BLDG CODE & JIS TRANSMITTAL
Emergency Medical Services & Trauma
001.000.000.237.120.000.00 1,631.46
PSEA 1, 2 & 3 Account
001.000.000.237.130.000.00 32,828.85
Building Code Fee Account
001.000.000.237.150.000.00 76.50
State Patrol Death Investigation
001.000.000.237.330.000.00 45.14
Judicial Information Systems Account
001.000.000.237.180.000.00 5,666.91
School Zone Safety Account
001.000.000.237.200.000.00 174.95
Washington Auto Theft Prevention
001.000.000.237.250.000.00 3,204.94
Traumatic Brain Injury
001.000.000.237.260.000.00 618.17
Accessible Communities Acct
001.000.000.237.290.000.00 11.11
Multi-Model Transportation
001.000.000.237.300.000.00 11.11
Hwy Safety Acct
001.000.000.237.320.000.00 71.60
Crime Lab Blood Breath Analysis
29Page:
Packet Page 110 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129490 12/15/2011 (Continued)070166 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
001.000.000.237.170.000.00 447.06
WSP Hwy Acct
001.000.000.237.340.000.00 256.15
Total :45,043.95
129491 12/15/2011 002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY 00052992 Fleet - Returns
Fleet - Returns
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -68.90
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -6.55
Fleet - Unit 31 -00062183
Fleet - Unit 31 -
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 95.04
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 17.92
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 10.73
Unit 106 - Check Valve, Pipe Ext00062331
Unit 106 - Check Valve, Pipe Ext
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 515.40
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.87
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 51.80
Unit 55 - Supplies00062382
Unit 55 - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 1,896.79
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 62.43
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 186.13
Unit 55 - WLDT Sidebroom00062384
Unit 55 - WLDT Sidebroom
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 668.63
9.5% Sales Tax
30Page:
Packet Page 111 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129491 12/15/2011 (Continued)002203 OWEN EQUIPMENT COMPANY
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 63.52
Total :3,522.81
129492 12/15/2011 072878 PACIFIC COAST CHEMICAL CO 91385 PCC10252
WILSON CLAY
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 3,184.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 180.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 319.58
Total :3,683.58
129493 12/15/2011 066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION E75003 B/W copy overage fee - 0
B/W copy overage fee - 0
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 0.00
B/W copy overage fee - 0
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 0.00
B/W copy overage fee - 0
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 0.00
B/W copy overage fee - 0
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 0.01
Color copy overage fee - 450 copies
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 45.93
Color copy overage fee - 450 copies
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 45.93
Color copy overage fee - 450 copies
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 45.93
Color copy overage fee - 450 copies
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 45.94
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.480.00 4.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.480.00 4.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.480.00 4.37
31Page:
Packet Page 112 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
32
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129493 12/15/2011 (Continued)066339 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.480.00 4.35
Total :201.20
129494 12/15/2011 063588 PACIFIC POWER PRODUCTS CO 11262430 Fleet - Lithium Pk
Fleet - Lithium Pk
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 44.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 7.11
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 4.70
Total :55.81
129495 12/15/2011 027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS 123202 Dump Fees
Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 63.00
Dump Fees123213
Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 105.00
Dump Fees123220
Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 105.00
Dump Fees123689
Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 52.50
Dump Fees123699
Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 52.50
Dump Fees123746
Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 84.00
Dump Fees123747
Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 84.00
Dump Fees123755
32Page:
Packet Page 113 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
33
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129495 12/15/2011 (Continued)027060 PACIFIC TOPSOILS
Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 84.00
Street - Bark123840
Street - Bark
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 37.24
7.7% sales tax
111.000.653.542.610.310.00 2.87
Storm - Top Soil and fees124107
Storm - Top Soil and fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 132.00
7.7% sales tax
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 10.16
Dump Fees124496
Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 52.50
Dump Fees124995
Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 42.00
Dump Fees1250002
Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 42.00
Dump Fees125009
Dump Fees
411.000.652.542.320.490.00 42.00
Total :990.77
129496 12/15/2011 007800 PETTY CASH Treasurer-Petty Cash TREASURER PETTY CASH
Kleenex-DS Dept
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 19.37
IPAD Case
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 65.69
Parking for Washington Tourism Alliance
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 11.00
Forks for DS
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 10.24
33Page:
Packet Page 114 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
34
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129496 12/15/2011 (Continued)007800 PETTY CASH
Holiday Breakfast Supplies
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 39.75
Reimbursement for Meal & Parking during
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 19.56
IPAD case
001.000.620.558.600.490.00 32.84
Tablecloths for holiday breakfast
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 101.77
Total :300.22
129497 12/15/2011 008475 PETTY CASH - PUBLIC WORKS 11/1-12/13/11 City Holiday Brkfst - Pancake Batter
City Holiday Brkfst - Pancake Batter
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 40.00
City Holiday Brkfst - Pancake Syrup
001.000.220.516.100.490.00 17.97
PW Calendars
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 18.60
Unit 26 Tool Replacement
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 76.64
MCH Countertop Kit
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 13.76
Unit 26 Tool Replacement
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 55.82
CDL Endoresment - Whatmore
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 61.00
CDL Endoresment - Long
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 61.00
Unit 46 Weight Slip
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.00
CDL Endorsmet
511.000.657.548.680.490.00 86.00
Total :438.79
129498 12/15/2011 073231 POLYDYNE INC 647973 101859
POLYMER
34Page:
Packet Page 115 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
35
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129498 12/15/2011 (Continued)073231 POLYDYNE INC
411.000.656.538.800.310.51 14,872.00
Total :14,872.00
129499 12/15/2011 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 196612 WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41
Street - Traffic Camera Shipping196655
Street - Traffic Camera Shipping
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 20.00
WATER SEWER STREET STORM-L&I RETURN POST197091
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 2.43
Water Sewer Street Storm - L&I Safety
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 2.41
Total :39.40
129500 12/15/2011 029117 PORT OF EDMONDS 03870 CITY OF EDMONDS STORMWATER
Pier StormWater Rent for Nov
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,174.78
Total :2,174.78
129501 12/15/2011 067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 0001221-IN 0000204
SAFETY SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 396.85
9.5% Sales Tax
35Page:
Packet Page 116 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
36
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129501 12/15/2011 (Continued)067263 PUGET SAFETY EQUIPMENT COMPANY
411.000.656.538.800.310.12 37.71
Total :434.56
129502 12/15/2011 030400 PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY 20122728 Facility Fees
Facility Fees
511.000.657.548.680.490.00 120.00
Total :120.00
129503 12/15/2011 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 123353 MARKER
MARKER: OLKOSKI
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 1,597.00
Total :1,597.00
129504 12/15/2011 073882 RAGLAND, MICHAEL TBD 121211 R TBD REFUND M RAGLAND
TBD Refund M Ragland
001.000.000.344.900.000.00 20.00
Total :20.00
129505 12/15/2011 073885 RANDOLPH, PAMELA 2799 KEYBOARD FOR IPAD
KEYBOARD FOR IPAD
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 117.99
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 11.21
Total :129.20
129506 12/15/2011 064769 ROMAINE ELECTRIC 1-790532 Unit 55 - Alternators
Unit 55 - Alternators
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 219.90
Total :219.90
129507 12/15/2011 069062 RONGERUDE, JOHN 7675 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 1,000.00
Total :1,000.00
129508 12/15/2011 069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC 22572 CRAZE PRINTING/ADVERTISING
36Page:
Packet Page 117 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
37
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129508 12/15/2011 (Continued)069477 ROTARY OFFSET PRESS INC
CRAZE PRINTING
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 3,127.69
CRAZE ADVERTISING
117.100.640.573.100.440.00 2,976.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.200.490.00 297.13
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.440.00 282.75
Total :6,683.83
129509 12/15/2011 071467 S MORRIS COMPANY NOV 2011 INVOICE 11/30/11 ACCT#70014 - EDMONDS PD
#786741 - 7 NPC 11/7/11
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 74.76
#812659 - 9 NPC 11/28/11
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 96.12
Total :170.88
129510 12/15/2011 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 196682 INV#196682 - EDMONDS PD
TOWING 1991 HONDA #422YUL
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
129511 12/15/2011 068489 SIRENNET.COM 0128810-IN Unit 411 - Mounting Supplies
Unit 411 - Mounting Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 523.20
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 49.98
Unit 681 - Hardware Kit01298380-IN
Unit 681 - Hardware Kit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 199.00
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 13.75
Unit 411 - Mounting device0129987-IN
37Page:
Packet Page 118 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
38
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129511 12/15/2011 (Continued)068489 SIRENNET.COM
Unit 411 - Mounting device
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 152.12
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 29.74
Total :967.79
129512 12/15/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2003-2646-0 1000 EDMONDS ST
1000 EDMONDS ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.05
930 9TH AVE N2022-5063-5
930 9TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.05
Total :64.10
129513 12/15/2011 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 201790003 TELEMETRY SYSTEM
TELEMETRY SYSTEM
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 35.12
5th & Main Car Charge Station204292213
5th & Main Car Charge Station
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 6.11
Total :41.23
129514 12/15/2011 063941 SNO CO SHERIFFS OFFICE NOV 2011 INMATE MEDS SNO CO JAIL 11/11 INMATE MEDS EDMONDS
NOV 2011 INMATE MEDS
001.000.410.523.600.310.00 83.51
Total :83.51
129515 12/15/2011 064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER 2011-882 INV#2011-882 REFUND DISPUTED CHGS & WR
1 BOOKING - LATIGUE
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -90.00
1 BOOKING - LITTLE
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -90.00
17 HOUSING DAYS - LATIGUE
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -1,062.50
10 HOUSING DAYS - LITTLE
38Page:
Packet Page 119 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
39
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129515 12/15/2011 (Continued)064351 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -625.00
10. 5 HOUSING DAYS - LUCAS
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -656.25
18 WORK RELEASE DAYS - OLIVARES
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 -540.00
INV#2011-882 NOV 2011- EDMONDS PD2011-882
60 BOOKINGS - NOV 2011
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 5,400.00
9 HOME DETENTION DAYS - NOV 2011
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 144.00
351.67 HOUSING DAYS - NOV 2011
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 21,979.38
79 WORK RELEASE - NOV 2011
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 3,318.00
Total :27,777.63
129516 12/15/2011 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER Nov-11 11/11 Crime Victims Court Remittance
11/11 Crime Victims Court Remittance
001.000.000.237.140.000.00 947.43
Total :947.43
129517 12/15/2011 037800 SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT CEDM Street Storm - 2 Blood Work, Hep AB
Street Storm - 2 Blood Work, Hep AB
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 119.00
Street Storm - 2 Blood Work, Hep AB
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 119.00
Total :238.00
129518 12/15/2011 072291 SNO-KING COMMUNITY CHORALE SNO-KING1208 TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
TOURISM PROMOTION AGREEMENT
123.000.640.573.100.410.00 1,000.00
Total :1,000.00
129519 12/15/2011 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L91125 NOV-11 AUDIT FEES
November 2011 Audit Fees
39Page:
Packet Page 120 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
40
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129519 12/15/2011 (Continued)039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
001.000.390.519.900.510.00 1,175.71
November 2011 Audit Fees
411.000.652.542.900.510.00 58.79
November 2011 Audit Fees
411.000.654.534.800.510.00 195.95
November 2011 Audit Fees
411.000.655.535.800.510.00 195.95
November 2011 Audit Fees
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 195.95
November 2011 Audit Fees
111.000.653.543.300.510.00 58.79
November 2011 Audit Fees
511.000.657.548.680.510.00 78.38
Total :1,959.52
129520 12/15/2011 039775 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE Hunstock GAAP Man BARS/GAAP Manual S Hunstock
BARS/GAAP Manual S Hunstock
001.000.310.514.100.490.00 40.00
Total :40.00
129521 12/15/2011 070837 SUNBELT RENTALS INC 32390164-001 MANLIFT FOR PLAZA TREE DECORATIONS
MANLIFT FOR DECORATING CENTENNIAL PLAZA
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 2,725.90
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 258.96
Total :2,984.86
129522 12/15/2011 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18954886 Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Tool Replacement
Fac Maint - Unit 26 - Tool Replacement
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 77.94
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.350.00 7.40
Total :85.34
129523 12/15/2011 073629 TDS AKA BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS 801-7139 Unit 106 - Repairs and Service
40Page:
Packet Page 121 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
41
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129523 12/15/2011 (Continued)073629 TDS AKA BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS
Unit 106 - Repairs and Service
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,454.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 137.76
Total :1,591.76
129524 12/15/2011 073544 TEKTRONIX SERVICE SOLUTIONS USG670031 308350
CALIBRATION BACKFLOW GAGE
411.000.656.538.800.410.22 79.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.22 7.51
Total :86.51
129525 12/15/2011 073886 TERRELL, EMILY 2011-008 Hearing Examiner (pro tem) Services for
Hearing Examiner (pro tem) Services for
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1,680.00
Total :1,680.00
129526 12/15/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY I01759197-11292011 E1FN.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT
E1FN.RFQ Advertisement
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 189.20
Total :189.20
129527 12/15/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 0001759365 OLD MILLTOWN CLASSIFIED AD
NOTICE OF PLANNING BOARD HEARING FOR
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 56.76
Total :56.76
129528 12/15/2011 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1760068 NEWSPAPER ADS
CIP Hearing
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 37.84
Total :37.84
129529 12/15/2011 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 175171 City Hall Elevator - Service and Parts
City Hall Elevator - Service and Parts
116.000.651.519.920.480.00 4,830.00
41Page:
Packet Page 122 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
42
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129529 12/15/2011 (Continued)038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
9.5% Sales Tax
116.000.651.519.920.480.00 458.85
Total :5,288.85
129530 12/15/2011 061233 TOWN & COUNTRY CHRYSLER 334877 Unit 126 - Power Pump and Core Deposit
Unit 126 - Power Pump and Core Deposit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 98.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 9.31
Unit 125 - Repairs754172
Unit 125 - Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 1,102.44
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 104.73
Core Return FeeCM334877
Core Return Fee
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -10.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -0.95
Total :1,303.53
129531 12/15/2011 070037 TRIMAXX CONSTRUCTION INC E2DB.Pmt 3 E2DB.PMT 3 THRU 10/31/11
E2DB.Pmt 3 thru 10/31/11
132.000.640.594.760.650.00 220,846.98
E2DB.Ret 3
132.000.000.223.400.000.00 -11,028.63
E2DB.PMT 4 THRU 11/30/11E2DB.Pmt 4
E2DB.Pmt 4 thru 11/30/11
132.000.640.594.760.650.00 104,184.70
E2DB.Ret 4
132.000.000.223.400.000.00 -5,209.24
Total :308,793.81
129532 12/15/2011 061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY 8778431 Sewer - LS Supplies
Sewer - LS Supplies
42Page:
Packet Page 123 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
43
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129532 12/15/2011 (Continued)061192 UNITED PIPE & SUPPLY
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 600.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.310.00 57.02
Water Inventory - w-cplg-06-0208790522
Water Inventory - w-cplg-06-020
411.000.655.535.800.340.00 565.34
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.340.00 53.71
Total :1,276.25
129533 12/15/2011 062693 US BANK 5923 WTA, AND SURVEY MONKEY
2012 subscription to Survey Monkey
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 300.00
Washington Tourism Alliance 2012
117.100.640.573.100.490.00 100.00
Washington Tourism Alliance 2012
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 200.00
Total :600.00
129534 12/15/2011 062693 US BANK 1070 INV#1070 12/06/11 - THOMPSON-EDMONDS PD
LAPTOP BATTERY
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 68.00
ROUTER WALL PLAQUE (DV COORD)
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 52.56
ST CRIMES ORAL BOARD 11/10/11
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 36.58
HOT SOLO BISTRO CUPS
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 103.19
INV#2519 12/06/11 - TRAINING-EDMONDS PD2519
MEAL/CNOA TRAINING - ROSSI
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 42.50
MEAL/CNOA TRAINING -ROSSI
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 2.96
MEAL/CNOA TRAINING - ROSSI
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 20.43
43Page:
Packet Page 124 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
44
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129534 12/15/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
MEAL/CNOA TRAINING -ROSSI
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 7.81
MEAL/CNOA TRAINING - ROSSI
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 11.77
LODGING/CNOA TRAINING - ROSSI
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 491.15
MEAL/CNOA TRAINING - ROSSI
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 23.92
REG. DIVATOR MASK COURSE-KINNEY
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 175.00
CENTENNAL BADGES
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 107.09
INV#3181 12/06/11 - BARD - EDMONDS PD3181
TASER TARGET BACKSTOPS
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 37.67
REG. SUP LEADERSHIP-MCCLURE
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 650.00
MISC ITEMS TASER TRAINING
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 42.75
TASER CARTRIDGES
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 274.41
HOSA CONTACT CLEANER
001.000.410.521.400.480.00 22.20
KINGSTON FLASH DRIVE
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 42.99
VELCRO CABLE TIE ROLL
001.000.410.521.400.480.00 7.96
2011 RCW CD-ROM
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 85.41
INV#3256 12/06/11 - GANNON - EDMONDS PD3256
AIRFARE CNOA TRAINING-ROSSI
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 466.10
MEMBERSHIP FBI-LEEDA-GANNON
001.000.410.521.100.490.00 50.00
44Page:
Packet Page 125 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
45
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129534 12/15/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
LODGING-WSPCA CONF-ANDERSON
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 256.65
MEAL/WASPC CONF-ANDERSON
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 9.86
LODGING-WASPC CONF-LAWLESS
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 256.65
INV#3314 12/06/11 - LAWLESS - EDMONDS PD3314
FUEL/WASPC CONF-LAWLESS
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 25.20
MEAL/WASPC CONF-LAWLESS/AND
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 42.92
WIPER FLUID/WASPC CONF-LAWLESS
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 5.43
MEAL/WASPC CONF-LAWLESS
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 15.19
MEAL/WASPC CONF-LAWLESS-AND
001.000.410.521.400.430.00 23.39
INV#3520 12/06/11 - TRAINING-EDMONDS PD3520
FEDEX CHG #11-3402,3829
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 13.65
FEDEX CHG #11-3495,4227,4176
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 20.98
FEDEX CHG #11-3576,3519
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 20.75
FEDEX CHG #11-3235,3850,4018
001.000.410.521.100.420.00 13.15
Total :3,526.27
129535 12/15/2011 062693 US BANK 3249 POSTAGE FOR MAILING PASSPORTS
POSTAGE FOR MAILING PASSPORTS
001.000.230.512.500.420.00 47.50
MISC FEE FOR LATE CHARGE
001.000.230.512.500.490.00 2.46
Total :49.96
45Page:
Packet Page 126 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
46
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129536 12/15/2011 062693 US BANK 3447 Executive Assistant, #11-30 ads (2) &
Executive Assistant, #11-30 ads (2) &
001.000.220.516.100.440.00 75.00
Total :75.00
129537 12/15/2011 062693 US BANK 2143 PROVANTAGE, AMAZON, OFFICE DEPOT
Provantage LLC - RBC43 & RBC35
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 528.49
Amazon Marketplace - Mastering MS
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 795.81
iTunes Store - App for City Council
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 10.94
Amazon - Windows 7 Desktop Support &
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 32.51
Office Depot - foam board & spray mount
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 28.45
BulkRegister domain name registration -
001.000.310.518.880.490.00 25.90
Amazon.com - 3 Fujitsu ScanSnap S1500
001.000.410.521.910.350.00 1,361.61
PUGET SOUND FINANCE OFFICERS MEETING4831
Puget Sound Finance Officers Meeting -
001.000.310.514.100.490.00 25.00
Late fee
001.000.310.514.100.490.00 2.17
Total :2,810.88
129538 12/15/2011 062693 US BANK 2985 SST LEVEL CONTROL
SST LEVEL CONTROL
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 303.43
REFRESHMENTS/MTG NEW MANAGER
411.000.656.538.800.490.00 58.86
Total :362.29
129539 12/15/2011 062693 US BANK 3462 CITY CLERK PURCHASE CARD
Mayors Cooper & Earling Recpt.
46Page:
Packet Page 127 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
47
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129539 12/15/2011 (Continued)062693 US BANK
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 170.00
Clerk recording fees
001.000.250.514.300.490.00 153.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 713.00
Recording of Utility Liens
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 713.00
Total :1,749.00
129540 12/15/2011 062693 US BANK 3363 Superior Signals - Unit 62 - Cable
Superior Signals - Unit 62 - Cable
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 137.63
Advanced Sound - Unit 775 - Detailing
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 43.80
Svc Fees
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 6.23
PW - Director's Car - Gas8305
PW - Director's Car - Gas
001.000.650.519.910.310.00 10.01
Total :197.67
129541 12/15/2011 062693 US BANK 6045 Click to Mail Invoice No.
Click to Mail Invoice No.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 34.83
Total :34.83
129542 12/15/2011 062693 US BANK 3389 Refreshments for Council
Refreshments for Council
001.000.110.511.100.310.00 35.32
Supplies for Council Reception
001.000.110.511.100.490.00 29.26
Total :64.58
129543 12/15/2011 068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA0392163-WA Fleet - 1 DOT
Fleet - 1 DOT
47Page:
Packet Page 128 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
48
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129543 12/15/2011 (Continued)068724 US HEALTHWORKS MED GROUP OF WA
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 65.00
Total :65.00
129544 12/15/2011 072172 VAUGHAN, ERIC 305062552000 LAUNDRY SOAP/DISHWASHER SOAP
LAUNDRY SOAP/DISHWASHER SOAP
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 51.56
Total :51.56
129545 12/15/2011 069836 VOLT SERVICE GROUP 26189098 Alecia Cox - clerical services - w/e
Alecia Cox - clerical services - w/e
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 499.95
Alecia Cox clerical services w/e26234759
Alecia Cox clerical services w/e
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 839.20
Total :1,339.15
129546 12/15/2011 068259 WA ST CRIMINAL JUSTICE 2013-0384 INV 2013-0384 HAWLEY - CRIME SCENE INV
0220-1 BASIC CRIME SCENE INV - HAWLEY
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 50.00
Total :50.00
129547 12/15/2011 073832 WA ST DEPT OF ENTERPRISE SVCS 58405 WSDOT 2012 STANDARD SPECS
WSDOT 2012 Standard Specs
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 250.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 23.75
Total :273.75
129548 12/15/2011 061485 WA ST DEPT OF HEALTH 2012 Waterworks Cert Sewer Dept Renewal - J Clemens
Sewer Dept Renewal - J Clemens
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 42.00
Total :42.00
129549 12/15/2011 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL I12004153 INV#I12004153 EDM301 - EDMONDS PD
BACKGROUND CHECKS NOV 2011
001.000.000.237.100.000.00 288.75
48Page:
Packet Page 129 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
49
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :288.7512954912/15/2011 065035 065035 WASHINGTON STATE PATROL
129550 12/15/2011 026510 WCIA 100831 SR CTR FLOOD INS POLICY AB00072098
Senior Center Flood Insurance Policy
001.000.390.519.900.460.00 1,521.00
Total :1,521.00
129551 12/15/2011 047960 WEAN, GREG 78 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 238.80
Total :238.80
129552 12/15/2011 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5317 INV#5317 - EDMONDS PD
2500 #10 WINDOW ENVELOPES
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 189.00
2500 BLUE REMITTANCE ENVELOPES
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 185.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.700.310.00 35.53
Total :409.53
129553 12/15/2011 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5320 BUSINESS CARDS-SHAWN HUNSTOCK
Business Cards-Shawn Hunstock250-00270
001.000.310.514.100.490.00 37.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.100.490.00 3.56
BUSINESS CARDS-DAVE EARLING5321
Business Cards-Dave Earling250-00273
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 23.75
Sherrie Conway (double sided)250-00273
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 48.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 2.26
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.230.512.501.310.00 4.63
Total :120.45
49Page:
Packet Page 130 of 404
12/15/2011
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
50
8:54:29AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
129554 12/15/2011 065179 WSAPT TREAS / AMY DONLAN 2012 LINDA 2012 Membership Dues for Linda T for
2012 Membership Dues for Linda T for
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 35.00
2012 Membership dues for Washington2012 MARIE
2012 Membership dues for Washington
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 35.00
Total :70.00
129555 12/15/2011 073817 BOWERS, DOUGLAS TBD 121211 TBD REFUND D BOWERS
TBD Refund D Bowers
001.000.000.344.900.000.00 20.00
Total :20.00
Bank total :873,482.27168 Vouchers for bank code :front
873,482.27Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report168
50Page:
Packet Page 131 of 404
AM-4450 Item #: 4. D.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #51050 through #51076 for the period November 16, 2011
through November 30, 2011 for $713,624.43.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approval of 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:2011
Revenue:
Expenditure:713,624.43
Fiscal Impact:
Payroll $713,624.43
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 12/15/2011 11:55 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 01:35 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 01:40 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 01:51 PM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 12/15/2011 11:45 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 132 of 404
AM-4409 Item #: 4. E.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of Claims for Damages from James Kreider (amount undetermined), Frontier
(amount undetermined), Monique Walsh (amount undetermined), and Kimberly Cole (amount
undetermined).
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
It is recommended that the City Council acknowledge receipt of the Claims for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Claims for Damages have been received from the following entities:
James Kreider
1250 6th Pl. So.
Edmonds, WA 98020
(Amount Undetermined)
Frontier
CMR Claims Department
P.O. Box 60770
Oklahoma City, OK 73146-0770
(Amount Undetermined)
Monique Walsh
9191 185th Place S.W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
(Amount Undetermined)
Kimberly Cole
5315 188th St. SW, #A1
Lynnwood, WA 98037
(Amount Undetermined)
Attachments
Claim for Damages - Kreider
Packet Page 133 of 404
Claim for Damages - Frontier
Claim for Damages - Walsh
Claim for Damages - Cole
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:58 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:58 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/02/2011 02:41 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 134 of 404
Packet Page 135 of 404
Packet Page 136 of 404
Packet Page 137 of 404
Packet Page 138 of 404
Packet Page 139 of 404
Packet Page 140 of 404
Packet Page 141 of 404
Packet Page 142 of 404
Packet Page 143 of 404
AM-4436 Item #: 4. F.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Pam Lemcke Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Report on final construction costs for the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement Project and
acceptance of project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Accept project.
Previous Council Action
On November 16, 2010, Council authorized staff to call for bids for the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir
Improvement Project.
On March 8, 2011, the CS/DS committee recommended Council award a contract to Omega Contractors
for the construction of the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement Project.
On March 15, 2011 Council awarded a contract to Omega Contractors, Inc. for the construction of the
Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement Project.
On December 13, 2011, the CS/DS committee recommended Council accept the project and forward this
item to the consent agenda at the December 20, 2011 Council meeting.
Narrative
The Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement Project is now complete and was inspected and
accepted by City staff. The final construction cost for the contractor is $230,732. Two change orders
were processed during construction. The first change order amended the contract completion time and
the second change order was $6,445. The project costs were paid by the 412-100 Water Utility Fund.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 12/14/2011 02:25 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 12/14/2011 05:54 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 08:40 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:53 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:57 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 12/14/2011
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 144 of 404
AM-4442 Item #: 4. G.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Gerry Gannon
Department:Police Department
Committee:Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Orchid Cellmark DNA Testing
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Staff recommends the Council approve the supplemental contract agreement with Orchid Cellmark.
Previous Council Action
The Public Safety Committee approved the contract with Orchid Cellmark for the consent agenda.
Narrative
The City entered into an agreement for DNA testing and analysis of evidence for property crimes entered
into an agreement on March 1, 2010. That agreement ends on December 31, 2011. DNA evidence has
become an important part of our investigations into solving property crimes such as burglary, auto theft,
and other property crime cases. The police department wishes to continue to use the services by Orchid
Cellmark to assist in solving our property crimes cases.
The testing process used by Orchid Cellmark is now sensitive enough to detect DNA samples collected
from a crime scene simply by the suspect touching an item. The same process has been used in England
for over ten years. Orchid Cellmark currently provides services for WASPC's Stranger Rape Project. In
addition, the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory has approved the scientific testing process
Orchid Cellmark uses to enter DNA data into the national data base (CODIS).
The 2012 police has budgeted for the cost of DNA testing.
The agreement has been approved by the City Attorney as to form.
Attachments
Original Contract
New Pricing Letter
New Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 08:40 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:49 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:57 AM
Form Started By: Gerry Gannon Started On: 12/15/2011
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 145 of 404
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
6
o
f
4
0
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
7
o
f
4
0
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
8
o
f
4
0
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
4
9
o
f
4
0
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
0
o
f
4
0
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
1
o
f
4
0
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
2
o
f
4
0
4
December 6, 2011
Al Compaan, Chief of Police
Edmonds Police Department
250 Fifth Av. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Pricing Agreement for Property Crime Testing Services
Dear Chief Compaan,
Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding property crime testing services. This letter
shall serve as a pricing agreement between Orchid Cellmark and the City of Edmonds
Police Department for the testing of property crime evidence.
BioTracks ExpressTM (15 to 30 day Turn Around Time)
Streamlined Property Crime Sample Processing without Suspects* for Upload into
a Database
1. Evidence Samples
a. Batches of 70 or more Swabs $245 per swab
b. Batches of 45 – 69 Swabs $265 per swab
c. Batches of 20 – 44 Swabs $285 per swab
d. Batches of 10 – 19 Swabs $305 per swab
e. Batches of 1 – 9 Swabs $305 per swab plus $500 per batch
surcharge
2. Reference Elimination Samples $245 per buccal swab
* If a suspect sample is identified at a later time or a confirmation sample is tested after a hit this
can be done for an additional $395 and will include a full case report.
BioTracks TM (30 to 45 day Turn Around Time)
Standard Property Crime Casework for Upload into CODIS or Comparison with
Known Suspects
1. Evidence Samples
a. Batches of 70 or more Swabs $345 per swab
b. Batches of 45 – 69 Swabs $365 per swab
c. Batches of 20 – 44 Swabs $385 per swab
d. Batches of 10 – 19 Swabs $405 per swab
e. Batches of 1 – 9 Swabs $405 per swab plus $500 per batch
surcharge
2. Reference Elimination or Suspect Samples $345 per buccal swab
Expert Witness Testimony: It is expected that the vast majority of property crime
suspects will confess when faced with DNA evidence linking them to the scene of the
Packet Page 153 of 404
crime. As a result, property crime cases using DNA testing rarely go to court. However,
in the event a property crime case does go to court and require Expert Witness
Testimony, charges will be as follows:
$1,500 per day plus expenses for each testimony request.
Video Conferencing for testimony is available for $250 per hour plus the cost of
the video feed.
Description of Analysis Approach
Service
Element BioTracks ExpressTM BioTracksTM
Turn-around time 15-30 days 30-45 days
Report Batch data tables and abbreviated
CODIS Upload Review report to DPS
Standard Individual Casework report to
DPS
Low quant
samples
Samples with <10 picograms of
DNA/microliter after extraction and
quantification are not analyzed further
Samples with <10 picograms of
DNA/microliter after extraction and
quantification are not analyzed
Non-swab items
(less than 8.5” x
11”)**
Cigarette butts – no charge
Other (e.g. chewing gum, baseball
cap) – Additional $50/item
Cigarette butts – no charge
Other (e.g. chewing gum, baseball cap)
– Additional $50/item
**Hair, bones, or items larger than 8 ½” x 11” are not accepted for Biotracks ExpressTM or
BiotracksTM analysis.
Orchid Cellmark Representations: Orchid Cellmark represents and warrants that the
Services provided hereunder shall be performed in accordance with established and
recognized forensic testing procedures and in material compliance with federal and state
laws.
Testing Specifications: All testing will be performed by Orchid Cellmark utilizing
protocols approved under the existing Washington State Patrol contract other than
detailsspecified in the Description of analysis Approach.
Switching Service Options: Each batch of samples submitted will be run using either
BioTracksTM or BioTracks ExpressTM (i.e., half of one sample batch cannot be run using
one process and half with the other process). The City of Edmonds Police Department
shall have the right to change which process they are using in between sample shipments.
Testing Location: Orchid Cellmark has fully accredited casework facility in Farmers
Branch, TX, a suburb of Dallas.
Contract Length: The pricing outlined herein shall remain in effect through December 31,
2013.
Packet Page 154 of 404
Billing and Payment: Orchid Cellmark shall invoice the City of Edmonds Police
Department for all services performed on a monthly basis. The City of Edmonds Police
Department agrees that all invoices should be paid within 30 days.
Record Retention: All biological material/evidence pertaining to cases sent to Orchid
Cellmark by the City of Edmonds Police Department will be returned to the City of
Edmonds Police Department within 60 days after delivery of the final report unless
otherwise instructed by the City of Edmonds Police Department.
Customer Service Contact: Your operations point of contact at our testing facility, Matt
Quartaro (214-271-8323 mquartaro@orchid.com). Mr. Quartaro will contact you once
this agreement is signed to make sure you have all the information you need to send
samples as it becomes necessary. He can also help coordinate case file review and
CODIS upload of your samples with the appropriate Washington State Patrol crime lab.
If these terms are acceptable, please return this signed agreement via fax or email.
Laura Gahn, Ph.D., D-ABC
Director of Operations, North American Forensics
Orchid Cellmark, Inc.
13988 Diplomat Drive, Suite 100, Dallas, TX 75234
Phone: 214-271-8406 FAX: 214-271-8422
lgahn@orchid.com
Agreed and Acknowledged to
Signature ________________________________________ Date __________________
Name ______________________________________Title______________________
Please address bills to:
Name_________________________________________Title______________________
Address (if different from above)
________________________________________________________________________
Phone ___________________________email_________________________________
Packet Page 155 of 404
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
6
o
f
4
0
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
1
5
7
o
f
4
0
4
AM-4453 Item #: 4. H.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Ordinance adopting the following amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: removing certain
properties from the Medical / Highway 99 Activity Center; revising policy language describing the
Medical / Highway 99 Activity Center; redesignating certain properties from "Single Family Urban 1" to
"Multi Family - Medium Density"; and fixing a time when the same shall become effective.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1) implementing the Council's actions.
Previous Council Action
The City Council held a public hearing on the Odgers plan map amendment on July 5, 2011, and voted to
approve a proposed map change from "Single Family Urban 1" to "Multi Family - Medium Density" for
several properties along 244th Street SW (depicted on Exhbiit C of the ordinance in Exhibit 1).
The City Council also held public hearings on November 1 and December 6, 2011, proposed text and
map changes for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Council voted to accept the Planning Board's language change and also remove two single
family-designated areas from the Activity Center boundary.
Narrative
The history on these comprehensive plan amendment proposals is outlined above and in the proposed
ordinance (Exhibit 1). The ordinance implements the Council's direction in regard to both amendments.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance
Exhibit 2: City Council Minutes (Odgers)
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 03:56 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 04:37 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 04:42 PM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 12/15/2011 03:34 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 158 of 404
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE FOLLOWING
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
REMOVING CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM THE MEDICAL /
HIGHWAY 99 ACTIVITY CENTER, REVISING POLICY
LANGUAGE DESCRIBING THE MEDICAL / HIGHWAY 99
ACTIVITY CENTER; REDESIGNATING CERTAIN
PROPERTIES FROM “SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1” TO
“MULTI FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY”; AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a public participation process for calendar
year 2011; and
WHEREAS, in September of 2010, the City Council asked the Planning Board to
review the boundaries of the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center during 2011; and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on September 28, 2011, the Planning
Board opted to recommend adding policy language in the plan's discussion of the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center that would further clarify the intent of the
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the Medical/Highway 99
Activity Center on November 1, 2011, and referred the matter to Committee for further review;
and
WHEREAS, the CS/DS Committee subsequently recommended that the Council
hold a second public hearing on removing single family-zoned and designated areas from being
within the Activity Center boundary, and expressed support for removing these areas; and
Packet Page 159 of 404
- 2 -
WHEREAS, a second public hearing on the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center
was held on December 6, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, upon deliberation, directed the City Attorney to
prepare an ordinance that would amend the Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Planning Board’s
recommended policy language along with a map amendment that would remove two areas from
the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center; and
WHEREAS, a second Comprehensive Plan amendment was proposed by the
owners (hereinafter “Odgers”) of three parcels in south Edmonds desiring to develop their
properties with multiple dwelling units; and
WHEREAS, these properties (hereinafter “Odgers Properties”) are located at
8609/8611/8615 244th Street SW totaling 0.88 acres; and
WHEREAS, the current Single Family Residential (RS-8) zoning designation
allows one house per lot; and
WHEREAS, the Odgers Properties reside in a transitional neighborhood between
Highway 99 and Firdale Village and are bordered by a Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) zone to the
east and single family zoned properties to the north and west; and
WHEREAS, in order to apply for a rezone, they must first obtain a change in the
Comprehensive Plan designation from “Single Family Urban 1” to a designation that would
allow for a future proposal to change the zoning to an RM zone; and
WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on April 27, 2011, and deliberating on
the request, the Planning Board voted to deny the request to change the designation of three
parcels at 8609, 5611 and 8615 – 244TH Street Southwest from “Single Family Urban 1” to
“Edmonds Way Corridor” on the Comprehensive Plan Map. However, based on the findings of
Packet Page 160 of 404
- 3 -
fact, conclusions and attachments in the staff report, the Planning Board voted to forward a
recommendation of approval to the City Council to change the designation from “Single Family
Urban 1” to "Multi Family – Medium Density”; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered this matter on July 5, 2011 and directed
the City Attorney to include the Planning Board’s recommended action in conjunction with the
other Comprehensive Plan amendments to be brought back to the City Council for final action;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council is considering the amendments herein in
conjunction with its review of the Capital Facilities Plan, which will be adopted by separate
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council expressly finds that, consistent with the
requirements of RCW 36.70A.130, the adoption of these amendments (albeit in separate
ordinances) complies with the requirements of the Growth Management Act, that said
amendments have been considered by the City Council concurrently, that the City Council
ascertained cumulative effect of the various proposals, that the City Council finds the changes to
be internally consistent, and that their cumulative effect is consistent with the purpose and intent
of both the Growth Management Act and the City’s Comprehensive Plan, NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Packet Page 161 of 404
- 4 -
Section 1. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and, specifically, the boundaries of
the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center are hereby amended to be shown as set forth in Exhibit
A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and, specifically, the policy
language describing the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center are hereby amended to read as set
forth in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully
set forth herein (new text is shown in underline
Section 3. The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and, specifically, the map
designating land uses are hereby amended to redesignate from “Single Family Urban 1” to
"Multi Family – Medium Density” the Odgers Properties, which are outlined in blue on Exhibit
C, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
Note that the Odgers Properties are still shown as “Single Family Urban 1” on Exhibit C. The
Planning Manager is hereby authorized to reflect this redesignation to "Multi Family – Medium
Density” on all current land use maps of the City.
; deleted text is shown in strikethrough).
Section 4. Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 162 of 404
- 5 -
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 163 of 404
- 6 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, 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 THE FOLLOWING
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
REMOVING CERTAIN PROPERTIES FROM THE MEDICAL /
HIGHWAY 99 ACTIVITY CENTER, REVISING POLICY
LANGUAGE DESCRIBING THE MEDICAL / HIGHWAY 99
ACTIVITY CENTER; REDESIGNATING CERTAIN
PROPERTIES FROM “SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1” TO
“MULTI FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY”; 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 ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
4827-7313-5630, v. 1
Packet Page 164 of 404
220TH ST SW
212TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
B O W D O I N W A Y
N W T R A C T I O N R /W
210TH ST SW
231ST ST SW
222ND ST SW
233rd St SW
7 7 T H P L W
8 2 N D A V E W
HOLLY LANE
8 3
R D A V E W
P I O N E E R W A Y
8 8 T H P L W
8 0 T H P L W
7 4 T H P L W
8 5 T H A V E W
8 2 N D P L W
213TH PL SW
7
5
T
H
P
L
W
208TH PL SW
215TH ST SW
7 3 R D P L W
207TH ST SW
209TH PL SW
8 7 T H P L W
229TH ST SW
SHELL PL
8 5 T H A V E W
221ST PL SW
224th PL SW
W O O D L A K E D R
220TH PL SW
MAIN ST
M
A
I
N
S
T
8 3 R D A V E W
8 2
N D A
V E W
211TH PL
8 0 T H A V E W
8 2
8 1 S
7 6 T H A V E W
7 7 T H A V E
208TH ST SW
72
N
D
A
V
E
W
H W Y 9 9
68
T
H
A
V
E
W
212TH ST SW
H W Y 9 9
N W T R A C T I O N R/W
216TH ST SW
2 0 9 T H ST S W
210TH PL SW
219TH ST SW
6 8T
H
A
VE
W
7 0 T H A V E W
H W Y 9 9
220TH ST SW
226TH ST SW
2 2 7 T H P L
L A K E V I E W D R I V E
7 4 TH
A V E W
7 2 N D A V E W
229TH ST SW
230TH ST SW
229TH PL SW
7 5 T H A V E W
225TH ST
8 6 T H P L W
8 0 T H P L W
P L W
7 0 T H A V E W
215TH ST SW
TH PL
8 9 T H A V E W
WWY 9 9
H W Y 9 9
8 0 T H A V E W
226TH ST SW
225TH PL SW
7 6 T H A V E W
224TH ST SW
223RD ST SW
8 2 N D P L W
218TH ST SW
8 0 T H A V E W
7 6 T H A V E W
7 7 T H P L W
7 8 T H A V E W
8
0
T
H
P
L
S U M M I T L N
8 6 T H P L W
87T H P L W
8 8 T H A V E W
8 8 T H P L W
220TH ST SW
8 4 T H A V E W
8 8 T H A V E W
9
0
T
H
A
V
8 5 T H A V E
224TH ST SW
8 7 T H P L W
8 7 T H A V E W
224TH ST SW
8 6 T H A V E W
228TH ST SW
8 8 T H A V E W
31ST PL SW
8 5 T H P L W
81
S
T P L W
8 7 T H A V E W
7 7 T H A V E W
8 4 T H A V E W
219TH ST SW
7 8 T H P L W
8 0 T H P L W
211TH PL
7 2 N D P L W
7 8 T H P L
TH ST SW
221ST PL
8 2 N D P L W
218TH ST SW
7 8 T H A V E W
209TH ST SW
7 7 T H P L W
223RD ST SW
213TH ST SW
7 8 T H A V E W
8 4 T H P L W
8 5 T H P L W
7 8 T H A V E W
7 4 T H A V E W
7 8 T H A V E W
217TH S T S W
230TH ST SW
P I O N E E R W Y
7 8 T H P L W
8 1 S T A V E W
ND PL SW
229TH ST SW
8 2 N D A V E W
8 8 T H A V E W
207TH PL
8 6 T H A V E W
TH PL
8 7 T H A V E W
230TH ST SW
7 4 T H A V E W
2 2 7TH PL SW
208TH ST SW
8 6 T H P L
W
7 6 T H P L W
217TH ST SW
228TH ST SW
232ND ST SW
8 2 N D
P L W
214TH PL SW
222ND ST SW
229TH PL SW
225TH PL SW
8 3 R D A V E W
8 9 T H A V E W
7 9 T H A V E W
215TH ST SW
86
T H P L W
8 6 T H P L W
218TH ST SW
TH PL
8 1 S T P L W
8 1 S T P L W
228TH ST SW
86
T H P L W
215TH PL SW
8 2 N D A V E W
226TH ST SW
8 3 R D P L
8 6 T H A V E W
214TH PL SW
8 2 N D A V E W
8 3 R D P L
225TH PL SW
7 7 T H A V E W
216TH ST SW
8 4 T H A V E W
7 2 N D A V E W
8 1 S T A V E W
8 6 T H A V E W
221ST PL SW
216TH ST SW
224TH ST SW
7 3 R D P L W
8 3 R D A V E W
6 8 T H P L W
6 8 T H A V E W
2
6 7 T H P L W
6 8 T H A V E W
6 7 T H P L W
6 7 T H P L W
6 8 T H A V E W
6 7 T H P L W
229TH PL
230TH S
6 7 T H P L W
Medical / Highway 9
Activity Center
o r
Five
Corners
Edmonds Woodway
High School
Stevens
HospitalChase Lake
Elementary
Plan Overlays 2011
Activity Center
Corridor Development
Park
School
Edmonds City Limits
Amended Comprehensive Plan Map
Showing Adjusted Boundary for Activity Center
Exhibit A to Ord ___
Packet Page 165 of 404
Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center and Highway 99 Corridor
The Medical/Highway 99 activity center is intended to encourage the development of a pedestrian
and transit oriented area focused on two master planned developments, Stevens Hospital and
Edmonds-Woodway High School, with a related high-intensity development corridor along Highway
99. Highway 99 is characterized by a corridor of generally commercial development with less intense
uses or designed transitions serving as a buffer between adjacent neighborhoods. In contrast, the
overall character of the mixed use activity center is intended to be an intensively developed mixed
use, pedestrian-friendly environment, in which buildings are linked by walkways served by
centralized parking, and plantings and landscaping promote pedestrian activity and a park-like
atmosphere. In addition to the general goals for activity centers, the Medical/Highway 99 activity
center is intended to achieve the following goals:
A. Goals for the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center.
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;
Provide for an aesthetically pleasing business and residential community consisting
of a mixed use, pedestrian-friendly atmosphere of attractively designed and
landscaped surroundings and inter-connected development;
Recognize and plan for the distinct difference in opportunities and development
character provided by the Highway 99 corridor versus the local travel and access
patterns on local streets;
Promote the development of a mixed use area served by transit and accessible to
pedestrians;
To provide a buffer between the high-intensity, high-rise commercial areas along SR
99 and the established neighborhoods and public facilities west of 76th Avenue West;
To discourage the expansion of strip commercial development and encourage a
cohesive and functional activity center that allows for both neighborhood
conservation and targeted redevelopment that includes an appropriate mixes of single
family and multiple dwelling units, offices, retail, and business uses, along with
public facilities;
To provide a pleasant experience for pedestrians and motorists along major streets
and in a planned activity center, and provide a gateway along 212th Street SW into
the City of Edmonds;
To provide an integrated network of pedestrian and bicycle circulation that connects
within and through the activity center to existing residential areas, the high school,
the hospital, and transit services and facilities.
Exhibit B to Ord ____
Packet Page 166 of 404
Within the activity center, policies to achieve these goals include the following:
A.1. Provide street trees, buffers, and landscape treatments which encourage and
support an attractive mixed use pattern of development characterized by
pedestrian walkways and centralized parking. Use these same features, in concert
with site and building design, to provide a transition from higher-intensity mixed
use development to nearby single family residential areas.
A.2. Provide a more efficient transportation system featuring increased bus service,
pedestrian and bicycle routes as well as adequate streets and parking areas.
Transit service should be coordinated by transit providers and take advantage of
links to future high-capacity transit that develops along corridors such as
Highway 99.
A.3. Development should be designed for both pedestrian and transit access.
A.4. Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, and service
businesses, supported by nearby residents and visitors from other parts of the
region.
A.5. Support a mix of uses without encroaching into single family neighborhoods.
Uses adjoining single family neighborhoods should provide transitions between
more intensive uses areas through a combination of building design, landscaping
and visual buffering, and pedestrian-scale streetscape design.
A.6. Uses adjoining the Highway 99 Corridor should provide more intensive levels of
mixed use development, including higher building heights and greater density.
However, pedestrian linkages to other portions of the activity center – and
adjoining focus areas along the Highway 99 Corridor – should still be provided
in order to assist pedestrian circulation and provide access to transit.
A.7. In some cases, heavy commercial development (e.g. wholesale or light industrial
uses) may still be appropriate where these uses are separated from residential
uses.
Exhibit B to Ord ____
Packet Page 167 of 404
2372523721
8515
8517
24004
90
5
3
8705
8702
86
2
9
87
2
3
8719
87
1
3
87
0
4
86
2
6
8624
23922 23920
8421 23926
23912
23904
2411
0
23725
900990119015
90179019 90
0
3
9105
23824 23828
8801
8805
8809
8725
24118
24110
9016
90
0
8
901
0
9012
9105
90
0
4
90
0
29026
9024
9022
9008 23622
91
0
6
24220
2371323715
24
2
2
4
24229
24217
8616
8620
8622 8520
8710
8714
24
3
1
7
8717
8721
8725
23
8
0
2
238
3
0
24313
24
3
1
0
86
1
1
24104
24127
9125 9109
9112
23
7
1
0
87
3
0
8410
84
1
4
23904
88
0
5
24211
24217
24223
24231
24125
24117
24111
24103
8806
870687
0
4
8704
8814
9114
85
1
0
85
0
6
2
4
3
2
9
9009
9009
23930
23901
23809
8425
8431
8509
860586038601
8515
85
1
2
8604
87
1
8
87268728
8730
8732
86
0
9
8625
8621
87
1
1
243
2
5
24317243092430
5
243
0
6
24314
24320
24326
2430
5
2
4
3
0
6
243
1
5
2
4
3
1
6
2432
5
24
3
2
6
89
0
5
89
1
7
24315
243072430
5
2
4
3
0
6
24308
24316
24230
24222
24216
2421024207
24215
2422
1
2422724228
24214
24206
91
1
5
24303 24305
24315
9033
24306
24316
91
0
1
90
0
6
90
1
8
9016
90579102
90
3
2
90
2
8
9104
9110
911424209
89
2
8
89
3
0
89
3
2
8924
8920
89
1
6
88
3
0
88
2
0
90
0
5
9015
9109
91
1
1
91
1
5
9125
24115
24109
8923
24116
2411
0
24
1
0
6
241
0
5
24111
24117
24125
24104
24112
24118
24126
24028
87
3
1
8700
88
0
4
24105
24111
24119
86
2
3
2
4
1
0
1
86
1
7
24108
24118
8605
24027
24019
8700 8610 24
0
0
7
240
2
4
23
9
1
5
23828
23820
23814
23808
84
2
2
84
3
0
85068606
23822
23828
2
3
8
2
9
238
2
3
23815
23805
86
1
4
871
0
238
1
5
8628
8629
239
0
1
23
9
0
9
87298823
8819
881588
3
1
8829
8923
8
9
2
7
8
9
3
1
88288912
8826
89
3
0
23
8
0
8
238
1
6
23
8
2
3
238
1
5
900
4
91
1
6
9130
90
0
1
237
1
7
23703
90
0
5
9029
23
7
0
2
237
2
0
23
7
2
89117
237
1
9
8624
8606
8610
8614
8630
8704
8706
86
1
5
86
2
3
86
2
7
8418
23705
237
0
4
23
7
1
6
23
7
2
6
23
6
2
7
23621
8529 8521
8517
8425
8427
8429
84
2
1
84
1
5
23
7
2
8
23720
23706
2362
6236228506
8504 2361823621
236
2
9
23
7
0
3
2370
4
23630
23622
87
3
2
8729
23521
2351
9
8713
87
2
0
87
1
6
23
5
1
8
2351
6 23514
23522
23504
8423
84158423
23520
23512
8505
23425
88
0
6
23419
23506
85
1
5
85
2
1
85
3
1
8511
86
0
9
86
2
1
8611861986
1
3
86
1
5
86
1
7
87
0
7
87
2
5
87
0
1
86
2
5
86
1
9
86
0
9
86
0
1
85
2
7
85
1
3
85
0
7
84
3
1
84
2
3
84
1
5
23
4
0
4
8615
24020
23619
90109016
91
0
2
8909 23713
23700
23
6
0
1
23
6
3
1
8
7
2
4
87
1
8
8608
8805
2352
0
2351
6
8
8
1
9
8
8
2
1
8
8
1
7
8923
23523
23509
23429
2
3
4
3
1
23
5
0
1
2350
2
23424
234162341723419
23415
23410
23404
23409
23403
2340
5
88
1
0
87
1
4
8622
86
2
0
86
0
4
23605
2361523614
8532
84
3
2
84
2
6
84
2
0
84
1
4
84
0
8
9205
23516
9020
9016
90
0
6
91
2
0
901691
1
4
9025
23515
23507
23429
23423
23415
9011
9013
9015 8705
87
0
3
87
1
0
87
0
4
86
2
4
86
1
4
86
0
8
86
0
0
85
2
6
85
1
4
85
0
8
85
0
6
84
2
4
84
1
6
23
4
2
6
87
1
5
87
0
7
9017
9107
9111
9115
23411
23405
91
1
8
910
8
24104
92
2
9
9
2
2
2
92
2
1
24006
92
2
4
9226
92
2
8
24020
9221 92
1
5
92
0
7
24314
92
2
8
92
1
4
24
2
1
2
92
1
3
92
0
5
24
2
2
2
2421
6
92
2
0
24304
24
2
2
0
93
1
5
2
3
4
3
1
23529
23515
2350723510
93
0
1
93
0
9
23425
23421
23411
9330
23508
23430
23422
23414
234062340
5
23417
23425
23431
93
1
0
93
0
4
23414
23420
23426
EDMONDS WAY
238TH ST SW
2 42ND S T SW
M ADRO NA LA NE
87
T
H
A
V
E
W
9 3 R
D A V E W
235th ST SW
8 8 T
H P L W
8 4 T H A V E W
240T H ST SW
8 9 T H P L W
8 9 T
H P L W
9
0
T
H A V E W
8
7
T
H P L W
244T H ST SW /205TH ST NW
9 2 N D A V E W
242ND ST SW
9 2 N
D A V E W
236TH ST SW
236TH ST SW
9 0 T H P L W
8 6 T H A V E W
8 9 T H P L W
9 1 S T A V E W
8 6 T H A V E W
9 2 N D A V E W
9 1 S T A V E W
8 5 t h A v e W
]Odgers Comprehensive Plan Amendment8609/8611/8615 244th Street SWFile AMD20110001| 1:4800 Scale0600300Feet
ComprehensivePlan Map
Multi Family - Medium Density
Edmonds Way Corridor
Corridor Development
Multi Family - High Density
Single Family Urban 1
Corridor Development
Exhibit C to Ord ____
Packet Page 168 of 404
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 5, 2011
Page 5
This is a one-of-a-kind agreement as there are currently no other locations under the City’s jurisdiction
near the ferry holding lanes that will accommodate a vendor. The current monthly lease amount is $103
plus leasehold excise tax. Due to the slow economy, staff does not recommend an increase. The term of
the agreement is one year. Section 4.2 of the agreement states the City Council reserves the right to
terminate the provisions of the agreement at any time upon the provision of 48 hours written notice.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the City Clerk’s office has received any complaints
regarding this business. Ms. Chase answered she has not.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, suggested a small increase in the monthly lease amount would be appropriate,
recognizing the ferry has also increased their fares.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER WILSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM, TO
APPROVE THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this business does not always have a steady flow of customers,
thus the lease amount is appropriate.
Councilmember Petso thanked Ms. Chase and Ms. Hite for exchanging emails with her today regarding
the lease amount. The lease is not a large amount for an exclusive franchise in the ferry holding lane. Ms.
Hite is researching vendors for the park system and as a result there may be a more uniform approach to
vendor contracts in the future.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT BY SIDNEY ODGERS AND KEN & AUDREY
DARWIN FOR A PROPOSED CHANGE IN PLAN DESIGNATION FROM “SINGLE FAMILY
URBAN 1” TO “EDMONDS WAY CORRIDOR” FOR THREE PROPERTIES IN THE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-8) ZONE. LOCATION: 8609/8611/8615 – 244TH STREET SW,
EDMONDS. (FILE NO. AMD20110001)
City Attorney Jeff Taraday advised this is a legislative matter.
Associate Planner Gina Coccia explained the deadline for Comprehensive Plan amendments is December
31. This is the only citizen-initiated Comprehensive Plan amendment the City received for 2011. The
request is to change the Comprehensive Plan designation from Single Family Urban 1 to Edmonds Way
Corridor. She displayed the Comprehensive Plan map, Exhibit 1 Attachment F, and identified the site
which consists of 3 properties located on 244th Street SW adjacent to the Edmonds Way Corridor
designation. She displayed the zoning map, advising the current zoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan map. The property is currently zoned RS-8 single family and is adjacent to multi-
family residential RM 1.5. She provided photographs of the properties as viewed from the street and
views looking east and west along 244th Street SW, noting the topography is fairly flat. The Les Chateau
18-unit condominiums are immediately adjacent to the properties to the east and there are 15 units on the
next property further east.
Ms. Coccia reviewed a comparison of Plan Map Designations, Land Use Type, Compatible Zoning
Classifications and Density units/acre. The properties are currently designated Single Family Urban 1; the
applicant would like to change the designation to allow them to eventually apply for a rezone to multi-
Packet Page 169 of 404
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 5, 2011
Page 6
family. The designations they can choose from are Edmonds Way Corridor which is adjacent to the east
or her preference would be Multi-Family - High or Multi-Family - Medium Density. If the Council
approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment to Edmonds Way Corridor, the applicant could later submit
a rezone application to apply for a rezone to Planned Business, Neighborhood Business, Community
Business or a similar commercial zone or any of the multi-family zones.
The applicant’s application stated they would like to change the designation to Edmonds Way Corridor.
Staff and the Planning Board recommend changing the designation to Multi-Family - Medium Density
which would allow the applicant to submit a rezone to RM 2.4 or RM 3.0. The Council packet contains
the staff report and Planning Board minutes that outline the Planning Board’s discussion regarding
density and a future rezone.
Comprehensive Plan amendments are a Type V legislative action. Staff reviews the proposal and makes
findings, conclusions and a recommendation to the Planning Board. The Planning Board holds a public
hearing and makes a recommendation to the Council and the City Council makes the final decision. To
date no public comment has been received and there was no appeal of the SEPA determination. The
applicable code sections are ECDC Chapter 20.00, Changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
She reviewed staff’s findings with regard to the following questions:
1. Is the proposed amendment consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in the public interest?
Staff found the area provides a key link between Edmonds and I-5. The primary focus of the
goals are to permit small scale multi-family or commercial land use that do not significantly
contribute to traffic congestion. The owners’ goal is to apply for a rezone to one of the multi-
family RM zones; changing the Comprehensive Plan designation to either Edmonds Way
Corridor, Multi-Family - High Density or Multi-Family -Medium Density would suit their needs.
2. Is the proposed amendment detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare of the
City? Staff finds nothing detrimental as nothing is proposed other than a change in designation.
3. Does the proposed amendment maintain the appropriate balance of land uses within the City?
Staff finds that it does. The Edmonds Way Corridor makes up 0.6% of the City’s land, while
Single Family Urban makes up 40.5%. Further, 54.8% of the existing land use in the City is
single family while only 4.8% is multi-family and 4.6% is commercial. An eventual shift or
future rezone of less than one acre (.88 acres) from single family to either multi-family or
commercial will not drastically disrupt the balance of land uses within the City.
4. Is the subject parcel physically suitable for the requested land use designation and the
anticipated land use development? The subject parcels are physically suitable for the proposed
designation change. The area is flat and located on a major arterial. The intensity of development
increases as you travel east along 244th Street SW towards Highway 99 and Interstate 5. These
parcels are adjacent to the border of the more intense corridor designation.
Ms. Coccia concluded staff finds the application meets all the criteria to approve a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. Staff recommends the Council deny the original request, a change from Single Family Urban
1 to Edmonds Way Corridor and approve a change from Single Family Urban 1 to Multi-Family -
Medium Density. This would provide a transition between commercial, multi-family and single family.
Commercial would not be a permitted potential rezone for a multi-family designation.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed there are numerous trees on the properties and trees are very
important for stormwater as well as aesthetics. She asked how and when the trees will be addressed. Ms.
Coccia answered trees are addressed in future processes. The next process would be to apply for a rezone.
The applicant would submit an application to staff who makes a recommendation to the Planning Board
and the Council makes the final decision. Another Environment Checklist will be completed with the
Packet Page 170 of 404
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 5, 2011
Page 7
rezone. Any land use application is routed to Public Works and Engineering so any issues can be
addressed. If a rezone is approved in the future, any development application will be reviewed by the
Architectural Design Board.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how traffic generated by greater density would be addressed. Ms.
Coccia advised that will be considered during a future rezone process, Design Board application, and
building permit applications.
Councilmember Petso asked if there is a minimum lot coverage in a multi-family zone. Ms. Coccia
answered the maximum lot coverage in any multi-family zone is 45%; only 45% of the property can be
covered by a structure. The Engineering Department will review impervious surface calculations with
regard to lot coverage.
Councilmember Petso commented the nearest park is Hickman Park located at least 1½ miles away. The
Environmental Checklist does not address parks other than to identify a golf course a mile away. She
asked how increasing density in areas not served by parks was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
which states a neighborhood park should be within ½ mile. She asked if the GMA concept of not adding
people to an area until the services are available applied to parks. Ms. Coccia answered at the
Comprehensive Plan amendment stage the code criteria in Chapter 20 for approving a Comprehensive
Plan amendment is all that can be considered. Planning Manager Rob Chave explained there is a
difference between parks and transportation; there is specific guidance in the GMA for transportation
concurrency. The same is not provided for parks, schools, etc. Over time as a neighborhood changes
significantly, it may be necessary to alter plans. If the density were being changed in a large area, there
would be a closer look at the interaction between parks planning and land use. In this case it is a very
minor change. Councilmember Petso observed the criteria include consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan and whether it is in the public interest. Mr. Chave agreed.
Councilmember Bernheim asked for clarification between the Planning Board and staff’s
recommendation for the specific zoning and the applicant’s request for Edmonds Way Corridor. He also
asked how many units can be developed on the property under the multi-family zones. Ms. Coccia
advised the applicant expressed a desire to do something else with their properties, and referred to the
condominiums next door. They were informed they would need to first apply for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment to be consistent with multi-family zoning. When they completed the application, they chose
the adjacent designation, Edmonds Way Corridor. Their application states their intent is to develop the
property multi-family and not commercial. If the Council approved a change to Multi-Family - High
Density, a consistent zone would be RM 1.5 or RM 2.4. Based on 39,000 square feet of lot area, under
RM 1.5 zoning they could potentially develop 26 units although that would be unlikely due to parking,
setback, height, etc. RM 2.4 zoning would yield a maximum of 16 dwelling units and RM 3.0 would yield
a maximum of 13 dwelling units.
Councilmember Bernheim pointed out 45% lot coverage was for the structures and asked whether the
remaining 55% could be covered by a parking lot. Ms. Coccia advised the landscape requirements would
not allow the entire property to be covered by a parking lot. Councilmember Bernheim asked whether
most of the property could be covered with parking as long as the edges were landscaped and water runoff
controlled. Ms. Coccia was uncertain how such a site plan would meet the City’s codes regarding
landscaping, design, etc. She summarized it was doubtful the remainder of the property could be paved
due to the landscape requirements and there are stormwater requirements that Engineering will impose.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how long the applicants have owned the property. Ms. Coccia did not
know and invited Councilmember Plunkett to ask the applicants.
Mayor Cooper opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Packet Page 171 of 404
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 5, 2011
Page 8
Sidney Odgers, Edmonds, advised he owns 8615 244th Street SW and the Darwins owns 8609 and 8611
244th Street SW. He noted the two houses in front are rundown and the owner was unable to sell them last
year. The Darwins approached him to determine his interest in redeveloping the properties. He noted most
of the trees are on the perimeter of the property line and several separate his property from the Darwin’s
property. He acknowledged some of the trees may need to be removed but this is not the development
stage. All the buildings around the properties are at least two stories. He has lived on the property for 33
years. When he moved there the existing structures fit the area but they do not any longer. He was not
interested in one large building and envisioned possibly four buildings with four units each to provide a
transition. With regard to traffic, there is one eastbound and one westbound travel lane with a center turn
lane. They can easily exit their property by entering the turn lane. Although there is not a park in close
proximity, the YMCA is approximately one mile away.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, explained he lives approximately one mile from the site. During this difficult
economy, he agreed with staff’s recommendation, pointing out development would increase the value of
the property.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out there is a small park, Mathay Ballinger Park, located 0.7 miles away.
With regard to coverage, he noted the coverage on the existing properties is almost entirely impermeable
surface and that there are limited to no drainage issues. Ms. Coccia advised she visited the site when the
application was submitted and agreed there was a great deal of pavement. Coverage as defined in the code
is different than what people think of as coverage. Her comment was structural coverage which is limited
to 45%.
Councilmember Wilson pointed out there is currently a great deal of coverage on these lots and he did not
anticipate replacing the asphalt would create a tremendous stormwater issue. He recalled doorbelling
those three houses and without being disrespectful, stated the two houses that front on the street are ripe
for redevelopment and he welcomed any interest in redeveloping those properties.
Mayor Cooper reopened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Councilmember Plunkett asked Mr. Darwin how long he has lived at the property. Ken Darwin,
Edmonds, responded seven years.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Cooper closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER BERNHEIM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO ADOPT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES FROM
"SINGLE FAMILY URBAN 1" TO "MULTI FAMILY - MEDIUM DENSITY" AND DIRECT
THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT THE CHANGE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to the 1.5% salary increase for 4 years that the Council approved last
week. He suggested the Council consider whether businesses and residents in the City have received
similar increases. Next he relayed that former Councilmember Bill Kasper, who passed away recently,
started the Flower Program.
9. UPDATE ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained because the current moratorium will expire later this month, staff
felt it appropriate to provide the Council an update.
Packet Page 172 of 404
AM-4449 Item #: 4. I.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Councilman Steve Bernheim Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Ordinance adopting a new Chapter 6.90, Food Packaging, in the Edmonds City Code to prohibit
certain uses by the City of Edmonds and on City property of Polystyrene and nonrecyclable for
disposable food packaging and to require instead the use of recyclable or compostable food packaging;
requiring food service businesses to recycle food waste; providing for enforcement; and establishing an
effective date.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
This item came before the CS/DS Committee on November 7, 2011 and the Committee recommended,
due to the enormity of the subject, that it come to the full Council for discussion.
During the November 22, 2011 Council Meeting, a motion was passed (minutes attached) as follows:
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE
ADOPTING THE CITY POLYSTYRENE POLICY.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO.
Narrative
This ordinance has now been placed on the Council Consent Agenda for approval.
Attachments
11-22-11 Approved Council Minutes
Ordinance - Polystyrene
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 01:35 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 01:39 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 01:51 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/15/2011 10:46 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 173 of 404
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 22, 2011
Page 15
continue the way it is currently operating, with Ms. Hardie and Ms. Hite, until the new Mayor makes a
recommendation to the Council. Mayor Cooper clarified this budget takes effect January 1, 2011, not the
day the new Mayor takes office. There are staff members in interim positions now until the Council and
new Mayor make a decision on replacing the director. Approving the amendment will remove the funding
for the director and require the new Mayor to present an organizational plan for staffing the Human
Resources Department.
Councilmember Bernheim expressed his support for the amendment and urged Councilmembers to
support it. He acknowledged the Human Resources Department required two staff members but he felt it
was overkill to pay $110,000/year for a director in a 2-person department. He acknowledged this
reduction would not make or break the City’s budget. When the new Mayor takes office, he can present a
plan for the Council’s evaluation.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas clarified the amendment is saying two staff members are needed in
Human Resources but allows the new Mayor to propose a plan to the Council. Councilmember Plunkett
agreed.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED (5-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON
VOTING NO.
Mayor Cooper restated the main motion as amended:
TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3861 AS AMENDED, REMOVING THE $165,000
MISCELLANEOUS CONTINGENCY FROM THE GENERAL FUND NON-DEPARTMENTAL
AND REMOVE FUNDING FOR THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR.
Councilmember Plunkett complimented Mayor Cooper for one of the best, most efficient budgets under
the most difficult, trying circumstances. Councilmember Plunkett could not remember a budget season
that had so many distractions including the election, personnel issues, etc. He recalled what a struggle the
budget process had been the past few years compared to this year’s efficient, effective and helpful
process. He complimented Mayor Cooper for the professional, thoughtful way he went about the budget
in spite of everything going on around him, keeping the City’s best interests at heart.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
11. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY POLYSTYRENE POLICY
Councilmember Bernheim explained the Council previously discussed a polystyrene ban. The proposed
policy does the following:
1. Bans the use of polystyrene food packaging products by the City and on City property by City
tenants.
2. Requires food service merchants to make recycling available on the premises where food is sold.
Councilmember Bernheim clarified the proposed policy does not ban food sales in polystyrene containers
by private business. He highlighted the City’s duty to protect the environment. He noted State law
establishes waste reduction as a priority of local government and requires local government to be
aggressive with recycling. He further noted local government is responsible for handling the waste
stream. He suggested the Council ban the use of polystyrene by the City and its tenants, and postpone the
recycling requirement to a future date. He felt a polystyrene ban was a no brainer, recognizing in 20 years
citizens will not be allowed to throw away single use polystyrene containers. He anticipated that would
require a ban on the use of polystyrene as the public was unlikely to discontinue the use voluntarily.
Packet Page 174 of 404
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 22, 2011
Page 16
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE
ADOPTING THE CITY POLYSTYRENE POLICY.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented this is a great start and she preferred to go further by
banning polystyrene in general as Seattle as done. She suggested Edmonds learn from the City of
Seattle’s implementation of a polystyrene ban, noting she had not heard many complaints about Seattle’s
policy. She summarized this was an important environmental issue.
Councilmember Petso observed Councilmember Bernheim recommended the Council only proceed with
a ban on the use of polystyrene food packaging products by the City and by City tenants. Councilmember
Fraley-Monillas clarified her motion was both the ban on the use of polystyrene food packaging products
by the City and City tenants as well as requiring food merchants to make recycling available.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO VOTING NO.
12. UPDATE ON ADJUSTED STRATEGIC PLAN TIME LINE
Mr. Clifton explained on October 18, 2011, he provided an update to the Council regarding the Strategic
Planning and Visioning process in addition to presenting a proposal to adjust the Strategic Planning
schedule; the Council expressed support for this proposal.
Staff has been working with Beckwith Consulting Group (BCG) to discuss the remaining tasks and the
timeline identified within the adopted scope of work as well as adjusting the overall Strategic Planning
and Visioning Schedule. Adjusting the schedule will result in holding retreats later than identified within
the originally adopted scope of work. The proposed calendar with adjusted dates indicates the next
proposed City Council/Planning Board/Economic Development Commission Retreat will take place on
January 24, 2012.
In the interim, BCG is working with staff on finalizing a press release in addition to business, customer,
visitor, employee, adult and youth surveys. A stakeholder list and survey are also being prepared and staff
will work with BCG to schedule stakeholder interviews to take place in mid-January 2012. Internal and
external scans of existing conditions related to Edmonds, the region and the state are also underway and
will be presented during the January 2012 retreat.
Mr. Clifton referred to an outline that indicates when surveys will be initiated, stakeholder interviews
scheduled and what topics are to be discussed during the next two retreats. City administration is asking
for City Council concurrence with the proposed adjusted schedule.
Mr. Clifton explained the originally adopted schedule did not include as much time to conduct the
stakeholder interviews, surveys, etc. The revised schedule will also allow the stakeholder interviews and
surveys to occur in January/February; that information will be presented at the February 28 retreat. He
anticipated the revised schedule would result in more upfront citizen input and a more ground-up
approach. BCG will present the internal and external scan information at the January retreat as well as
discuss how strategic planning integrates into a budgeting for outcomes/budgeting for priorities process.
13. COUNCIL REPORTS ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Councilmember Petso reported the Lake Ballinger Forum has a project in design but construction funding
has not yet been identified. She noted this project will not be a complete solution to flooding on Lake
Ballinger.
Packet Page 175 of 404
ORDINANCE NO. __________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 6.90 FOOD
PACKAGING
IN THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT
CERTAIN USES BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND ON CITY
PROPERTY OF POLYSTYRENE AND NONRECYCLABLE
FOR DISPOSABLE FOOD PACKAGING AND TO REQUIRE
INSTEAD THE USE OF RECYCLABLE OR COMPOSTABLE
FOOD PACKAGING; REQUIRING FOOD SERVICE
BUSINESSES TO RECYCLE FOOD WASTE; PROVIDING
FOR ENFORCEMENT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds (the “City”) has a duty to protect the natural
environment, the economy and the health of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature in RCW 70.95.010(8)(a) established waste
reduction as the first priority for the collection, handling, and management of solid waste; and
WHEREAS, in addition to waste reduction, the Washington State Legislature in RCW
70.95.010(8) also identified the following as priorities: recycling, avoiding excessive and
nonrecyclable packaging of products, education so that people are informed of the need to
reduce, source separate, and recycle solid waste, and government entities setting an example by
implementing aggressive waste reduction and recycling programs at their workplaces and by
purchasing products that are made from recycled materials and are recyclable; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature in RCW 70.95.010(4) found that it is
"necessary to change manufacturing and purchasing practices and waste generation behaviors to
reduce the amount of waste that becomes a governmental responsibility"; and
Attachment 1
Packet Page 176 of 404
WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature in RCW 70.95.010(6)(c) found that it is
the responsibility of city governments "to assume primary responsibility for solid waste
management and to develop and implement aggressive and effective waste reduction and source
separation strategies"; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council has continuously indentified sustainability as an
important goal for the City; and
WHEREAS, the use of polystyrene-based and nonrecyclable or noncompostable food
packaging and service ware serve a limited purpose that is disproportionately detrimental to the
welfare of the environment; and
WHEREAS, although polystyrene-based and nonrecyclable or noncompostable food
packaging and service ware are often used and disposed of in minutes or days, they take
thousands of years to decompose, and lead to devastating effects such as pollution and harm to
marine life, wildlife, and public health; and
WHEREAS, there is no meaningful method of recycling polystyrene-based food
packaging and service ware, however, there are alternative recyclable and compostable products
that can serve the same purpose as polystyrene-based food packaging; and
WHEREAS, polystyrene-based and nonrecyclable or noncompostable food packaging
and service ware represent an unnecessary use of a nonrenewable resource, especially when
recyclable and compostable products represent a sustainable alternative; and
WHEREAS, recyclable and compostable food packaging and service ware are
considerably less damaging to the environment than polystyrene-based and nonrecyclable or
noncompostable food packaging and service ware; and
Packet Page 177 of 404
WHEREAS, replacing the use of polystyrene-based and nonrecyclable or
noncompostable food packaging and service ware with those that are recyclable and compostable
is recognized as a sustainable option to protect the environment and to conserve resources; and
WHEREAS, recyclable and compostable food packaging and service ware are readily
available for use by local businesses; and
WHEREAS, the City recognizes the present economic difficulties faced by local
businesses in making a transition to recyclable or compostable food packaging and service ware,
and finds that an extended timeline for implementation of this Chapter is in the best interest of
assisting with local efforts at financial recovery; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the Edmonds City Council to reduce the negative impacts
noted above through the implementation of this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council finds that reduction in use of polystyrene-based
and nonrecyclable or noncompostable food packaging and service ware is in the best interest of
public health, safety, and welfare, for the citizens of Edmonds and the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Act below is in accordance with the following goals of the Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan: Community Sustainability Element Climate Change Goal E, Community
Health Goal E, and Environmental Quality Goal A; and the Utilities Element Goal; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A new Chapter 6.90 entitled Food Packaging
is hereby added to the
ECC to read as follows:
Packet Page 178 of 404
Chapter 6.90
6.90.010 Definitions.
6.90.020 Prohibition on use of polystyrene, nonrecyclable,
and noncompostable disposable food service
packaging and disposable food service ware.
6.90.030 Requirement to enroll in a commercial food waste
recycling service or keep containers for recyclable
or compostable food packaging on premises for
consumer use.
6.90.040 Enforcement and penalties.
6.90.050 Effective dates of this chapter.
6.90.060 Severability.
6.90.070 No conflict with federal or state law.
6.90.010 Definitions.
A. “Mayor” means the Mayor of the City of Edmonds or
designee.
B. “City facility” means any building, structure, or vehicle
owned or operated by the City of Edmonds.
C. “Compostable” means made solely of organic substances
where all the materials in the product or package will break down
into, or otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil-
conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and timely manner.
D. “Disposable food service packaging” means all containers,
clamshells, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, lids, straws, utensils,
napkins, and other items that are designed for use with food or
beverages either on or off City-owned property or the food service
business premises, including but not limited to packages for
takeout foods and/or leftovers from food prepared by food service
businesses. The term “disposable food service packaging” does not
include items composed entirely of aluminum or polystyrene foam
coolers and ice chests that are intended for reuse.
E. “Disposable food service ware” means nonrecyclable or
noncompostable: containers, plates, “clamshells,” trays, cups, and
utensils that are made of plastic or plastic-coated paper and other
nonrecyclable or noncompostable materials, and intended only for
limited use (including so-called “biodegradable” products where
any portion is not compostable).
Packet Page 179 of 404
F. “Food” means food or beverages, which are served,
packaged, cooked or uncooked, chopped, sliced, mixed, brewed,
frozen, squeezed, or otherwise prepared within the City of
Edmonds for any persons, such as customers or consumers.
G. “Food service business” means any restaurant, retail food
seller, coffee shop, grocery store, vending truck or cart, business or
institutional cafeteria, sales outlet, or other business, entity, or
person selling or providing food to a consumer, whether the food is
consumed on or off the premises, that is located or operating
within the City of Edmonds, whether on a permanent or temporary
basis. “Food service business” also includes any person who is the
owner, manager, president or director of such business.
H. “Person” means any individual, trust, firm, joint stock
company, corporation, partnership, business, or association,
including a government entity.
I. “Polystyrene” means blown polystyrene and expanded
and/or extruded foams (sometimes referred to as “Styrofoam,” a
Dow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam
insulation) which are thermoplastic petrochemical materials
utilizing a styrene monomer and processed by any number of
techniques, including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer spheres
(expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding,
and extrusion-blow molding (extruded foam polystyrene).
J. “Recyclable” means made solely of materials that are
capable of being separated from a waste stream by a food service
business and made available for collection and delivery to a
processor for reuse or remanufacture into the same or other
products.
6.90.020 Prohibition on use of polystyrene, nonrecyclable,
and noncompostable disposable food service
packaging and disposable food service ware by
Edmonds City government and on City
property.
A. Upon the effective date for mandatory compliance with this
chapter set forth in ECC 6.90.050, City departments shall not
purchase or acquire polystyrene, nonrecyclable, or noncompostable
disposable food service packaging or disposable food service ware
for use in City facilities.
Packet Page 180 of 404
B. Upon the effective date for mandatory compliance with this
chapter set forth in ECC 6.90.060, any renter or lessee of a City-
owned facility or City-owned property shall not use polystyrene,
nonrecyclable, or noncompostable disposable food service
packaging or disposable food service ware on the premises of the
rented or leased facility or property.
6.90.030 Requirement to enroll in a commercial food
waste recycling service or keep containers for
recyclable or compostable food packaging on
premises for consumer use.
A. All food service businesses are required to utilize either a
commercial food waste recycling service (such as the City’s solid
waste management program) for food waste and for compostable
products and recyclable materials (or, at a minimum, to provide at
least one container for recycling or composting on site for
consumers to dispose of food waste, and compostable and
recyclable food packaging.
B. All food service businesses are prohibited from emptying
or disposing of items in recycling or compost containers into trash
bins, containers, or dumpsters not intended for recycling or
compost.
C. Existing food service businesses that do not have adequate
storage space for compliance with either indoor or outdoor
containers for recycling and/or composting may be exempt from
the requirements of subsection A of this section if so determined
by the Mayor or designee upon written request for an exemption.
The Mayor or designee, in cases where space constraints are
determined to exist, may require the evaluation of the feasibility of
shared recycling or composting containers by contiguous
businesses and/or structures.
6.90.040 Enforcement and penalties.
A. Any person who violates the provisions of this chapter shall
be cited and liable for a civil infraction; provided, however, that a
written warning shall instead be issued to any person determined to
be violating this chapter when such violation is the first instance of
noncompliance known to the Mayor or designee. If, after issuing a
written warning, the Mayor or designee becomes aware of
subsequent noncompliance, he shall apply for or impose the
sanctions described in this section.
Packet Page 181 of 404
B. Any person who receives a citation for a violation of this
chapter shall respond within 15 days from the date that notice of
the infraction is signed and served upon the violator by the City
Code Enforcement Officer. The issuance of an infraction by the
City for a violation represents a determination that an infraction
has been committed. A committed finding will be final if the
violator does not respond as stated in this subsection.
C. Any person who receives a citation for a violation of this
chapter may respond either by paying the fine amount to the City
as established by this section, or requesting a hearing with the
Edmonds Municipal Court.
D. If the infraction is found committed, either due to no
response by the person cited, or a judicial determination that a
violation has occurred by a preponderance of the evidence, then a
person shall be punished with a fine of $150.00 for a first violation,
and $300.00 for each subsequent violation committed within a
calendar year. The existence of a prior written warning by the
Mayor or designee shall not be considered a first violation for
purposes of this section.
6.90.050 Effective dates of this chapter.
A. All provisions of this chapter, except for ECC 6.90.020
through ECC 6.90.040, shall be effective upon adoption of this
chapter.
B. The provisions of ECC 6.90.020 through ECC 6.90.040
will be effective March 1, 2013, except as hereinafter provided for
in subsections C through E of this section.
C. A food service business may request a waiver from any part
or all of the requirements in this chapter by filing a written request
with the Mayor or designee. The food service business seeking the
waiver must show that the application of this chapter would create
an undue hardship or practical difficulty based on the factors set
forth in subsection E of this section. The Mayor or designee may
waive any specific requirement of this chapter for a period of time
extending no later than March 1, 2013. The Mayor or designee’s
decision to grant or deny a waiver, in whole or in part, shall be
mailed to the applicant in writing, with a statement of the permitted
waiver length, and shall be a final non-appealable decision.
D. Prior to March 1, 2013, only the following items are
exempt from the requirements of ECC 6.90.020 through ECC
Packet Page 182 of 404
6.90.030: containers and lids specifically designed and used for hot
liquid-based food and beverages, utensils (knives, forks and
spoons), and the sale of raw meat or raw seafood in any container
by any food service business. Prior to March 1, 2013, public
educational institutions are also exempt from the requirements of
ECC 6.90.020 through ECC 6.90.040.
E. The following factors should be considered by the Mayor
or designee in granting or denying a waiver, in whole or in part,
from the requirements of this chapter, as described in subsection C
of this section: (1) the food service business seeking a waiver lacks
the financial or other means to be in compliance with this chapter
within a reasonable period of time; (2) the food service business
seeking the waiver demonstrates, through due diligence, that
particular products conforming to the requirements of this chapter
are unavailable, pose recognized safety hazards, or will result in
substantial financial harm; (3) the food service business seeking
the waiver has maintained a business in Edmonds for less than one
year. The factors listed herein are significant, but not intended to
be the only considerations for the grant or denial of a waiver. The
Mayor or designee should make a decision concerning a request
for waiver based on the preference of assisting a food service
business to achieve compliance with this chapter while balancing
the economic vitality of the business and striving to reduce any
financially detrimental impacts on the applicant.
F. On March 1, 2013, all waivers and exemptions from the
requirements of this chapter will terminate and become invalid;
and all provisions of this chapter will be subject to implementation
and enforcement.
6.90.060 Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
chapter is for any reason held to be invalid, or unconstitutional by
a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
chapter.
6.90.070 No conflict with federal or state law.
Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted or applied so as to
create any requirement, power, or duty in conflict with any federal
or state law.
Packet Page 183 of 404
Section 2. This ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the title shall be
published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full force five (5)
days after publication.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVID EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFFREY B. TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 184 of 404
{BFP791064.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } - 10 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 6.90 FOOD
PACKAGING IN THE EDMONDS CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT
CERTAIN USES BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS OR ON CITY
PROPERTY OF POLYSTYRENE AND NONRECYCLABLE
FOR DISPOSABLE FOOD PACKAGING AND TO REQUIRE
INSTEAD THE USE OF RECYCLABLE OR COMPOSTABLE
FOOD PACKAGING; REQUIRING FOOD SERVICE
BUSINESSES TO RECYCLE FOOD WASTE; PROVIDING
FOR ENFORCEMENT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________,2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 185 of 404
AM-4451 Item #: 4. J.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Ordinance – BD1 Zone designating 45 foot street fronts.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
The City Council held a public hearing on this subject on July 26, 2011, and voted to approve the
Planning Board recommended changes to designated street fronts on August 23, 2011.
Narrative
On August 23, 2011, the Council voted to adopt the Planning Board's recommended changes to
designated street front in the BD zones, changing the commercial requirement to a uniform 45-foot depth.
The attached ordinance (Exhibit 1) implements this Council action. Note that this ordinance does not
implement the other changes recommended by the Planning Board that the Council did not act on.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 03:26 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 04:39 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 04:42 PM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 12/15/2011 02:33 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 186 of 404
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY’S DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS TO ADOPT A UNIFORM 45-FOOT
DIMENSION FOR ALL DESIGNATED STREET FRONTS IN
BD ZONES, AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.43.030.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on June 8, 2011, on proposed
amendments to ECDC 16.43; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this issue on July 26, 2011, and
referred the matter to the Community Services/Development Services Committee for further
review and discussion; and
WHEREAS, after discussion, the Committee forwarded three of four issues to the full
Council for further deliberation and potential action; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deliberated further on August 23, 2011, and decided to
move forward with only a portion of the Planning Board’s recommendation: the 45-foot store
fronts proposal; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the regulations for designated street fronts to
adopt a uniform 45-foot requirement measured perpendicular to the street front of the building
lot fronting on each of the mapped streets within all BD zones; and
WHEREAS, this effort necessitates an amendment to Edmonds Community
Development Code section 16.43.030;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Site Development Standards. Section 16.43.030 of the Edmonds Community
Development Code, entitled “Site development standards,” is hereby amended to read as follows
(new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through):
Packet Page 187 of 404
16.43.030
Site development standards.
A. Table 16.43-2.
Sub
District
Minimum Lot
Area
Minimum
Lot Width
Minimum
Street
Setback
Minimum
Side
Setback1
Minimum
Rear
Setback1
Maximum
Height2
Minimum
Height of
Ground Floor
within the
Designated
Street Front4
BD15 0 0 0 0 0 25' 15'
BD25 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD35 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD43,5 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
BD55 0 0 0 0 0 25' 12'
1 The setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade (exempting buildings and structures entirely below the
surface of the ground) shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially (R) zoned property.
2 Specific provisions regarding building heights are contained in ECDC 16.43.030(C).
3 Within the BD4 zone, site development standards listed in Table 16.43-2 apply when a building contains a ground floor
consisting of commercial space to a depth of at least 60 45
4 “Minimum height of ground floor within the designated street-front” means the vertical distance from top to top of the
successive finished floor surfaces for that portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front (see ECDC
16.43.030(B)); and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the
ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed floor surface, including
coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and
concrete, as illustrated in Figure 16.43-1. Figure 16.43-1 shows a ground floor height of 15 feet; note that the “finished” ceiling
height is only approximately 11 feet in this example.
feet measured from the street front of the building. If a proposed
building does not meet this ground floor commercial space requirement (e.g., an entirely residential building is proposed), then
the building setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. See ECDC 16.43.030(B)(8) for further details.
5 Site development standards for single-family dwellings are the same as those specified for the RS-6 zone.
Packet Page 188 of 404
16.43.030
Map 16.43-1: Designated Street Front for Properties in the BD1 Zones
Packet Page 189 of 404
Edmonds Community Development Code 16.43.030
Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height Measurement
B. Ground Floor. This section describes requirements for development of the ground floor of
buildings in the BD zones.
Packet Page 190 of 404
1. For all BD zones, the ground floor is considered to be that floor of a building which is
closest in elevation to the finished grade along the width of the side of the structure that is
principally oriented to the designated street front of the building (this is normally the adjacent
sidewalk). For the purposes of this section, the ground “floor” is considered to be the sum of the
floor planes which, in combination, run the full extent of the building and are closest in elevation
to one another. For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of “ground floor” contained in
ECDC 21.35.017 does not apply.
2. Designated Street Front. Map 16.43-1 shows the streets that define the designated street
front for all properties lying within the BD1 zones, which is The designated street front is
defined as the 30 45 feet measured perpendicular to the indicated street front of the building lot
fronting on each of the mapped streets. For all other BD zones, the designated street front is
established as the first 60 feet of the lot measured perpendicular to any street right of way,
excluding alleys.
3. Minimum Height of the Ground Floor within the Designated Street Front. The minimum
height of the ground floor specified in Table 16.43-2 only applies to the height of the ground
floor located within the designated street front established in subsection (B)(2) of this section.
4. Access to Commercial Uses within the Designated Street Front. When a commercial use
is located on the ground floor within a designated street front as defined in subsection (B)(2) of
this section, the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of
the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. “Grade” shall be as measured at the entry location.
Portions of the ground floor outside the designated street front of the building need not comply
with the access requirements specified in this section.
5. When the designated street front of a building is on a slope which does not allow both
the elevation of the entry and ground floor within the designated street front to be entirely within
seven inches of the grade level of the sidewalk, as specified in subsection (B)(4) of this section,
the portion of the ground floor of the building located within the designated street front may be
designed so that either:
a. The entry is located within seven inches of the grade of the adjacent sidewalk, and the
commercial portion of the ground floor located within the designated street front is within seven
inches of the grade level of the entry; or
b. The building may be broken up into multiple frontages, so that each entry/ground
floor combination is within seven inches of the grade of the sidewalk.
c. For corner lots, a primary entry shall be established for the purposes of determining
where the ground floor entry rules detailed in this section shall apply. The first choice for the
primary entry shall be either 5th Avenue or Main Street. In the case of the BD5 zone, the primary
entry shall always be on 4th Avenue.
Packet Page 191 of 404
6. Within the BD1 zone, development on the ground floor shall consist of only commercial
uses, except that parking may be located on the ground floor so long as it is not located within
the designated street front.
7. Within the BD2 and BD3 zones, development on the ground floor shall consist of only
commercial uses within the designated street front. Any permitted use may be located on the
ground floor outside of the designated street front.
8. Within the BD4 zone, there are two options for developing the ground floor of a
building. One option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space, meeting the same
requirements detailed for the BD2 and BD3 zones in subsection (B)(7) of this section. As a
second option, if more residential space is provided so that the ground floor does not meet the
commercial use requirements described in subsection (B)(7) of this section, then the building
setbacks listed for the RM-1.5 zone shall apply. In the case where RM-1.5 setbacks are required,
the required street setback shall be landscaped and no fence or wall in the setback shall be over
four feet in height above sidewalk grade unless it is at least 50 percent open, such as in a lattice
pattern.
9. Within the BD5 zone, one option is to develop the ground floor with commercial space,
meeting the same requirements detailed for the BD2 zone in subsection (B)(7) of this section.
When development of the ground floor does not conform to these requirements, then
development within the BD5 zone shall meet the following requirements:
a. The building shall be oriented to 4th Avenue. “Orientation to 4th Avenue” shall mean
that:
i. At least one building entry shall face 4th Avenue.
ii. If the building is located adjacent to the public right-of-way, architectural details
and/or applied art shall be incorporated into the building design to add interest at the pedestrian
(i.e., ground floor) level.
iii. If th e building is set back from the street, landscaping and/or artwork shall be
located between the building and the street front.
b. Live/work uses are encouraged within the BD5 zone, and potential live/work space is
required for new residential buildings if no other commercial use is provided on-site.
i. If multiple residential uses are located on the ground floor, the building shall
incorporate live/work space into the ground floor design in such a way as to enable building
occupants to use portion(s) of their space for a commercial or art/fabrication use. “Live/work
space” means a structure or portion of a structure that combines a commercial or manufacturing
activity that is allowed in the zone with a residential living space for the owner of the
commercial or manufacturing business, or the owner’s employee, and that person’s household.
The live/work space shall be designed so that a commercial or fabrication or home occupation
use can be established within the space.
Packet Page 192 of 404
Figure 16.43-2: BD5 Development
Building at right (foreground) shows landscaping located between building and street.
Building at left (background) shows commercial space integrated with residential uses, and the entry oriented to the
street.
10. Exceptions and Clarifications. The regulations for the ground floor contained in
subsections (B)(1) through (9) of this section apply with the following exceptions or clarifi-
cations:
a. That in all areas the provision of pedestrian access to permitted residential uses is
allowed as a permitted secondary use.
b. The restrictions on the location of residential uses shall not apply when a single-
family use is the only permitted primary use located on the property.
c. Existing buildings may be added onto or remodeled without adjusting the existing
height of the ground floor to meet the specified minimum height, so long as the addition or
remodel does not increase the building footprint or its frontage along a street by more than 25
percent. Permitted uses may occupy an existing space regardless of whether that space meets the
ground floor requirements for height.
d. Parking is not considered to be a commercial use for the purposes of satisfying the
ground floor commercial use requirement within the designated street front (e.g., when the first
30 45 feet of a building are within a designated street front in the BD1 zone, parking may not be
located within that 30 45
e. For properties within the BD2 or BD3 zone which have less than 90 feet of depth
measured from the street front, parking may be located in the rearmost 30
feet).
45 feet of the property,
even if a portion of the parking extends into the first 60 45 feet of the building. In no case shall
Packet Page 193 of 404
the depth of commercial space as measured from the street front of the building be less than 30
feet.
f. Within the BD2, BD3 and BD4 zones, if the first 60 45
feet of the building as
measured perpendicular to the street consist only of commercial uses and permitted secondary
uses, then permitted multiple-family residential unit(s) may be located behind the commercial
uses.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Section 3. 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.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 194 of 404
4
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, 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 CITY’S
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO ADOPT A
UNIFORM 45-FOOT DIMENSION FOR ALL
DESIGNATED STREET FRONTS IN BD ZONES,
AMENDING EDMONDS COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 16.43.030.
.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
4840-7251-8158, v. 1
Packet Page 195 of 404
AM-4452 Item #: 4. K.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Ordinance – Amend ECDC 20.40.030 and ECDC 17.40.020 adding limited exceptions from
building height limits for (1) certain solar energy installations and (2) replacement of existing rooftop
equipment with energy efficient upgrades.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhbiit 1) implementing the Council's acton.
Previous Council Action
The City Council held a public hearing on the Planning Board's recommendation and voted to direct the
City Attorney to bring back an ordinance for Council adoption.
Narrative
On December 6, 2011, the Council held a public hearing on the Planning Board's recommendations
regarding rooftop solar energy installations and energy efficient upgrades to HVAC equipment, and voted
to direct the City Attorney to bring back an ordinance for Council adoption. The proposed ordinance
(Exhibit 1) implements the Council's action.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Proposed Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 03:56 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 04:38 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 04:42 PM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 12/15/2011 03:23 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 196 of 404
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, RELATING TO PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS
TO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR ROOF-MOUNTED SOLAR
INSTALLATIONS AND ENERGY UPGRADES TO HVAC
ROOF-TOP EQUIPMENT, AND PROVIDING APPROVAL
FOR INSTALLATIONS ON NON-CONFORMING
STRUCTURES AS TYPE 2 STAFF DECISIONS, AMENDING
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE
SECTIONS 20.40.030 AND 17.40.020.
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2011, the City Council forwarded draft amendment
language to the Planning Board for consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Council draft provided an exception for roof-mounted solar installations
from building height limits, with the exception limited to an additional 36 inches in height; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with existing city policies in the Community
Sustainability Element, and could be beneficial in situations where buildings are at or near the
height limit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board concurred with the intent of the proposal, and also
recommended a similar provision to allow for energy efficient upgrades to HVAC equipment
installations that can't fit within the existing building envelope; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board felt that to enable some notice to nearby residents, such
approvals should be Type 2 staff decisions with public notice, appealable to the Hearing
Examiner; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deliberated regarding the Planning Board’s proposed
amendments on December 6, 2011 and directed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to
adopt these amendments; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Packet Page 197 of 404
2
Section 1. Solar and HVAC Energy Upgrade Amendment. Section 21.40.030 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled “Height,” is hereby amended to read as
follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown as strike-through:
21.40.030 Height.
A. Height means the average vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of
the site covered by a structure to the highest point of the structure. (See subsection (D) of this
section for exceptions to this rule.)
B. “Average level” shall be determined by averaging elevations of the downward projections of
the four corners of the smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the building, excluding a
maximum of 30 inches of eaves. If a corner falls off the site, its elevation shall be the average
elevation of the two points projected downward where the two sides of the rectangle cross the
property line. (See subsection (D)(1) of this section for exceptions to this rule.)
C. Accessory buildings that are attached to the main building by a breezeway, hallway, or other
similar connection so that the accessory building is separated by 10 feet or less from the main
building shall be considered to be part of the main building for purposes of determining the
average level. For the purposes of this section, in order for an accessory building to be
considered to be attached to and a part of the main building, the connecting structure must have a
roof and be constructed of similar materials to both the main building and the accessory building
so that it appears to be a unified and consistently designed building.
D. Height Exceptions.
1. (Reserved);
2. Church steeples;
3. Elevator penthouses, not to exceed 72 square feet in horizontal section, or three feet in height,
for that portion above the height limit;
Packet Page 198 of 404
3
4. Chimneys, not to exceed nine square feet in horizontal section or more than three feet in
height, for that portion above the height limit. In RM districts, chimneys shall be clustered. No
multiple-flue chimney shall exceed 39 square feet in horizontal section. The first chimney shall
not exceed nine square feet in horizontal section, and other chimneys shall not exceed six square
feet in horizontal section;
5. Vent pipes not to exceed 18 inches in height above the height limit; and
6. Standpipes not to exceed 30 inches in height above the height limit.
7. Solar energy installations not to exceed 36 inches in height above the height limit. Such an
installation may be approved as a Type II staff decision if it is designed and located in such a
way as to provide reasonable solar access while limiting visual impacts on surrounding
properties.
8. Replacement of existing rooftop HVAC equipment which exceeds the existing height limit, so
long as the replacement equipment does not exceed the height of the existing equipment by more
than 12 inches. The replacement equipment must have earned the Energy Star label.
Section 2. Solar Energy Installations Amendment. Section 17.40.020 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled “Nonconforming building and/or structure,”
is hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown as
strike-through):
17.40.020 Nonconforming building and/or structure.
A. Definition. A nonconforming building is one which once met bulk zoning standards and the
site development standards applicable to its construction, but which no longer conforms to such
standards due to the enactment or amendment of the zoning ordinance of the city of Edmonds or
the application of such ordinance in the case of a structure annexed to the city. Subject to the
other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory dwelling unit shall
Packet Page 199 of 404
4
be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial evidence conclusively
demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1, 1981. In the case of a
property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that of the effective date
of the annexation of the city of Edmonds. Such presumption may be overcome only by clear and
convincing evidence.
B. Continuation. A nonconforming building or structure may be maintained and continued,
unless required to be abated elsewhere in this chapter or section, but it may not be changed or
altered in any manner which increases the degree of nonconformity of the building except as
expressly provided in subsections (C) through (I) of this section.
C. Historic Buildings and Structures. Nothing in this section shall prevent the full restoration by
reconstruction of a building or structure which is either listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, the Washington State Register of Historic Places, the Washington State Cultural
Resource Inventory, or the Edmonds Register of Historic Places, or is listed in a council-
approved historical survey meeting the standards of the State Department of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation. “Restoration” means reconstruction of the historic building or structure
with as nearly the same visual design appearance and materials as is consistent with full
compliance with the State Building Code and consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.45
ECDC, Edmonds Register of Historic Places. The reconstruction of all such historic buildings
and structures shall comply with the life safety provisions of the State Building Code.
D. Maintenance and Alterations.
1. Ordinary maintenance and repair of a nonconforming building or structure shall be permitted.
2. Solar energy installations on buildings that exceed existing height limits. A rooftop solar
energy installation mounted on a non-conforming building that exceeds the existing height limit
may be approved as a Type II staff decision if:
a. The installation exceeds the existing roof height by not more than 36 inches.
Packet Page 200 of 404
5
b. The installation is designed and located in such a way as to provide reasonable solar access
while limiting visual impacts on surrounding properties.
23. Alterations which otherwise conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site
development and bulk standards, and which do not expand any nonconforming aspect of the
building, shall be permitted.
34. In an effort to provide modular relief, minor architectural improvements in commercial and
multifamily zones may encroach into the nonconforming setback adjacent to an access easement
or public right-of-way not more than 30 inches. Minor architectural improvements may also be
permitted in nonconforming side or rear yard setbacks only if they intrude not more than 30
inches nor one-half of the distance to the property line, whichever is less. “Minor architectural
improvements” are defined as and limited to bay windows, eaves, chimneys and architectural
detail such as cornices, medallions and decorative trim. Such improvements shall be required to
obtain architectural design review. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to exempt such
improvements in compliance with the State Building and Fire Codes.
45. Alterations required by law or the order of a public agency in order to meet health and safety
regulations shall be permitted.
E. Relocation. Should a nonconforming building or structure be moved horizontally for any
reason for any distance, it shall thereafter come into conformance with the setback and lot
coverage requirements for the zone in which it is located. Provided, however, that a building or
structure may be moved on the same site without full compliance if the movement reduces the
degree of nonconformity of the building or structure. Movement alone of a nonconforming
building or structure to lessen an aspect of its nonconformity shall not require the owner thereof
to bring the building or structure into compliance with other bulk or site development standards
of the city applicable to the building or structure.
Packet Page 201 of 404
6
F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount
equal to 75 percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall
not be reconstructed except in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community
Development Code. Determination of replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be
made by the building official and shall be appealable as a Type II staff decision under the
provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs may be
repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape and lot location as existed before the
damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application for a
building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.015, et seq., within one year of the date
such damage occurred. This right of restoration shall not apply if:
1. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or
the owner’s agent; or
2. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the
owner or the owner’s agents.
G. Residential Buildings in Commercial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings in commercial
zones in use solely for residential purposes, or structures attendant to such residential use, may
be remodeled or reconstructed without regard to the limitations of subsections (B), (E) and (F) of
this section, if, but only if, the following conditions are met:
1. The remodel or reconstruction takes place within the footprint of the original building or
structure. “Footprint” shall mean an area equal to the smallest rectangular area in a plane parallel
to the ground in which the existing building could be placed, exclusive of uncovered decks,
steps, porches, and similar features; and provided, that the new footprint of the building or
structure shall not be expanded by more than 10 percent and is found by the city staff to be
substantially similar to the original style and construction after complying with current codes.
2. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with entirely on the
site. No nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or reconstructed if, by so doing,
Packet Page 202 of 404
7
the full use under state law or city ordinance of a conforming neighboring lot or building would
be limited by such remodel or reconstruction.
3. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall not apply to
nonconforming accessory buildings or structures.
4. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt within the defined building
envelope if it is rebuilt with materials and design which are substantially similar to the original
style and structure after complying with current codes. Substantial compliance shall be
determined by the city as a Type II staff decision, except that any appeal of the staff decision
shall be to the ADB rather than to the hearing examiner. The decision of the ADB shall be final
and appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.07.006.
H. Subject to the other provisions of this section, an accessory building that is not an accessory
dwelling unit shall be presumptively nonconforming if photographic or other substantial
evidence conclusively demonstrates that the accessory building existed on or before January 1,
1981. In the case of a property that was annexed after January 1, 1981, then the date shall be that
of the effective date of the annexation to the city of Edmonds. Such presumption may be
overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.
I. BD5 Zone. The BD5 zone was created in part to encourage the adoption and reuse of existing
residential structures for live/work and commercial use as set forth in ECDC 16.43.030(B)(5). In
the BD5 zone, conforming and nonconforming buildings may be converted to commercial or
other uses permitted by ECDC 16.43.020 without being required to come into compliance with
the ground floor elevation requirements of ECDC 16.43.030(B).
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, sentence or phrase of this
ordinance should be held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance.
Packet Page 203 of 404
8
Section 4. 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.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVID EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 204 of 404
9
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, 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, RELATING TO PROVIDING
EXCEPTIONS TO HEIGHT LIMITATIONS FOR ROOF-
MOUNTED SOLAR INSTALLATIONS AND ENERGY
UPGRADES TO HVAC ROOF-TOP EQUIPMENT, AND
PROVIDING APPROVAL FOR INSTALLATIONS ON
NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES AS TYPE 2
STAFF DECISIONS, AMENDING EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS
20.40.030 AND 17.40.020.
.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
4839-0733-5433, v. 1
Packet Page 205 of 404
AM-4439 Item #: 4. L.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Jim Stevens
Department:Public Works
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Approve for Consent Agenda
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
2012 CDBG Application Resolution.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the proposed resolution authorizing the mayor to make formal application for the 2012 CDBG
request.
Previous Council Action
In 2010, the Council approved Resolution #1235 in support of the CDBG application and authorizing the
mayor to make formal application for the funding. Likewise, in 2007, and in preceding years, the Council
has consistently given its approval for the applications in support of other project work proposed to be
funded through the Community Development Block Grant (formerly HUD) Program.
At the CS/DS Committee meeting on December 13, 2011, this item was moved forward for the entire
Council to consider at the December 20, 2011 meeting as part of the consent agenda.
Narrative
The CDBG process is administered locally through Snohomish County and has already provided funding
for vital and necessary work such as the elevator replacement, fire alarm system replacement, kitchen
refurbishment, roof repairs, and other significant improvements at the Edmonds Senior Center. These
grants are competitive in nature and are scored to rank project request priority by a Technical Advisory
Committee composed of representatives from various local municipal organizations.
One particular requirement that applies to Edmonds during every cycle is that the City Council must pass
a resolution in support of the request that also authorizes the mayor to make formal application for project
funding assistance. The projects being requested this year are for siding replacement on the Puget Sound
face of the Center, for renewing the upstairs restrooms, and for floor repair work to the interior in the
lobby and library. The total value of the request being made for CDBG funding is $161,248.
In order to maintain eligibility for this application, Snohomish County must receive a fully signed copy of
this resolution no later than January 15, 2012. A copy of the application itself is attached to this agenda
item as well as the proposed resolution.
Attachments
CDBG Application Resolution
CDBG Application
Packet Page 206 of 404
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Phil Williams 12/14/2011 05:54 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 08:40 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:52 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:57 AM
Form Started By: Jim Stevens Started On: 12/14/2011 02:32 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 207 of 404
RESOLUTION NO. _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR
2011 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (HUD) FUNDING.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds has historically applied for
Community Development Block Grant (HUD) Funds; and,
WHEREAS, The Snohomish county CDBG Consortium announces the availability of
2012 funds for non-housing capital projects through the CDBG program; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds owns the Edmonds Senior Center
located at 220 Railroad Avenue and leases the facility at a nominal cost to the Edmonds Senior Center, a
non-profit program for senior citizen activities and services; and,
WHEREAS, The City Council of Edmonds has recognized the Senior Center Siding
Replacement, Restroom Repairs, and Floor Repairs Projects for application of CDBG funding; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds considers it in the public interest to
support and submit the application for CDBG project work for the Edmonds Senior Center.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
The Mayor is hereby authorized to make formal application to the Snohomish
County Community Development Block Grant Consortium for funding assistance.
Section 2.
The CBG funding assistance so received shall be used for siding replacement,
restroom repairs, and floor repairs at the Edmonds Senior Center, 220 Railroad Avenue, Edmonds,
Washington.
Section 3.
This resolution shall form part of a formal application to the Snohomish
County Community Development Block Grant Consortium.
RESOLVED this 20th
day of December, 2011.
APPROVED:
MAYOR, DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
Packet Page 208 of 404
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
2012 PUBLIC FACILITIES & INFRASTRUCTURE
APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION
Date Received:
Applications which are incomplete or late will not be considered for funding.
This Application is available on the Snohomish County website in Microsoft Word at:
http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/Human_Services/Divisions/OHHCD/
1. Title of Proposed Project:
Edmonds Senior Center Refurbishment Project
2. Project Location (street address or nearest intersection and applicable zip code)
*zip code required:
220 Railroad Ave, Edmonds, WA 98020
3. Proposed Use of CDBG Funds (Summarize in one or two sentences what the
CDBG funds would be used for:
Replace the failing wood siding on the west wall; renovate the 1st & 2nd floor
restrooms; and level and repair the lobby and library floors.
4. Project Cost
a) CDBG Funds Requested: $ 161,248 b) Total Project Cost $ 232,026
5. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, THE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN CAREFULLY EXAMINED. THE APPLICANT
UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES TO COMPLY WITH THE POLICIES, RULES AND
REGULATIONS REFERENCED IN THE APPLICATION IF FUNDING IS AWARDED.
Applicant /Agency Name and Mailing Address: Authorized Signature of Applicant:
Public Works
City of Edmonds Signature
700 Main St Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Edmonds, WA 98020 Name and Title
phil.williams@ci.edmonds.wa.us
E-mail Address
Applicants must summit a copy of
their Board Or City Council minutes
authorizing submittal of this
application or make other
arrangements by calling 425-388-3264
Contact person: (list person responsible
for answering questions about the
application)
Farrell Fleming
Copy of Authorization is Attached.
Yes No
Name
425-774-5555, ext. 103
If applying for more than one project,
what priority is this project? __n/a__
91-600-1244
Telephone Number with Area Code
execdirector@scscedmonds.org
Organizations Federal Taxpayer ID No. E-mail Address
Packet Page 209 of 404
2
APPLICATION FOR FUNDING: COMPLETE SECTIONS 1 through 4
1. ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
A. Describe, in one or two sentences, what you plan to acquire, construct or
rehabilitate with the CDBG funds.
Our project has three subprojects, which can be done separately.
(1) Replace the wood siding and supporting structure as necessary on the west (water)
side of the senior center. (2) Renovate the first and second floor restrooms in the two story
CMU building. (3) Level and replace the flooring in the main entrance lobby and adjoining
library/classroom.
B. Please complete the following:
Organization’s Executive Director: Name/Title: Dave Earling, Mayor
E-Mail: dave.earling@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Phone and Fax: 425-771-0247 425-771-0252
Manager: Name/Title:PhilWilliams, DirectorPublic Works
E-Mail: phil.willias@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Phone and Fax: 425-771-0220 425-744-6057
Financial Contact: Name/Title: Megan Cruz, Engineering Div.
E-Mail: Mcruz@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Phone and Fax: 425-771-0220 425-771-0221
Designated Project Manager Name/Title: Jim Stevens, Facilities Mgr.
E-Mail: Jstevens@ci.edmonds.wa.us
Phone and Fax: 425-771-3334 425-771-5316
C. How many years has the Organization been in business?
The City of Edmonds was incorporated in 1890. The Edmonds Senior Center has been
incorporated as a non-profit agency since 1968 and in its current building since 1973.
D. Indicate the Organization’s corporate status (nonprofit, Municipal Corporation, local
government).
Non-profit agency
Municipality Corporations
Other local government: indicate type ____________________.
Packet Page 210 of 404
3
E. Describe ability and experience in government contract administration. Include
knowledge of federal regulations governing acquisition, procurement, Equal
Employment Opportunity and labor standards.
The City of Edmonds has extensive experience in all of the above areas and has
managed many federal grants including several successful projects at this senior center since
1979.
F. State whether the Organization has written policies and procedures for personnel
and financial management. Include a copy of the Table of Contents to the policies
or a list of policies and procedures.
Yes
G. Non-profit Organizations please complete i through v, public agencies skip to
part H: N/A
i. Date of incorporation____________.
ii. What is the composition of the Board and how are members chosen?
Attach a list of Board Members or other governing body; list must include name,
occupation or affiliation of each member and must identify the principal officers
of the governing body.
iii. What is the Board’s knowledge and level of involvement with the proposed
project?
iv. What are the major sources of support for the Organization?
v. Describe the Organization’s program/development goals for the next two
to three years.
H. Identify all of the Organization’s CDBG funded projects awarded in the past five
years and the status of each:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Project Name Project Number Amount of
Award
Completed in
time originally
specified in
contract?
Yes No
Completed
within original
budget?
Yes No
South County
Senior Center
(AKA: Edmonds Senior
Center)
CDBG-F 2005
#01
$200,000 Yes (fire alarm)
No(front entrance)
Yes (fire alarm)
Yes
Packet Page 211 of 404
4
I. If any answers to (4) or (5) above are no, please explain.
CDBG 2005 Project: The front entrance part of this project was delayed due to changes in
management staff, securing additional state funding, and permit delays. The project was
completed in March 2010.
J. Has the Organization received any audit findings in the past three years? If yes,
what were they and how were they resolved?
Yes – resolution described in question 11
K. Attach a copy of your last audit, or, if you have already submitted a copy to
OHCD, indicate the date of the audit and the date you submitted it.
July 30, 2009 Audit attached.
L. What licenses does the Organization need in order to operate, if any, and are
they current?
N/A
M. State whether the Organization has general liability insurance coverage as well
as professional liability for licensed professionals.
Yes
2. PROJECT SOUNDNESS
A. Specify the approximate size of the project in square feet or lineal feet. Describe all
contemplated actions which logically are either geographically or functionally part of
the project regardless of the source of funding.
The primary objective of the project is to rehabilitate several significant areas of our
building that are exhibiting substantial structural deficiencies.
The area for the proposed project work totals approximately 4,878 SF and encompasses
2,600 SF of siding located along the west side of the building, 528 SF in the bathrooms and
1750 SF in the main lobby & library.
The deteriorated siding on the western wall of approximately 2,600 will be replaced with
cement siding and any problems with framing and insulation that are discovered as part of
this process will be addressed. The project includes new doors and windows to replace the
existing units in this wall.
In the bathrooms on both floors the objective is to remove the floor covering, determine
the extent of the diminished structural integrity, make repairs as needed and replace the
flooring, urinals, sinks, counters and stalls. The existing toilets will remain. Each of the two
upstairs bathrooms is 120 sq. ft. and each of the two main floor bathrooms is 144 sq. ft.
Packet Page 212 of 404
5
In the main lobby and adjacent library (1750 Ss. Ft.) the intent is to remove the floor
covering, assess the structural integrity of the subfloor, address any problems that are likely
to be discovered, apply a filler to level the floor and replace the carpeting.
i. Describe what role the Snohomish County CDBG funds will play in developing
the project. (Do not describe the importance of the project; describe the need
for the CDBG dollars to make the project work financially.)
CDBG funding is essential to this project as it is the largest single source of funding,
upon which the non-profit senior center can secure the necessary additional funding.
ii. Describe other funding sources that have been considered and/or applied for,
and explain why these funds are not being sought or have been denied for the
project.
As the County staff has determined that approximately 40% of the west wall is not
eligible for CDBG as it houses the senior center thrift store (totally staffed by
volunteers) No other funding sources have been applied for at this time. In our planning
five years ago we had hoped to cover the costs of the siding replacement and CMU
waterproofing out of the 2007-09 CTED grant received by the non-profit South County
Senior Center (aka Edmonds Senior Center). However, the costs of refurbishing the
roof and covered breezeway (from the main front entrance to the street sidewalk)
exhausted the CTED funds.
iii. Describe what will happen if the County is unable to provide financing at this
time. Include the impact on any funds committed and on site control.
Without CDBG financial assistance the west exterior wall aspect of the project will
be put on hold again until alternative financing can be arranged. It is unlikely that
additional funds will be available in the near future given the diminished revenues
available for City capital project. In the meantime, the condition of the building
continues to deteriorate which ultimately results in more costly repairs.
In the case of the front entrance, the non-profit senior center will try to locate funds
to re-carpet the area. They would probably not find the funding necessary to re-level the
area. With the bathrooms, the senior center will seek funding to replace the existing
flooring, which is in desperate need and is unsightly.
iv. Can the proposed project be phased? If the answer is yes, please provide a
detailed summary of each phase, in priority order, including the cost of each. If
no, please explain why the project cannot be phased.
All three of the sub-projects can be done separately. Any two (or one) could be done
together. They do not depend on each other in any way.
v. Total CDBG dollars requested $ ___161,248____
Total Dollar value of other resources $ ____70,778____
Total Project cost $ ___232,026____
Packet Page 213 of 404
6
B. Will you hire a consultant to help with this project? Please note that consultants paid
for with CDBG funds must be selected through a competitive process and in
accordance with 24 CFR Part 84 (nonprofit organization) and 24 CFR Part 85 (local
government).
A design consultant will be hired for the project but the project management will be
under the director of the City of Edmonds Engineering and Parks Maintenance Divisions.
We request a waiver from compliance with 24 CFR Part 85. This waiver recognizes that the
City of Edmonds can no longer be relied upon to fulfill this need. Their capacity to assist
with this project is limited due to government reductions in staff and the time of those that
remain is fully committed.
C. Are there any community objections to the project?
No
D. Describe how your project is consistent with each of the following plans:
i. Consistency with the Consolidated Plan for Snohomish County (see
Attachment B):
The project provides for direct benefit to the senior citizen programming and service
needs for south Snohomish County. The provision of programs and services for seniors
is defined in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and the Parks, Recreation &
Open space Plan. The Senior Center is supported in the City of Edmonds Waterfront
Plan providing for public recreational services.
The project is consistent with the Consolidated Plan for Snohomish County through
Objective PFO-2: support construction, repair and rehabilitation of up to 7 senior
centers.
ii. Consistent with the County Planning Policies (See attachment C):
This project is consistent with County Planning Policy OD-1: Promote development
within urban growth areas in order to use land efficiently to capital facility planning..”
Rehabilitating the existing senior center is an efficient use of the land, particularly given
that the property functions as a City park with beach access. Although this is not a “new
human services facility” mentioned in UG-12, rehabilitation of the existing senior center
does maintain its location close to a variety of public transportation means including
buses, trains, and ferries.
iii. Consistency with local plans in the vicinity of the project:
There is no change to the existing use and function of the proposed project. The
building is question is already a senior center and has functioned in this capacity since the
senior center rehabilitation in 1980, which created the present building configuration. The
Packet Page 214 of 404
7
senior center came on site in 1968 occupying one of the two buildings that were joined in
1980 to create the present senior center.
E. If the project is within a structure (not a street or sidewalk), please answer the
following i through iv, if not, skip to question #7:
i. Describe how the Organization complies with the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements regarding accessibility.
Edmonds Senior Center is compliant with the ADA requirements for access into the
building, 1st floor restrooms and to the 2nd floor using the elevator. The project includes
refurbishing the 2nd floor restrooms to provide ADA access.
ii. Will the facility serve as a house of worship or be will it be used by a religions
organization?
No
iii. Does the project involve the remodeling or demolition of a structure?
The project is to refurbish the exterior walls of the senior center building, the
restrooms and the floor in the main lobby and library.
iv. Was the structure constructed prior to 1978? If yes, will the structure be
occupied by children age six (6) and under?
Yes, the original buildings were constructed prior to 1978 and were reconfigured
1980 into the present form.
No, the structure will not be used by children age six (6) and under.
F. Federally funded projects are subject to the “Uniform Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (URA). Acquisition of
land, structures and easements (both temporary and permanent) trigger compliance
with the URA. Please see page #12 under “Federal Regulatory Requirements” for
further explanation. N/A
Will the project include “acquisition” of a structure, land or easements? If yes,
complete the following i through iv. If no, skip to question G. No
i. Please describe your plan for acquisition.
ii. Are people or businesses currently occupying the site? If yes, will they be
required to move either temporarily or permanently?
iii. For each real property parcel previously acquired for the project, or identified
and intended to be acquired
, provide all of the following:
Packet Page 215 of 404
8
a. Street address and physical description:
b. List the following dates per parcel:
Date Property
Occupied?
By Tenant or
Owner?
Date acquired (title vested):
Closing date stated in
Purchase and Sale Agreement:
Date Purchase and Sale:
Agreement was fully executed:
Date of first formal offer to
Purchase:
Date of first written notice of
interest to owner/seller:
iv. If tenants will be displaced either permanently or temporarily, SUBMIT
WITH THE APPLICATION, a detailed Relocation Plan incorporating:
a. The projected number of persons to be relocated permanently.
b. The projected number of persons to be relocated temporarily.
c. Provide a budget and description of all relocation costs.
G. In the table below, please identify each source and amount of funding to be used
for the project. Indicate whether funds are pending or committed by placing the
amount in the appropriate column. Provide documentation of the commitment.
Development Budget Sources Pending Committed Total
2012 Snohomish County CDBG $ 161,248 $ $ 161,248
$ $ $
Local funds (specify): $ $ $
$ $ $
State funds (specify): $ $ $
$ $ $
Federal funds (specify): $ $ $
$ $ $
Private financing (specify): $ 70,778 $ $ 70,778
$ $ $
Other (specify): $ $ $
Packet Page 216 of 404
9
$ $ $
TOTAL $ 232,026 $ $ 232,026
H. Explain how you arrived at the total cost of the project and why you consider your
costs to be reasonable.
The architectural firm of Calvin Jordon prepared a design study of the west exterior wall
and Lobby flooring sub projects with an opinion of probable construction costs
(attachment). This study was reviewed by City Engineering staff and in their opinion the
estimated costs were reasonable. The bathroom quote was from Wilcox Construction, a
local respected Edmonds firm who has worked with the City and the senior center in the
past.
I. Describe how your agency is prepared to deal with unanticipated project costs
(e.g. cost overruns, change orders, etc.).
The City of Edmonds closely monitors all capital projects with experienced construction
managers on site daily and meeting weekly with contractors to monitor costs and
construction methods.
NOTE: Reconcile this statement with the one made under 2B above.
J. Describe how operation of the project will be supported and maintained over time.
If appropriate, include an operating budget for the project.
Once the project is complete the City Parks Maintenance Division, often supported by
Public Works, will resume maintenance of the interior of the senior center as well as the
exterior walls, as they have since 1973.
K. Complete the Budget Page “Attachment E”
Complete, see Attachment E
L. If your Organization is a Non-profit, please read the following and initial: N/A
Organization understands that if the project is approved for CDBG Capital funding, the
applicant will be required to execute security documents (promissory note, deed of trust or
approved long-term lease) assuring that the use of the facility will be secured for a
specified term (see page #9 under “Overview of CDBG Program Requirements”) based on
the amount of funds awarded, that if a change of use occurs, awarded funds will be repaid
to the CDBG Consortium. Initials __________.
Packet Page 217 of 404
10
3. COMMUNITY NEED, BENEFIT & PUBLIC SAFETY
A. Describe the process your Organization uses to assess community need.
In this case the necessity for the refurbishment of the outside siding, restrooms and main
lobby & library floors has been evident for many years.
The need for replacing the siding on the west (water) side is because it is regularly
subject to leaking. The original siding is now over 30 years old and no additional painting
or waterproofing has been applied to exterior walls in that time span. It is quire porous and
there is moisture penetration whenever there is strong wind and rain.
The need for the refurbishment of the restrooms is apparent by walking into them.
Please examine photos - Attachment F.
The need to assess the structural integrity and needed repairs of the floors in the main
lobby and library are demonstrated by the unevenness of the floor, the bunching of the
carpet, and the sinking of the floor away from the drywall (now about a 3” gap).
The need for the Senior Center is demonstrated by the continuing strong use of its
facility and programs by over 3,500 seniors annually. The community also uses the facility
for meetings, celebrations, non-profit fundraisers, etc.
B. All activities funded with CDBG must meet one of the three broad National
Objectives:
• Benefit to low- and moderate-income persons
• Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight, or
• Meet Community development needs having a particular urgency
Public facilities and infrastructure projects primarily fall under the National Objective
of benefit to low- and moderate -income persons. Please indicate below how your
proposed project qualifies by checking one of the following i through iv (see page
#7 under “Overview of CDBG Program Requirements”).
i. __X_ Limited Clientele Presumed Benefit Activity
(Project is limited exclusively to low- and moderate-income persons)
ii. ____ Limited Clientele Direct Benefit Activity
(At least 51% of clientele served by project are low- and moderate-
income persons)
iii. ____ Limited Clientele Nature and Location
iv. ____ Area Benefit Activity – Census Tract/Block Group or Income Survey
C. Match your answer from 3(B) above, to the corresponding paragraph below, and
provide the information as indicated.
Packet Page 218 of 404
11
If you checked i above: 1) indicate which category of persons presumed by HUD
to be predominately low- and moderate-income, will the proposed project
exclusively serve, and 2) how your organization will document the presumed
benefit.
1. The senior center benefits elderly persons. Seniors who participate at the center are
drawn from a broad geographic area in South Snohomish County and anecdotal
evidence suggests that they are predominantly low and moderate income persons.
2. Programs, activities and services are all designed for the senior community and
annual reports and membership lists bear this out.
If you checked ii above: 1) indicate the total number of clients served in the past
year; 2) indicate what percentage of those clients were low- and moderate-income;
3) indicate what income eligibility criteria was used to determine the percentages of
low- and moderate-income persons; and 4) describe the process your organization
will use to document income eligibility; and 5) attach a copy of the client intake
form, highlighting the questions regarding family size and income.
If you checked iii above: describe how the proposed project is of such a nature
and location that it may reasonably be concluded that the activity’s clientele will be
primarily low- and moderate-income persons. Please contact our office for
technical assistance before applying under this category.
If you checked iv above: 1) define the boundaries of your claimed service area; 2)
provide the basis for determining the boundaries; 3) attach a map of the service
area and list the census tracts/block groups in your service area; and 4) provide the
percentage of residents in the service area that are low- and moderate-income
based on Census data or OHCD-approved survey. Projects which cannot
document that at least 51% of residents in a service area are low- and moderate-
income (or 46.4% if the exception criteria applies) at the time of application, will not
be considered eligible. Please contact our office for technical assistance regarding
area benefit activities.
D. Describe how the proposed project will improve, enhance and/or contribute to
public safety.
West exterior wall: There is presently (due to the deteriorated condition of the wall)
occasional water seepage into the Thrift Store, Thrift Store sorting room, lounge, lobby
and View Room, which creates potential for slipping and falls These are particularly
dangerous for older persons.
Bathrooms: Deteriorated floors raise potential for falls.
Front Lobby: Deteriorated carpet and un-level floor definitely creates potential for falls.
Of the three sub-projects, this is the one most directly affecting public safety.
Packet Page 219 of 404
12
E. Please describe any special circumstances that would help us better understand
your project and/or the need you’re trying to meet.
West exterior wall: The special circumstance that makes this project so necessary is that
without a weatherproof outer shell, the structure of the building is at risk. Without such a
shell the Senior Center cannot serve its clientele of 3,500 seniors who annually use the
facility. The west wall is open to all of the weather off of Puget Sound, particularly the
driving winter storms. Leaks are showing around the windows. The project would replace
some of the windows and all of the flashing. It would also install new exterior lighting,
which would improve the lighting in the parking lot, which has been an issue for some
years. Its appearance also suffers as can be seen from the enclosed photos. There have been
three CDBG grants (2003, 2004, 2005) to refurbish the senior center, along with a CTED
grant (2007). Most of the projects accomplished with those grants were located within the
interior of the building. The outcome of this grant will protect all of those assets.
Bathrooms: The appearance of the bathrooms is a source of frequent complaint from our
clients, both seniors and younger people. For the men’s rooms we need more modern urinals
which will catch everything
Lobby-Library/Classroom Floors: the Library is our most used classroom as it is an ideal
size. It is busy every morning and afternoon of every weekday, and is frequently used in the
evenings and weekends. The Lobby is the first impression that one gets as they enter the
Center. It does not make a good impression.
F. Attach copies of all data collection tools which will be used to verify achievement of
program goals and objectives. Indicate who will be responsible for monitoring the
progress and reporting data in the Annual Report, required if your project is chosen
for CDBG funding.
These reports are currently being supplied to the County for previous projects and are
compiled and assembled in partnership by both the Senior Center and City staff on an
annual basis.
4. READINESS TO PROCEED
A. Describe any pre-contract obligations pertaining to the project that have been
mitigated or addressed prior to submission of the application. N/A
B. Provide an estimate of the following project milestones (please keep in mind that
2012 funding will not be available until after August 2012):
Projected Date
The Organization provides necessary
information to OHCD to allow staff to
complete the environmental review:
10/15/2012
Packet Page 220 of 404
13
Contract with Snohomish County
Office of Housing, Homelessness and
Community Development:
1/15/2013
Select architect/engineer: 2/15/2013
Obtain all needed permits: 3/15/2013
Complete bid specifications: 5/15/2013
Bid award: 7/31/2013
Project 50% complete: 9/30/2013
Project complete 10/31/2013
C. Explain any possible environmental or land use issues that have the potential to
delay your project and describe steps that have been taken, or will be taken, to
address those issues. (Any “Yes” responses on the Environmental Review
Supplemental Overview may cause project delays and should be described here.)
The City of Edmonds has conducted many projects in this waterfront area of the city and is
well versed in anticipating environmental problems. Careful planning and permitting will
ensure most potential delays will be identified. There is not a change of use and the square
footage of the building and parking lot site remains unchanged. SEPA and Shoreline Permit
application are anticipated to be straightforward.
D. Provide a summary of all sources of funding needed to complete the project
including committed funding and/or funding which has been or will be applied and
provide documentation of committed funding.
The non-profit Edmonds Senior Center will raise 100% of the necessary monies from other
grant sources and public campaigns. These sources include, but are not limited to the Hazel
Miller Foundation, the Boeing Employees Community Fund, WA State Department of
Commerce Capital Programs, corporate donors such as the Microsoft Corporation, and a
public campaign for building refurbishment. The Senior Center has considerable expertise in
this area and a proven track record in working with foundations, business, and individual
donors.
Note: Please Review and complete Attachment A “Application Checklist” which is a
list of documents required to be submitted with this application. Submit
Attachment A with the application.
Packet Page 221 of 404
14
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL OVERVIEW
Federally funded County projects are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and numerous other state and federal environmental laws. All environmental laws
seek to avoid adverse impacts on the environment by mandating careful consideration of
the potential impacts on any development assisted with public funds. Applicants must be
sensitive to any possible environmental impacts and concerns while their projects are first
being planned to avoid problems, which can create uncontrollable delays, add unplanned
construction or pre-development costs or even prevent a project from being funded or
implemented in a timely manner.
It is the applicant’s responsibility to submit a Supplemental Application that is both
complete and complies with the application specifications and fully discloses any potential
environmental concerns. The Snohomish County Office of Housing and Community
Development (OHCD) is responsible for assuring compliance with state and federal
regulations and seeks to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts on the natural and human
environment by mandating careful consideration of the potential impacts of any
development assisted with county managed funds.
All applicants must recognize and document potential environmental issues during the
project planning process. OHCD, the Technical Advisory Committee and the Policy
Advisory Board (citizen review boards) can make better decisions by fully understanding
and carefully considering the potential environmental consequences. Incomplete
applications that do not include the required information necessary to fully evaluate the
applicant’s project and/or ignore potential environmental issues may result in diminished
project competitiveness, and decreased overall application scoring.
Please contact Dee White at 425-388-3260 or dee.white@co.snohomish.wa.us if you
have any questions related to environmental issues or if you need assistance
completing the Environmental Supplement appropriately.
The Environmental Review Supplemental Application includes a listing of subject areas
relating to potential impacts on the physical or human environment. In most cases,
applicants will be able to simply provide a brief response to the categories listed.
Environmental information and assistance in preparing the environmental section can be
obtained from a wide variety of sources including those listed which are cited as
appropriate. Other possible sources of information include local comprehensive plans,
preliminary engineering studies, state and federal reports, local agencies such as the
planning or environmental health office, federal agencies and the internet.
Packet Page 222 of 404
15
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION
PART I
Project Name: Edmonds Senior Center Refurbishment Project
Brief Description of Project / Construction Activities (please limit to space provided):
Refurbish the failing wood siding on the west wall; seal all of the walls of the
cement block 2-story building; renovate the 1st and 2nd floor restrooms; assess the
structural integrity of the subfloor in the main lobby and library and make repairs as
needed.
YOUR SUBMISSION OF THIS APPLICATION TRIGGERS FEDERAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS. FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
MANDATE THAT THE COUNTY COMPLETE AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PRIOR
TO ANY “CHOICE LIMITING ACTIONS” (i.e. contract/agreement execution,
acquisition, demolition, construction) BEING INITIATED ON A PROJECT RECEIVING
FEDERAL FUNDING.
Is your project currently underway?
Yes, acquisition and/or construction has begun.
If yes, was a legally binding contract signed prior to your intent to apply for federal funds?
Yes (If yes, attach a copy of the contract)
No
If you do not have a legally binding contract in place and dated prior to the
submission date of your application, you must cease all choice limiting activities
immediately until environmental compliance has been reviewed and approved by
Snohomish County. If your project is not under contract at the time of application,
no construction or acquisition activities can occur until an environmental review
has been completed and approved by Snohomish County. Failure to comply will
prohibit the use of federal funds for the project.
No, acquisition or construction activities will not begin prior to authorization from
Snohomish County.
Project Location:
Identify location by completing ALL of the following location identifiers:
Township: _____27_______________
Range: _____03______________
Section: 23
Assessor Parcel Number of Project Site: 27032300104200
Packet Page 223 of 404
16
Parcel Size 2.63 acres
Complete Street Address: 220 Railroad Ave
City: Edmonds Zip Code: 98020
Current Zoning Classification: Shoreline Commercial
Proposed land Use: no change
Current Property Owner: City of Edmonds
Is project consistent with current Zoning designation? Yes No
Is project consistent with future Zoning designation? Yes No
Is the proposed project’s land use consistent with the jurisdiction’s Comprehensive
Plan or Area Plan? Yes No
Existing Buildings on Proposed Site
If the site has an existing building, complete the following:
Building(s) Size: 28,000 Square footage
Year building(s) were built: 1980/1950’s/1960’s __ (attach Assessor’s Record)
(To determine, go to http://web5.co.snohomish.wa.us/propsys/asr-tr-
propinq/prpinq01-entry.asp. and provide a copy as documentation).
Current Use: senior center
Proposed Use: no change
Landmark Classification: No
Has this specific project previously received a NEPA environmental clearance from
Snohomish County for CDBG, HOME or ADDI funds? Yes No
If so, what year? ____________________________
PART II
For the following questions, answer by checking box Yes or No. Provide all required
explanations by inserting answers following each question directly in the Supplemental
document. Attach additional requested documentation to the back of the
environmental section, marking the appropriate section and number on the top.
A “Yes” response to any of the following questions may cause additional delays in
the review process and requires careful consideration by the applicant.
A. Historic Preservation
1. Is the proposed site or any project activity listed on, or within a district listed on, the
National Register of Historic Places, or any State or local listing of historic places, or Tribal
land? Attach all documentation used to make the determination. Knowledge
Yes No Unknown of historical sites in Edmonds.
Packet Page 224 of 404
17
Please explain how your response was determined.
2. Is any structure(s) on proposed site of project activity 45 years old or older?
Yes No
a) If yes, list all structure(s) over 45 years, by street address and year of
construction.
The senior center in its present configuration was built in 1980. It includes two older
buildings – the north wing was built in the mid 1950’s and the two story CMU was
constructed in the early 1960’s. The 1935 year of construction mentioned in the
auditor’s report may refer to the old mill that was this site on the location of the two-
story CMU. It was torn down in the early 1960’s to make room for the present CMU.
3. Provide a detailed history of the property use. See attachments.
B. Floodplain Management & Flood Insurance
1. Is the proposed property located in a flood hazard area? Print and attach the
appropriate flood map and indicate the proposed site on the flood map. State
whether any part of the project site is within the flood hazard area. To determine, go to:
http://gis1.msc.fema.gov/Website/newstore/Viewer.htm. For step-by-step directions on
how to download the correct map, please refer to Attachment E-1 at the end of this
environmental supplement.
Yes No
a) If Yes, is the local general government jurisdiction in which each project site is
situated currently participating in, and in good standing with FEMA under, the
National Flood Insurance Program? To determine, consult each local
Planning/Building Department and attach all correspondence. Attach
documentation used to make determination.
Yes No
2. Provide the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) number: 53061C292 E
C. Wetlands Protection
1. Are there any wetlands on any part of the project site, or within 300 feet of the
proposed project site and, if so, will the proposed project activity encroach or impact in any
way upon any such on-site or adjacent wetland? Describe how your determination was
made.
Yes No General knowledge of the location.
D. Air Quality
1. Is the ambient air quality at proposed project site presently degraded by proximity to
significant pollution generators or conditions (e.g. heavy motor traffic; dusty or noxious
odor producing commercial or industrial operations; etc?) Describe how your
determination was made.
Yes No General knowledge of the location.
Packet Page 225 of 404
18
2. Will the project contribute any pollution to the ambient air at project site?
a) During project development? Yes No
b) By its use or operation after completion? Yes No
c) If yes to either or both, describe how your determination was made.
General knowledge of the location.
E. Noise
1. Is the proposed project within 1,000 feet of a major roadway? Yes No
2. Is the proposed project within 3,000 feet of a railway? Yes No
3. Is the proposed project within 15 miles of a civil airport or military airfield?
Yes No
4. Are there any other potential noise sources in the project vicinity that could produce a
noise level above HUD’s acceptable range including but not limited to concert halls, night
clubs, event facilities, etc.? Describe how your determination was made.
Yes No General knowledge of the location.
F. Hazardous Conditions
1. Thermal & Explosive Hazards: Are there any visible above ground storage vessels, of
more than approximately 200 gallons volume, with the exception of household propane
storage tanks within a six block radius of proposed project site? Describe how your
determination was made. General knowledge of the location.
Yes No
a) If yes, describe and list location(s):
2. Toxic Chemicals and Radioactive Materials: Is the property or surrounding
neighborhood listed on an EPA Superfund National Priorities or CERCLA List, or
equivalent State list? Attach a copy of the each of the two maps found at:
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/ and http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/ust-lust/tanks.html.
For step-by-step directions on how to download the correct maps, please refer to
Attachment E-1 at the end of this environmental supplement.
Yes No
a) If Yes, list and describe location(s) physical proximity to project site.
3. Are there any commercial or industrial facilities with large above-ground storage of any
hazardous materials, (such as a petroleum tank farm or wholesale facility, or a factory
producing or using hazardous materials within a 1/2 mile radius of project site? Describe
how your determination was made. General knowledge of the location.
Yes No
4. Airport Hazard Zones: Is proposed project site within 1/4 mile of the perimeter or
boundary of any military or civil airport or air field? Describe how your determination
was made. General knowledge of the location.
Yes No
a) If yes, identify the airport; and attach a copy of an accurate, scaled map
delineating the airport fly zone and the proposed project location.
Packet Page 226 of 404
19
G. Other Environmental Resources
1. Farmland Preservation: Will proposed project site involve conversion of any existing
farmland to another use? Describe how your determination was made.
Yes No General knowledge of the location.
2. Coastal Zone Management: Is proposed project site situated within a shoreline zone
regulated under the Snohomish County Shoreline Management Master Program, or a
municipality’s shoreline regulations under the State Shorelines Management Act?
Describe how your determination was made. General knowledge of the location.
Yes No
a) If yes, is the project permitted under those regulations? Yes No
PART III
Attach the following documents with the application FOR ALL PROJECTS:
♦ Copy of the Thomas Brothers Guide page, with the site location marked.
♦ Site plans and drawings (no larger than 11 x 17). If the project consists of new
construction or rehabilitation include the original total square footage of the site plus
square footage of new impervious surface to be added.
♦ If the project requires a zoning change, attach a signed zoning confirmation letter
from the project site jurisdiction’s planning department. The letter must include sufficient
detail to confirm the approval is for the specific proposed use of the site.
♦ A detailed history of the property use of the proposed project location.
♦ Attach all available environmental project and site studies, investigations, reports, and
project plans; including Environmental Site Assessments, wetlands or other biological
investigations, hazardous materials investigations, soils and other geotechnical studies,
planning reports, engineering reports, noise studies, traffic studies, etc.
♦ Submit one or more photos or aerial map identifying the location of the project site with
the original application.
Packet Page 227 of 404
20
PART IV N/A
Acquisition of land, whether vacant or occupied by buildings, new construction or
substantial rehabilitation projects require a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. A
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is a professionally written assessment evaluating
any hazards that may be on the land or in buildings (asbestos, lead based paint), historical
use of the property or building, and any other possible hazards in the vicinity of the
property. In order to meet the all appropriate inquiry standard, the Phase I must be
conducted or updated within one year prior to date of acquisition and the
interviews, record reviews, site inspection, and lien search must be conducted or
updated within 180 days prior to the date of acquisition. This assessment is helpful
at application time, but is not required until funding is approved.
Packet Page 228 of 404
21
ATTACHMENT E –“PROJECT BUDGET”
PROJECT SUMMARY
Total CDBG Other Funds
Sources of
Other
Project Funds and/or In-kind
Funds and
In-kind
Costs Requested Contributions Contributions
I. Environmental Review, Reports or
Studies 0 0 0
Subtotal Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs
Purchase Price 0 0 0
Closing Costs 0 0 0
Other Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
Subtotal Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs
Site Improvements, sales & contingency 0 0 0
Construction, sales, & contingency 212,917 151,854 61,063 See below
Permits 910 910 0
Other Construction Costs 8,484 8,484 0
Subtotal Construction Costs 222,311 161,248 61,063 See below
IV. Professional Fees
Architect/Engineer 9,715 0 9,715 See below
Survey 0 0 0
Hazardous Materials Survey 0 0 0
Appraisal 0 0 0
Legal 0 0 0
Other Professional Fees 0 0 0
Subtotal Professional Fees 9,715 0 9,715 See below
V. Other Development Costs
Relocation Costs 0 0 0
Financing Costs 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Subtotal Other Development Costs 0 0 0
I. Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs 222,311 161,248 61,063 See below
IV. Professional Fees 9,715 0 9,715 See below
V. Other Development Costs
TOTAL COSTS: 232,026 161,248 70,778 See below
Packet Page 229 of 404
22
ATTACHMENT E –“PROJECT BUDGET”
WEST EXTERIOR SIDING
Total CDBG Other Funds
Sources of
Other
Project Funds and/or In-kind
Funds and
In-kind
Costs Requested Contributions Contributions
I. Environmental Review, Reports or
Studies 0 0 0
Subtotal Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs
Purchase Price 0 0 0
Closing Costs 0 0 0
Other Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
Subtotal Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs
Site Improvements, sales & contingency 0 0 0
Construction, sales, & contingency 80,891 50,606 30,285 See below
Permits 910 910 0
Other Construction Costs 8,484 8,484 0
Subtotal Construction Costs 90,285 60,000 30,285 See below
IV. Professional Fees
Architect/Engineer 9,715 0 9,715 See below
Survey 0 0 0
Hazardous Materials Survey 0 0 0
Appraisal 0 0 0
Legal 0 0 0
Other Professional Fees 0 0 0
Subtotal Professional Fees 9,715 0 9,715 See below
V. Other Development Costs
Relocation Costs 0 0 0
Financing Costs 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Subtotal Other Development Costs 0 0 0
I. Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs 90,285 60,000 30,285 See below
IV. Professional Fees 9,715 0 9,715 See below
V. Other Development Costs
TOTAL COSTS: 100,000 60,000 40,000 See below
Packet Page 230 of 404
23
ATTACHMENT E –“PROJECT BUDGET”
RESTROOMS
Total CDBG Other Funds
Sources of
Other
Project Funds and/or In-kind
Funds and
In-kind
Costs Requested Contributions Contributions
I. Environmental Review, Reports or
Studies 0 0 0
Subtotal Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs
Purchase Price 0 0 0
Closing Costs 0 0 0
Other Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
Subtotal Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs
Site Improvements, sales & contingency 0 0 0
Construction, sales, & contingency 109,742 82,307 27,435 See below
Permits 0 0 0
Other Construction Costs 0 0 0
Subtotal Construction Costs 109,742 82,307 27,435 See below
IV. Professional Fees
Architect/Engineer 0 0 0
Survey 0 0 0
Hazardous Materials Survey 0 0 0
Appraisal 0 0 0
Legal 0 0 0
Other Professional Fees 0 0 0
Subtotal Professional Fees 0 0 0
V. Other Development Costs
Relocation Costs 0 0 0
Financing Costs 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Subtotal Other Development Costs 0 0 0
I. Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs 109,742 82,307 27,435 See below
IV. Professional Fees 0 0 0
V. Other Development Costs
TOTAL COSTS: 109,742 82,307 27,435 See below
Packet Page 231 of 404
24
ATTAC HMENT E –“PROJECT BUDGET”
LOBBY/LIBRARY FLOOR
Total CDBG Other Funds
Sources of
Other
Project Funds and/or In-kind
Funds and
In-kind
Costs Requested Contributions Contributions
I. Environmental Review, Reports or
Studies 0 0 0
Subtotal Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs
Purchase Price 0 0 0
Closing Costs 0 0 0
Other Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
Subtotal Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs
Site Improvements, sales & contingency 0 0 0
Construction, sales, & contingency 22,284 18,941 3,343 See below
Permits 0 0 0
Other Construction Costs 0 0 0
Subtotal Construction Costs 22,284 18,941 3,343 See below
IV. Professional Fees
Architect/Engineer 0 0 0
Survey 0 0 0
Hazardous Materials Survey 0 0 0
Appraisal 0 0 0
Legal 0 0 0
Other Professional Fees 0 0 0
Subtotal Professional Fees 0 0 0
V. Other Development Costs
Relocation Costs 0 0 0
Financing Costs 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0
Subtotal Other Development Costs 0 0 0
I. Environmental Review Costs 0 0 0
II. Property Acquisition Costs 0 0 0
III. Construction Costs 22,284 18,941 3,343 See below
IV. Professional Fees 0 0 0
V. Other Development Costs
TOTAL COSTS: 22,284 18,941 3,343 See below
Packet Page 232 of 404
25
The non-profit Edmonds Senior Center will raise 100% of the necessary monies from other
grant sources and public campaigns. These sources include, but are not limited to the Hazel
Miller Foundation, the Boeing Employees Community Fund, WA State Department of
Commerce Capital Programs, corporate donors such as the Microsoft Corporation, and a
public campaign for building refurbishment. The Senior Center has considerable expertise in
this area and a proven track record in working with foundations, business, and individual
donors.
As soon as there is a positive response from the County Council, acting on a
recommendation from the PAB, the non-profit Edmonds Senior Center will begin a
vigorous campaign to secure the necessary matching funds.
Packet Page 233 of 404
26
ATTACHMENT A
Application Checklist (this document is required as part of a complete PF&I
application for funding)
1. Applicant Authorization and completed application for funding.
2. Project Budget Form Attachment E.
3. Copy of Board/City Council minutes or Board/City Council Resolution
approving the application for funding and designating authorized individual
to negotiate and contractually bind agency.
4. Copy of Articles of Incorporation (For non-profits only)
5. Proof of 501(c) (3) status with IRS (non-profits only)
6. Current Copy of By-Laws
7. List of Current Board of Directors or other governing body; include name,
occupation or affiliation of each member and identify the principal officers
of the governing body (non-profits only)
8. Current Organizational chart (non-profits only)
9. Resumes of Executive Director, Chief Fiscal Officer and Chief Program
Administrator (non-profits only)
10. Most recent audit with management letter
11. Service Area Map (for area benefit projects)
12. Evidence of site control (if applicable)
13. Client intake form (applicable to direct benefit projects)
14. Letters of funding commitment (if applicable)
15. Architectural drawings (if available)
16. Construction specifications (if available)
17. Title Report (if applicable)
18. Appraisals (if applicable and available)
Packet Page 234 of 404
27
19. Letters of support (if applicable)
20. Relocation Plan (if applicable)
Environmental Assessment Attachments
20. Copy of Thomas Brother’s Guide page with site location marked
21. County Assessor Property Record
(http://web5.co.snohomish.wa.us/propsys/asr-tr-propinq/)
22. FEMA Flood Map
(http://www.msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/info?storeId=10001&catal
ogId=10001&langId=-
1&content=firmHelp_1&title=How%20to%20Find%20Your%20Flood%20Map)
23. Environmental Protection Agency Map
(www.epa.gov/enviro/)
24. Department of Ecology Map
(www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/ust-lust/tanks.html)
25. Site Plans and drawings (no larger than 11 x 17). If the project consists of
new construction or rehabilitation, include the original total square footage
of the site plus square footage of new impervious surface to be added
26. Signed zoning confirmation letter (if the project requires a zoning change)
27. Detailed history of the property use
28. All available project and site studies
29. Photographs or aerial photos of existing site
30. If available, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for acquisition of land,
new construction, or substantial rehabilitation. If not available, OHCD staff
will advise if required.
31. Completed Environmental Review Supplemental Application with the
supporting documentation for questions in sections A through G.
32. Hazardous materials survey/assessment summary (if applicable)
Packet Page 235 of 404
AM-4430 Item #: 4. M.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Council President Strom Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Resolution in recognition of Councilmember Steve Bernheim.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Resolution in recognition of Councilmember Steve Bernheim.
Attachments
Bernheim Resolution
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 09:27 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:53 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:57 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/13/2011 02:56 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 236 of 404
Resolution
No.
A Resolution Of The Edmonds City Council Thanking
Steve Bernheim for His Service to The Edmonds City Council
Whereas, Steve Bernheim served on the Edmonds City Council from January 2008 to December 2011
and during his tenure served as Council President in 2010, and
Whereas, Mr. Bernheim, during his tenure as a Councilman was very tenacious in attending to the
needs of the citizens of Edmonds; and
Whereas, Mr. Bernheim, in addition to carrying out countless duties as a Councilman, was appointed
to the following boards and committees: Public Safety, Finance, Economic Development, WRIA
8 (Alt.), South Snohomish Cities, Snohomish County Tomorrow, Community Outreach, City-
Wide Parking, Municipal Court Review, Port of Edmonds, Seashore Transportation Forum; and
Whereas, Mr. Bernheim, as Council President did an outstanding job overseeing the transition to a
new City mayor and two new Council members; and
Whereas, Mr. Bernheim was a strong advocate of environmental issues including support of city wide
energy efficiency upgrades, the community solar installation on Frances Anderson Center, and
continued efforts to reduce idling,
Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, that Steve Bernheim be commended and thanked for serving on
the Council and for serving as Council President. The Council and Mayor wish him the best in
the future.
Passed, Approved, and Adopted this 20th day of December, 2011.
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
D. J. Wilson, Councilmember
Attest: City Clerk
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Packet Page 237 of 404
AM-4431 Item #: 4. N.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Council President Strom Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Resolution in recognition of Councilmember D. J. Wilson
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Resolution in recognition of Councilmember D. J. Wilson
Attachments
Wilson Resolution
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 09:27 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:53 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:57 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/13/2011 02:57 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 238 of 404
Resolution
No.
A Resolution Of The Edmonds City Council Thanking
D. J. Wilson for His Service to The Edmonds City Council
Whereas, D. J. Wilson served on the Edmonds City Council from January 2008 to December 2011
and during his tenure served as Council President in 2009; and
Whereas, Mr. Wilson, during his tenure as a Councilman, worked vigorously to give his complete
attention to the matters at hand always making sure he kept an ear on the needs of the citizens of
Edmonds; and
Whereas, Councilmember D. J. Wilson, in addition to carrying out countless duties as a
Councilman, was appointed to the following Boards and/or Commissions: Community Transit,
Lake Ballinger Work Group, Regional Fire Authority Snohomish County Tomorrow and South
Snohomish Cities. He also served on SNOCOM, and the Community Service/Development
Service, the Public Safety/HR and Lodging Tax Advisory Committees; and
Whereas, Mr. Wilson was instrumental in identifying that the stewardship of Lake Ballinger was to be
among the City’s highest environmental priorities for 2008 and beyond, working collaboratively
with other cities, Snohomish County, the State of Washington and the Federal government to
develop a “Lake Ballinger Basin Action Plan” for future review, with the intent of addressing the
stewardship of the lake and creating a national model for similar projects; and
Whereas, Mr. Wilson led the way to approving the Cold Weather Shelter ordinance ensuring that our
most vulnerable citizens could find safety during cold winter nights,
Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, that D. J. Wilson be commended and thanked for serving on the
Council and for serving as Council President. The Council and Mayor wish him the best in the
future.
Passed, Approved, and Adopted this 20th day of December, 2011
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Steve Bernheim, Councilmember
Attest: City Clerk
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Packet Page 239 of 404
AM-4445 Item #: 5.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Community Service Announcement - Historic Preservation Commission
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
John Dewhirst will provide an update concerning activities of the Historic Preservation Commission.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:48 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:51 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/15/2011 09:07 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 240 of 404
AM-4432 Item #: 6.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Strom Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of Resolution and plaque in recognition of Councilmember Steve Bernheim.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Presentation of Resolution and Plaque in recognition of Councilmember Steve Bernheim.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 09:27 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:53 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:57 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/13/2011 03:29 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 241 of 404
AM-4433 Item #: 7.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Strom Peterson Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation of Resolution and plaque in recognition of Councilmember D. J. Wilson.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Presentation of Resolution and Plaque in recognition of Councilmember D. J. Wilson.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 09:27 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:53 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:57 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 12/13/2011 03:31 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 242 of 404
AM-4441 Item #: 8.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Department:Community Services
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Discussion and potential action on a proposed Draft City of Edmonds 2012 Legislative
Agenda and Professional Services Agreement between City of Edmonds and Mike
Doubleday.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
City administration recommends the City Council express support for the attached proposed Draft City of
Edmonds 2012 Legislative Agenda and Professional Services Agreement between City of Edmonds and
Mike Doubleday.
Previous Council Action
January 4, 2011 - The Edmonds City Council approved a one-year Professional Services Agreement
between the City of Edmonds and Mike Doubleday. Mr. Doubleday has provided professional services
on behalf of the City for the past seven years.
On November 1, 2011, the Edmonds City Council expressed support for the Snohomish County 2011
Cities and Towns Legislative Agenda. This will also serve as a scope of work Mike Doubleday.
Narrative
The attached proposed Draft 2012 legislative agenda outlines prioritized items which, if approved by the
City Council, will serve as a scope of work for Mike Doubleday and staff during the 2012 Washington
State legislative session/year. Mr. Doubleday will attend the December 20, 2011 City Council meeting to
present an overview of the legislative agenda; a question and answer session will follow and Department
Directors will be available to answer questions related to their departments.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2012
Revenue:35,560
Expenditure:35,560
Fiscal Impact:
The amount of the contract is included within the Community Services Department Professional
Services line item of the 2012 City of Edmonds 2012 budget.
Attachments
Professional Services Agreement between City of Edmonds and Mike Doubleday for Year 2012
Packet Page 243 of 404
City of Edmonds Draft 2012 Legislative Agenda
Exhibit B - Snohomish County Cities and Towns 2011-212 Legislative Agenda
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 02:14 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 04:42 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 04:42 PM
Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 12/14/2011 06:42 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 244 of 404
City of Edmonds
121 FIFTH AVENUE N. ● EDMONDS, WA 98020 ● 425-771-0251
COMMUNITY SERVICES / ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Dave Earling
Mayor
Item08._Att1_Professional Services Agreement between City of Edmonds and Mike Doubleday for Year 2012.doc
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
MIKE DOUBLEDAY
GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS SERVICES
FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS
January 1, 2012 – Dec 31, 2012
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into between the City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred
to as the “City”, and Mike Doubleday, hereinafter referred to as the “Consultant”;
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the professional services and assistance of a consultant to
provide advocacy for funding mechanisms that will help finance local and regional infrastructure,
recreational, environmental and transportation projects, e.g., projects such as the 228th/SR99 intersection,
Five Corners intersection, Main Street between 5th and 6th Avenues, Puget Sound watershed health and
salmon recovery, etc., in addition to monitoring and/or supporting legislation that may impact the City of
Edmonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual benefits accruing, it is agreed by and between
the parties hereto as follows:
1. Scope of Work. The scope of work shall include all services and material necessary to accomplish
the above-mentioned objectives, including Exhibits A and B attached, in accordance with the
specifics noted below.
A. General Description. Provide advocacy for funding mechanisms that will help finance
local and regional infrastructure, recreational, environmental and transportation
projects, e.g., 228th/SR99 intersection, Five Corners intersection, Main Street between
5th and 6th Avenues, Puget Sound watershed health and salmon recovery, etc.
Additional services include monitoring and/or supporting legislation and activities
using the adopted City of Edmonds 2012 Legislative Agenda as a non-exclusive scope
of work, and providing regular updates to the City.
B. Term. This contract shall cover intergovernmental services provided from January 1,
2012 through December 31, 2012.
C. Deliverables. Work with the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County Council, local State
legislative delegations, appropriate State departments, legislative leadership, the
Governor, and other intergovernmental representatives to: 1) Assist with the passage of
legislation favorable to the City of Edmonds; and 2) Assist with the defeat or veto of
legislation that either fiscally harms the City, or imposes unfunded program mandates.
Provide monthly and year end reports to the City.
Packet Page 245 of 404
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 2
2. Payments. The Consultant shall be paid by the City for completed work for services rendered
under this Agreement as provided hereinafter. Such payment shall be full compensation for work
performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals
necessary to complete the work.
A. Amount. Payment for work accomplished under the terms of this Agreement shall be
Two Thousand Three Hundred Ninety One and 25/100 Dollars ($2,391.25) per month
for when the legislature is not in session, and Four Thousand One Hundred Thirty Five
and No/100 Dollars ($4,135) per month while the legislature is in session. Payments
shall not exceed Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred Seventy and No/100 Dollars
($35,670) for activities performed during a 12-month period. All expenses are
included in the fee: no expenses shall be reimbursed without prior written approval by
the City. Should the legislature meet for part of a month, payment will be prorated
based upon the percentage of days convened during the month.
B. Process. All vouchers shall be submitted by the Consultant to the City for payment
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The City shall pay the appropriate amount for
each voucher to the Consultant. The Consultant may submit vouchers to the City on or
before the fifth of each month for services performed during the previous month.
Billings shall show the amount of time spent working each major issue so the City will
be advised of the intergovernmental costs of supporting each issue. Invoices will be in
a form and content reasonably acceptable to the City and will describe:
• Services performed
• Number of hours expended in performing the services
• Base contract amount
• Amount invoiced to date
• Current invoiced amount
• Contract balance amount
C. Record Retention. The costs records and accounts pertaining to this Agreement are to
be kept available for inspection by representatives of the City for a period of three (3)
years after final payment. Copies shall be made available upon request.
3. Ownership and use of documents. All research, tests, surveys, preliminary data and any and all
other work product prepared or gathered by the Consultant in preparation for the services rendered
by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be and are the property of Consultant and shall not be
considered public records, provided, however, that:
A. Final Document. All final reports, presentations and testimony prepared by the
Consultant shall become the property of the City upon their presentation to and
acceptance by the City and shall at that date become public records.
B. Copies. The City shall have the right, upon reasonable request, to inspect, review and,
subject to the approval of the Consultant, copy any work product.
C. Default. In the event that the Consultant shall default on this Agreement, or in the
event that this contract shall be terminated prior to its completion as herein provided,
the work product of the Consultant, along with a summary of work done to date of
default or termination, shall become the property of the City and tender of the work
Packet Page 246 of 404
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 3
product and summary shall be a prerequisite to final payment under this contract. The
summary of work done shall be prepared at no additional cost.
4. Hold harmless agreement. In performing the work under this contract, Consultant agrees to
protect, indemnify and save the City harmless from and against any and all injury or damage to the
City or its property, and also from and against all claims, demands, and cause of action of every
kind and character arising directly or indirectly, or in any way incident to, in connection with, or
arising out of negligent work performed under the terms hereof, caused by the fault of the
Consultant, its agent, employees, representatives or subcontractors.
Consultant specifically promises to indemnify the City against claims or suits brought under Title
51 RCW by its employees or subcontractors and waives any immunity that the Consultant may
have under that title with respect to, but only to, the City. Consultant further agrees to fully
indemnify City from and against any and all costs of defending any such claim or demand to the
end that the City is held harmless therefrom. This paragraph shall not apply to damages or claims
resulting from the sole negligence of the City.
5. General and professional liability insurance. The Consultant shall secure and maintain in full
force and effect during performance of all work pursuant to his contract a policy of business
general liability insurance providing coverage of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and shall name
the City as a named insured, and shall include a provision prohibiting cancellation of said policy,
except upon thirty (30) days written notice to the City. Certificates of coverage shall be delivered to
the City within fifteen (15) days of execution of this Agreement.
6. Discrimination prohibited. Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant
for employment because of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin or physical handicap.
7. Consultant is an independent contractor. The parties intend that an independent contractor
relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee or representative of the
Consultant shall be deemed to be an agent, employee or representative of the City for any purpose.
Consultant shall be solely responsible for all acts of its agents, employees, representatives and
subcontractors during the performance of this contract.
8. City approval of work and relationships. Notwithstanding the Consultant’s status as an
independent contractor, results of the work performed pursuant to this contract must meet the
approval of the City. During pendency of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not perform work
for any party with respect to any property located within the City of Edmonds or for any project
subject to the administrative or quasi-judicial review of the City without written notification to the
City and the City’s prior written consent.
9. Termination. This being an Agreement for professional services, either party may terminate this
Agreement for any reason upon giving the other party written notice of such termination no fewer
than ten (10) days in advance of the effective date of said termination.
10. Changes/Additional Work. The City may engage Consultant to perform services in addition to
those listed in this Agreement, and Consultant will be entitled to additional compensation for
authorized additional services or materials. The City shall not be liable for additional compensation
until and unless any and all additional work and compensation is approved in advance in writing
and signed by both parties to this Agreement. If conditions are encountered which are not
anticipated in the Scope of Services, the City understands that a revision to the Scope of Services
and fees may be required. Provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to
Packet Page 247 of 404
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 4
obligate the Consultant to render or the City to pay for services rendered in excess of the payments
discussed in Section 2.A, unless or until an amendment to this Agreement is approved in writing by
both parties.
11. Standard of Care. Consultant represents that Consultant has the necessary knowledge, skill and
experience to perform services required by this Agreement. Consultant and any persons employed
by Consultant shall use their best efforts to perform the work in a professional manner consistent
with sound practices, in accordance with the usual and customary professional care required for
services of the type described in the Scope of Services.
12. Non-waiver. Waiver by the City of any provision of this Agreement or any time limitation
provided for in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any other provision.
13. Non-assignable. The services to be provided by the contractor shall not be assigned or
subcontracted without the express written consent of the City.
14. Covenant against contingent fees. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained
any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, to
solicit or secure this contract, and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person,
other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant, any fee, commission,
percentage, brokerage fee, gifts or any other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the
award of making this contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right
to annul this contract without liability or, in its discretion to deduct from the contract price or
consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage,
brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee.
15. Compliance with laws. The Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall comply with
all applicable Federal, State or local laws and ordinances. Including regulations for licensing,
certification and operation of facilities, programs and accreditation, and licensing of individuals,
and any other standards or criteria as described in the Agreement to assure quality of services.
A. B&O Taxes. The Consultant specifically agrees to pay any applicable business and
occupation (B & O) taxes which may be due on account of this Agreement.
B. Public Disclosure Commission. The Consultant shall be responsible to register with
the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) and provide notice to the City regarding any
obligation on his part to report his services to any State or Federal agency.
Additionally, Contractor and the City shall sign and Contractor shall forward to the
Public Disclosure Commission a registration of lobbyist form (if necessary) before
doing any lobbying or within 30 days after being employed as a lobbyist, whichever
occurs first (RCW 42.17.150). Contractor shall be otherwise responsible for
compliance with all requirements of chapter 42.17 RCW (lobbying disclosure).
C. Potential Conflicts. The contractor shall not advocate or promote any legislative
objectives on behalf of existing or potential clients that are determined by the City to
be in conflict with City of Edmonds’ legislative objectives. The City acknowledges
that contractor currently represents the Cities of Bellevue, Burien, the Performing Arts
Center Eastside (PACE), and certain financial issues for the City of Seattle, before the
state legislature.
Packet Page 248 of 404
Intergovernmental Contract, Page 5
16. Notices. Notices shall be sent to the following address, with receipt of any notice being deemed
effective three days after deposit of written notice.
City of Edmonds Contractor
Stephen Clifton Mike Doubleday
City of Edmonds Doubleday Government Relations
121 Fifth Avenue North 1561 NW 190th Street
Edmonds, WA 98020 Shoreline, WA 98177
425-771-0251 206-499-0749
clifton@ci.edmonds.wa.us mikedoubleday@earthlink.net
DATED THIS ________ DAY OF _____________________, 2012.
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:
Mayor David O. Earling
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
Lighthouse Law Group,
CONSULTANT
By:
Its:
Packet Page 249 of 404
Exhibit A
DRAFT 2012 Leg Agenda Page 1
City of Edmonds
2012 Draft State Legislative Agenda
TOP PRIORITIES
Transportation Revenue Package
Support the advancement of a statewide transportation revenue package to address
infrastructure projects in Snohomish County and Edmonds. Specifically Edmonds
seeks support to finish key projects already in development and funded by federal
transportation grants:
228th/SR99 Safety Project
212th/84th (Five Corners) Congestion
Edmonds Main Street Project
Seek capital budget funding for the Edmonds Main Street Rebuilding Project using
Low Impact Development (LID) techniques
Public Records Requests
Support legislation to provide some relief for cities and other governmental agencies
from overly burdensome public records requests
Extension of Public Facilities District (PFD) Sales and Use Tax Credit
Seek to extend the PFD sales tax credit (.033) 15 years from 2027 to 2042
Protect State-Shared and Committed Revenues such as:
Liquor profits and taxes
The municipal criminal justice account
Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF)
The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Grant Funding Program (WWRP)
Enhance Fiscal Flexibility Options for Cities
Make REET flexibility permanent
Expand uses of Hotel/Motel Tax to any purpose that maintains or enhances tourism
Remove public vote requirement for metropolitan park districts
Revamp the state unemployment benefit programs to limit the exposure of
government entities related to part time or seasonal employment
Allow cities to pass on the cost of credit card transactions. Counties already have
this authority (RCW 36.29.190)
Packet Page 250 of 404
Exhibit A
DRAFT 2012 Leg Agenda Page 2
SUPPORT
Aerospace Partnership
Support the Aerospace Partnership’s efforts to enact legislation needed to insure that
Washington State and Snohomish County remain the world’s leader in aerospace
manufacturing
Medical Marijuana
Monitor a medical marijuana legislation. Support the governor’s proposed petition
to the DEA requesting that cannabis for medical use be reclassified from a schedule I
drug to a schedule II drug for medical use which could allow for dispensing legally
by pharmacies.
Phase II Storm Water Funding
Seek state funding for cities, including Edmonds, so they can continue to meet Phase
II storm water permit requirements
SEPA Reform
Support (or Monitor) options to reduce unnecessary regulations and costs while not
affecting outcomes intended by current regulations
Refinements to Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) and Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Tools
Support refinements to the LRF economic development tool (e.g. a “dynamic fiscal
note” demonstrating a project’s revenue generation to the state as opposed to the
current fiscal note process that only shows the credit against the state sales tax), so it
can be more widely used
Support the passage of TIF in Washington
Support the adoption of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
Support the adoption of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)
and the repeal of the State Energy Code (WSEC).
Support legislation to create local funding options for street maintenance through
formation of local street utilities or by expansion of the existing Transportation Benefit
District to raise the local option with Council approval from $20 to $40.
Amend notice requirements in the “newspaper of record” to allow for less costly
alternatives, e.g., posting on the City’s website.
The city’s newspaper of record is the Everett Herald and they do not reach many
households in Edmonds. A less costly alternative is to place “publications” on the
city’s website.
Packet Page 251 of 404
Exhibit B
2011-2012 State Legislative Agenda
This Legislative Agenda, which reflects input from the Cities of Snohomish County, expresses a
collective position on key items that are expected to arise in the form of legislation, budget decisions, or
policy decisions in the upcoming Session of the Legislature.
Aerospace Industry
Support the Washington Aerospace Partnership and other stakeholder groups in developing a unified
strategy (e.g., training & education, research & development, Office of Aerospace and Defense,
unemployment insurance tax, worker‟s compensation, transportation infrastructure) to ensure that
Washington State remains the leading location in the world for aerospace. Led by The Boeing
Company, the aerospace industry within Snohomish County employs as many as 45,000 people,
while one out of every three to six Washington State jobs is supported either directly or indirectly by
the aerospace industry.
Economic Development
Support “tax-increment financing (TIF)”, which is a tool used by most other states to foster economic
and community development to allow cities to proactively implement their Comprehensive Plans and
to ensure local, regional and national competitiveness.
Support additional financial resources for Local Revitalization Financing (LRF) program and Local
Infrastructure Finance Tool (LIFT) to allow those cities who currently qualify to participate.
Local Transportation and Capital Facilities
Support legislation such as a transportation revenue package that ensures local distribution and local
funding options to provide cities sustainable and adequate funding for vital infrastructure investments
that is capable of promoting economic growth and prosperity to the cities of Snohomish County.
Fully fund Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) and Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) programs
to provide cities funding for infrastructure and economic development purposes; no additional
diversion or „sweeping‟ of capital accounts such as the Public Works Trust Fund.
Support investment in key transportation corridors such as U.S. 2, SR-9, and I-5, which are critical to
the quality of life and the movement of people and goods throughout Snohomish County.
Growth Management Act
Reform of annexation statutes and those dealing with the role of cities, counties and special purpose
districts in urban areas to include: require joint planning in unincorporated urban growth areas;
removing referendum from annexation process; limiting the authority of boundary review boards; and
legislation that allows counties the ability to levy a utility tax, if it is restricted to unincorporated areas
and there are accommodations for the needs of cities, in those areas, such as annexation financing
assistance.
Unfunded Mandates and Preemption of Local Authority
Strongly oppose any legislation that: imposes an “unfunded mandate” without additional funding to
support these programs; attempts to erode local revenue or tax authority such as local state-shared
revenues that are critical to the financial health of cities; and pre-empts local authority over any
policy or operational matter traditionally and historically vested with local government.
Packet Page 252 of 404
Exhibit B
2011-2012 State Legislative Agenda
City of Arlington
Kristin Banfield
Assistant City Administrator
360-403-3441
City of Brier
Bob Colinas, Mayor
425-775-5440
Bob Stowe, City Manager
425-486-3256
City of Edmonds
Dave Earling, Mayor
425-771-0247
City of Everett
Pat McClain, Executive Director
425-257-7104
Doug Levy, Outcomes by Levy
425-922-3999
City of Granite Falls
Brent Kirk, Public Works Supervisor
360-691-6441
City of Lake Stevens
Jan Berg, City Administrator
425-377-3230
City of Lynnwood
Don Gough, Mayor
425-670-5003
City of Marysville
Gloria Hirashima
Chief Administrative Officer
360-363-8088
City of Mill Creek
T im Burns, City Manager
425-921-5724
City of Mukilteo
Joe Marine, Mayor
425-263-8018
City of Monroe
Gene Brazel, City Administrator
360-794-7400
City of Snohomish
Larry Bauman, City Manager
360-568-3115
City of Mountlake Terrace
John Caulfield, City Manager
425-744-6205
City of Stanwood
Dianne W. White, Mayor
360-629-2181
City of Sultan
Deborah Knight, City Administrator
360-793-1164
Town of Woodway
Eric Faison, Town Administrator
206-542-0183
Packet Page 253 of 404
AM-4438 Item #: 9.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted For:Robert English Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on the possible removal of the 212th at 84th (5 Corners) Intersection
Improvements and the Caspers St. at 9th Ave W Intersection Improvements from the
2012-2017 Capital Facilities Plan, Capital Improvement Program and Six Year
Transportation Improvement Program.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the proposed 2012-2017 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program.
Previous Council Action
On September 13, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed the proposed 2012-2017 Capital Facilities Plan
and Capital Improvement Program.
On September 27, 2011, the proposed 2012-2017 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement
Program were presented to the Council for review and discusion.
On October 4, 2011, a Public Hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan Element Update for 2012-2017 to the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program was held and Council recommended
further discussion on five projects (Five Corners Roundabout, 9th Ave transportation improvements,
Traffic Calming Program, 4th Ave Cultural Corridor and Public Market).
On December 6, 2011, City Council requested a Public Hearing be held on December 20, 2011 regarding
the Five Corners Roundabout and Caspers @ 9th Ave. projects.
Narrative
Five Corners Roundabout:
This project was identified as a concurrency project in the 2002 and 2009 Transportation Plans. Under the
Growth Management Act (GMA), concurrency is the requirement that adequate infrastructure be planned
and financed to support the City’s adopted future land use plan. Level of Service (LOS) standards on City
Streets is LOS D and LOS E on Highways of Regional Significance (such as SR-524). Intersections that
operate below these LOS standards are considered deficient under concurrency. Attached (Exhibit 1) is a
memo from the City's Planning Manager regarding concurrency issues related to CFP decisions.
The Five Corners project (212th St. SW @ 84th Ave. W) proposes to convert an all-way stop-controlled
intersection to a roundabout, to improve the traffic flow of all approaches. The intersection currently
operates at LOS F and would improve to LOS B after project completion. The project is identified as a
Safety / Capacity project in both the latest CIP and CFP. The City was awarded a Federal grant to fund
Packet Page 254 of 404
the Design and Right-of-Way phases. The design phase began in August 2011 and is scheduled for
completion, along with the Right-of-Way phase, in 2013 (no construction funding has yet been secured).
A presentation on the Five Corners Roundabout was made at the December 6, 2011 Council Meeting and
can be viewed by accessing the City's website at: www.edmondswa.gov
9th Ave Transportation Improvements at Caspers Street:
This project was identified as a concurrency project in the 2002 and 2009 Transportation Plans. The
project proposes to convert a one-approach stop-controlled intersection to a signalized intersection, to
improve intersection delay and safety. The intersection currently has a LOS C and doesn’t exceed the
LOS E standard (Highways of Regional Significance) until 2025. This is why the project is not included
in the 2012-2017 Capital Improvement Program and is only shown in the out years (2018-2025) in the
Capital Facilities Plan.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Concurrency Memo
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 12/15/2011 06:08 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 12/15/2011 08:32 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/16/2011 09:18 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/16/2011 02:08 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/16/2011 02:12 PM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 12/14/2011
Final Approval Date: 12/16/2011
Packet Page 255 of 404
City of Edmonds Planning Division
Date: December 14, 2011
To: Edmonds City Council
From: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Subject: Concurrency Issues Regarding CFP Decisions
This is intended as background information to assist in the Council’s deliberations on the city’s
Capital Facilities Plan for 2012.
Concurrency is an important concept related specifically to transportation improvements included
in the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). A short summary from Municipal Research is helpful:
Concurrency is one of the goals of the Growth Management Act and refers to the timely
provision of public facilities and services relative to the demand for them. To maintain
concurrency means that adequate public facilities are in place to serve new development
as it occurs or within a specified time period. The Growth Management Act (GMA) gives
special attention to concurrency for transportation.
The GMA requires that transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate
development impacts need to be made concurrently with land development. RCW
36.70A.070(6)(b). “Concurrent with the development” is defined by the GMA to mean
that any needed "improvements or strategies are in place at the time of development, or
that a financial commitment is in place to complete the improvements or strategies within
six years." RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). Local governments have flexibility regarding how to
apply concurrency within their plans, regulations, and permit systems.
As part of the requirement to develop a comprehensive plan, jurisdictions are required to
establish level-of-service standards (LOS) for arterials, transit service, and other
facilities. RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a). Once a jurisdiction sets an LOS, it is used to determine
whether the impacts of a proposed development can be met through existing capacity
and/or to decide what level of additional facilities will be required. Transportation is the
only area of concurrency that specifies denial of development. However, local
jurisdictions must have a program to correct existing deficiencies and bring existing
transportation facilities and services up to locally adopted standards. A developer may
not be required to pay for improvements to correct existing deficiencies.
(Retrieved from MRSC.org, http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/planning/curren.aspx
Concurrency is particularly important concept in the current CFP discussion because one project
(the Five Corners Roundabout) is tied to an existing concurrency issue – i.e. the project is
MEMORANDUM
Packet Page 256 of 404
intended to address a current level of service (LOS) deficit. This is different from other projects
that are intended to address deficiencies that occur in the future.
Generally, under the Growth Management Act, if the City’s CFP does not include solutions to
LOS deficits, the City has a responsibility to do some combination of:
1. Re-evaluate the adopted level of service standards;
2. Re-evaluate the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan; or
3. Identify a new solution (or project) to solve the problem.
Because the Five Corners deficiency is a current problem, based on existing land use and traffic
patterns, #2 (above) will not lead to a solution. In this case, dropping the roundabout from the
CFP would likely necessitate that the City lower its level of service standards if no other solution
to the problem can be identified.
In conclusion, caution is advised when considering projects in the Capital Facilities Element that
relate to transportation concurrency. Depending on what action the Council takes, there may be
additional repercussions on City level of service standards and/or land use or transportation
systems beyond the specific project being considered.
Packet Page 257 of 404
AM-4440 Item #: 10.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Review
Committee:
Community/Development Services Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Proposed Ordinance adopting amendments to the Capital Facilities Plan Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Approve the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
On September 13, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed the proposed 2012-2017 Capital Facilities Plan
and Capital Improvement Program.
On September 27, 2011, the proposed 2012-2017 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement
Program were presented to the Council for review and discusion.
On October 4, 2011, a Public Hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan Element Update for 2012-2017 to the
City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement Program was held and Council recommended
further discussion on five projects (Five Corners Roundabout, 9th Ave transportation improvements,
Traffic Calming Program, 4th Ave Cultural Corridor and Public Market).
On December 6, 2011, City Council requested that another Public Hearing be held on December 20, 2011
regarding the Five Corners Roundabout and Caspers @ 9th Ave. projects.
Narrative
The proposed ordinance will amend the Capital Facilities Plan element of the Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan to include the 2011 Capital Facilities Plan (Exhibit A). This action will complete the once-a-year
comprehensive plan amendment process consistent with the procedural requirements of the GMA.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Ordinance
Exhibit A - Capital Facilities Plan
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 12/14/2011 05:39 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 12/14/2011 05:57 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 08:40 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:52 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:57 AM
Packet Page 258 of 404
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:57 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 12/14/2011 05:01 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 259 of 404
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a public participation process for calendar
year 2011; and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011, the CS/DS Committee reviewed the
proposed 2012-2017 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2011, the proposed 2012-2017 Capital Facilities
Plan and Capital Improvement Program were presented to the Council for review and discussion;
and
WHEREAS, the Capital Facilities Plan was presented to the Planning Board on
September 28, 2011; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2011, a Public Hearing on the Capital Facilities Plan
Element Update for 2012-2017 to the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Capital Improvement
Program was held and Council recommended further discussion on the following five projects:
Five Corners Roundabout, 9th Avenue transportation improvements, Traffic Calming Program,
4th Avenue Cultural Corridor and Public Market; and
WHEREAS, the City Council was presented with additional information
regarding the five projects referenced above during its meeting on December 6, 2011; and
Packet Page 260 of 404
- 2 -
WHEREAS, a final hearing was scheduled on December 20, 2011 to provide
another opportunity for public comment on the 212th Street at 84th Avenue intersection
improvements (Five Corners Roundabout) and the Caspers Street at 9th Avenue W transportation
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is considering the proposed amendments to the
Capital Facilities Plan in conjunction with Medical / Highway 99 Activity Center and Odgers
Comprehensive Plan amendments that are being acted upon in a separate ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council expressly finds that, consistent with the
requirements of RCW 36.70A.130, the adoption of these amendments (albeit in separate
ordinances) complies with the requirements of the Growth Management Act, that said
amendments have been considered by the City Council concurrently, that the City Council
ascertained cumulative effect of the various proposals, that the City Council finds the changes to
be internally consistent, and that their cumulative effect is consistent with the purpose and intent
of both the Growth Management Act and the City’s Comprehensive Plan, NOW THEREFORE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Packet Page 261 of 404
- 3 -
Section 1. The Capital Facilities Plan element of the Edmonds Comprehensive
Plan is hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein.
Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
JEFF TARADAY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 262 of 404
- 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, 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
AMENDMENTS TO THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; 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 ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
4814-2355-3038, v. 1
Packet Page 263 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT
2012-2017
1Packet Page 264 of 404
2Packet Page 265 of 404
CFP
GENERAL
3Packet Page 266 of 404
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
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
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
$3
0
,
0
0
0
R
E
E
T
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
$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
R
E
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
C
i
t
y
G
.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
To
t
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
$0
C
a
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
$
5
5
5
,
0
0
0
R
E
E
T
2
$5
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Gr
a
n
t
s
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
,
5
5
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
,
0
5
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
6-
8
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
To
t
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$4
,
5
8
5
,
0
0
0
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$
2
,
0
8
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
2
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
`
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
5
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
.
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
)
.
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
.
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
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
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
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
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
20
1
8
-
2
0
2
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
20
1
2
2
0
1
3
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
20
1
7
20
1
4
(2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
20
1
6
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
_
d
r
a
f
t
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
_
0
8
.
3
1
.
1
1
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
_
C
F
P
9/
2
9
/
2
0
1
1
4Packet Page 267 of 404
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: 2012-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
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 268 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Art Center / Art Museum ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,030,000
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: 2012-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study $30,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000 $5,000,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
6Packet Page 269 of 404
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: 2012-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
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 270 of 404
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: 2012-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
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 271 of 404
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: 2012-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
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 272 of 404
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,000,000-
$8,000,000
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: 2012-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study $2,055,000 $100,000 $2,200,000 $200,000
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $2,055,000 $100,000 $2,200,000 $200,000 $6m - $8m
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
10Packet Page 273 of 404
PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities
Maintenance & Operations 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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
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 274 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 its 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 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $4m -$10m
12Packet Page 275 of 404
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing
WSDOT Ferry / Multimodal Facility
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: 2012-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-
2025
Engineering &
Administration
Right of Way
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
13Packet Page 276 of 404
14Packet Page 277 of 404
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
15Packet Page 278 of 404
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
2
-
2
0
2
5
)
Sa
f
e
t
y
/
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
$3
5
9
,
4
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$
2
7
9
,
4
0
0
$
8
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
9
0
0
,
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
,
9
0
0
,
0
0
0
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
D
e
s
g
i
n
/
R
O
W
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
6
,
1
0
0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$
4
3
,
6
0
0
$
1
2
,
5
0
0
$2
,
4
1
5
,
5
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
3
2
3
,
0
0
0
$
9
2
,
5
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
)
$6
6
4
,
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
$
5
3
3
,
0
0
0
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
1
4
,
5
0
0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
1
,
5
0
0
$
8
3
,
0
0
0
$8
7
9
,
0
0
0
T
o
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
)
$1
0
,
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
0
,
0
0
0
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$9
3
8
,
6
6
7
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
5
1
,
7
1
5
$
6
8
6
,
9
5
2
$1
,
5
4
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
)
$1
,
5
4
6
,
0
0
0
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
D
e
s
g
i
n
/
R
O
W
$
8
2
,
0
0
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$8
2
,
0
0
0
$1
4
6
,
4
3
6
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
3
9
,
2
8
5
$1
0
7
,
1
5
1
$2
,
7
1
3
,
1
0
3
T
o
t
a
l
$
2
9
1
,
0
0
0
$
7
9
4
,
1
0
3
$
1
,
6
2
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
)
$1
0
,
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
0
,
0
0
0
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
T
o
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
)
$1
7
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
)
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
$3
9
7
,
6
8
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
0
6
,
5
6
4
$
9
1
,
1
1
6
$3
,
4
0
2
,
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
,
4
0
2
,
0
0
0
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
D
e
s
g
i
n
/
R
O
W
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
2
,
3
2
0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$4
8
,
4
3
6
$
1
3
,
8
8
4
$3
,
8
6
2
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
3
5
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
4
0
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
)
$0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$0
T
o
t
a
l
$1
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
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
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
.
S
(
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
So
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
)
20
1
8
-
2
0
2
5
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
.
@
7
6
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
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
r
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
Re
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
b
y
co
n
v
e
r
t
i
n
g
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
(
2
)
l
a
n
e
s
f
o
r
bo
t
h
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
n
d
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
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
no
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Ii
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
-
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
LO
S
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
.
22
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
@
7
6
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
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
.
20
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
Im
p
r
o
v
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
t
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
y
st
o
p
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
N
B
an
d
S
B
t
o
a
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
4
20
1
2
2
0
1
3
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
Re
a
l
i
g
n
h
i
g
h
l
y
s
k
e
w
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
to
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
;
c
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
w
e
a
s
t
-
w
e
s
t
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
R
-
9
9
a
n
d
I
-
5
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
22
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
S
a
f
e
t
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
de
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
a
y
a
n
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
\
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
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
_
0
8
.
3
1
.
1
1
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
1
16Packet Page 279 of 404
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
2
-
2
0
2
5
)
20
1
8
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
4
20
1
2
2
0
1
3
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
)
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
2
2
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$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
)
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
0
,
2
1
1
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
,
2
1
1
,
0
0
0
$0
(Fe
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
,
9
3
2
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$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
)
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
,
0
7
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$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
)
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$9
0
6
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$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
)
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$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
)
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
9
3
,
0
0
0
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
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
)
.
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
.
Ca
s
p
e
r
s
S
t
.
@
9
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
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
.
84
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
(
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
2
3
8
t
h
St
.
S
W
)
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
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
Ii
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
.
@
1
7
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
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
Wi
d
e
n
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
a
d
d
a
L
T
l
a
n
e
an
d
a
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
.
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
L
T
p
h
a
s
e
f
o
r
N
B
a
n
d
S
B
.
Wi
d
e
n
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
a
d
d
a
W
B
ri
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
Co
n
v
e
r
t
a
l
l
-
w
a
y
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
Ii
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
\
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
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
_
0
8
.
3
1
.
1
1
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
1
17Packet Page 280 of 404
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
2
-
2
0
2
5
)
20
1
8
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
4
20
1
2
2
0
1
3
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
No
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
$6
4
1
,
3
8
8
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
4
1
,
3
8
8
$0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
T
I
B
D
e
s
i
g
n
/
C
o
n
s
t
.
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Gr
a
n
t
$
2
4
9
,
0
0
0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$2
4
9
,
0
0
0
$8
9
0
,
3
8
8
T
o
t
a
l
$
8
9
0
,
3
8
8
$0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$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
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$7
7
7
,
0
0
0
T
o
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
)
$0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
2
,
0
8
5
,
0
0
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
6
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$2
,
0
8
5
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$4
1
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
)
$3
2
,
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
2
,
0
0
0
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$3
2
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$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
)
$6
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
)
$6
3
,
0
0
0
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$6
3
,
0
0
0
T
o
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
)
$7
9
,
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
)
$7
9
,
0
0
0
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$7
9
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
7
9
,
0
0
0
$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
)
$7
,
0
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
)
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$7
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
7
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$5
,
0
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
)
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$5
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
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
)
$7
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
)
$1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
7
3
,
0
0
0
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
P
r
e
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
$
1
2
4
,
0
0
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
6
,
0
0
0
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$9
1
7
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
1
3
8
,
0
0
0
$
7
7
9
,
0
0
0
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
B
e
l
l
S
t
.
t
o
Ca
s
p
e
r
s
S
t
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
o
n
w
e
s
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
st
r
e
e
t
,
f
a
c
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
.
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
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
.
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
pa
r
k
s
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
5
t
h
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
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 to
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
to
S
h
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
w
i
t
h
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
bi
c
y
c
l
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
22
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
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
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
\
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
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
_
0
8
.
3
1
.
1
1
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
1
18Packet Page 281 of 404
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
2
-
2
0
2
5
)
20
1
8
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
4
20
1
2
2
0
1
3
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
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
7
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
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$6
7
5
,
0
0
0
T
o
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
)
$0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
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
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
T
o
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
)
$0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
T
o
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
)
$0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
T
o
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
$
1
,
1
0
0
,
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
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
6
3
,
0
0
0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
2
6
3
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
6
3
,
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
)
$0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$8
1
2
,
0
0
0
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$0
T
o
t
a
l
$8
1
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
)
$0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
2
4
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$0
T
o
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
)
$0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$0
T
o
t
a
l
$1
7
5
,
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
Cr
e
a
t
e
m
o
r
e
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
r
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
a
l
o
n
g
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
18
9
t
h
P
l
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
8
0
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
t
o
78
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
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
.
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
.
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
:
r
o
l
l
e
d
c
u
r
b
/
u
n
s
a
f
e
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
)
a
l
o
n
g
a
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
w
i
t
h
h
i
g
h
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
sc
h
o
o
l
.
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
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
2
-
2
0
1
7
\
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
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
_
0
8
.
3
1
.
1
1
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
1
19Packet Page 282 of 404
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
2
-
2
0
2
5
)
20
1
8
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
4
20
1
2
2
0
1
3
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
)
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$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
)
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$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
)
$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
5
,
0
0
0
(U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$1
7
,
4
8
0
,
9
9
1
An
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$
1
,
9
4
4
,
3
8
8
$
1
,
0
2
1
,
6
0
3
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
8
8
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
6
0
2
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
0
1
8
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
,
9
8
8
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
s
So
u
r
c
e
20
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
-
2
0
2
5
$2
,
3
4
9
,
1
3
5
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
4
9
1
,
0
6
7
$
8
5
8
,
0
6
8
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
1
,
2
2
4
,
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
)
$0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
7
,
2
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
9
7
9
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
9
3
5
,
0
0
0
$0
$2
,
9
8
6
,
0
0
0
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
$0
$0
$0
$
4
4
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
4
1
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
1
,
7
7
7
,
0
0
0
$9
2
1
,
3
5
6
Lo
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
$4
5
3
,
3
2
1
$
1
4
3
,
5
3
5
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
1
,
5
0
0
$
8
3
,
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
.
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
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
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
\
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
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
_
0
8
.
3
1
.
1
1
9/
2
2
/
2
0
1
1
20Packet Page 283 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 212th St. SW / 84th Ave.
W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,535,000
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 and yield signs placed at each approach.
Installation will require the acquisition of right of way adjacent to the intersection.
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: A federal grant was secured for the design and right of way phases (scheduled
for 2011 – 2013). Construction scheduled for 2015 (pending grant funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$323,000 $92,500
Construction $2,000,000
1% for Art *
TOTAL $323,000 $92,500 $2,000,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
21Packet Page 284 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2015 – 2016 and construction in 2017 (must meet an
MUTCD traffic signal warrant and get WSDOT approval such 196th St. SW is a State Route.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
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.
22Packet Page 285 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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: 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
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.
23Packet Page 286 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave W @ 212th St
SW Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,713, 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: A federal grant was secured for the design and right of way phases. Design and
right of way acquisition are scheduled for 2012-2013. Construction is scheduled for 2015
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
& ROW
$291,000 $794,103 $228,000
Construction $1,400,000
1% for Art *
TOTAL $291,000 $794,103 $1,628,000
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
24Packet Page 287 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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: 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
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.
25Packet Page 288 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2017 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$35,000
Construction $138,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $173,000
26Packet Page 289 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2012-2013, and
construction for 2015 (pending grant funding). In 2010, federal grant was secured for the
completion of design and ROW acquisition.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering,
Administration,
and ROW
$355,000 $105,000
Construction $3,402,000
1% for Art *
TOTAL $355,000 $105,000 $3,402,000
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
27Packet Page 290 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2018 and 2025 (unsecured
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$286,000
Construction $1,145,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,431,000
28Packet Page 291 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2018 and 2025 (unsecured
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$204,000
Construction $818,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,022,000
29Packet Page 292 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2018 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
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$2,042,000
Construction $8,169,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,211,000
30Packet Page 293 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2018 and 2025
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$786,000
Construction $3,146,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $3,932,000
31Packet Page 294 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2018 and 2025 (unsecured
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$815,000
Construction $3,264,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $4,079,000
32Packet Page 295 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2018 and 2025
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$180,000
Construction $726,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $906,000
33Packet Page 296 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2018 and 2025 (unsecured
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$220,000
Construction $873,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,093,000
34Packet Page 297 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2018 and 2025
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$220,000
Construction $873,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,093,000
35Packet Page 298 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Main St. Pedestrian
Lighting from 5th Ave. to 6th Ave.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $974,000
* 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.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Increase pedestrian safety and activity along the
Downtown Retail Core.
SCHEDULE: A federal grant was secured for the design and construction of this project.
Design and construction will be completed by 2012. The Utility Funds are contributing $229,000
to replace the water main and fund new stormwater improvements.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$51,688
Construction $838,700
1% for Art
TOTAL $890,388
36Packet Page 299 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2015 and 2016. Construction scheduled for 2017
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$30,000 $100,000
Construction $647,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000 $100,000 $647,000
37Packet Page 300 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Madrona Elementary
School Walkway (234th SW / 236th St. SW)
Long Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,085,000
* 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 2016, pending state funding (such as Pedestrian and
Bicycle Safety Grant)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$410,000
Construction $1,675,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $410,000 $1,675,000
38Packet Page 301 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 2nd Ave. S from James St.
to Main St. Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $32,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
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: 2017
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $32,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $32,000
39Packet Page 302 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2015 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $53,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $63,000
40Packet Page 303 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2015 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $69,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $79,000
41Packet Page 304 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Shell Valley Emergency
Access
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $600,000
* 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 for
completion in 2011.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $7,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $7,000
42Packet Page 305 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 226th St SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $213,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
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: The construction phase started in August 2011 and will be completed by October
2011. A grant was secured for $185,000 for design / construction phases.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000
43Packet Page 306 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway from
Bell St to Caspers St.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $917,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a sidewalk on the west side of the street, facing waterfront.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Design is scheduled in 2015 and construction in 2016 (pending grant funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$138,000
Construction $779,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $138,000 $779,000
44Packet Page 307 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2016 (project is dependent on obtaining a grant, such
as the “Safe Routes to School”).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$125,000
Construction $550,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $125,000 $550,000
45Packet Page 308 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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: Design scheduled for 2017 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 - 2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$190,000
Construction $760,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $190,000 $760,000
46Packet Page 309 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2015 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$20,000
Construction $200,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $220,000
47Packet Page 310 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2017 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $100,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $110,000
48Packet Page 311 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 4th Ave Corridor
Enhancement
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,263,000
* 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 2014 - 2015 (pending grant funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study $63,000
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000 $1,000,000
Construction $4,000,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $63,000 $200,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000
49Packet Page 312 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from 100th Av. W
to 104th Av. W
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 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 104th Av. W and 100th Av. W.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2018 and 2025 (unsecured
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$162,000
Construction $650,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $812,000
50Packet Page 313 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2018 and 2025
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction $1,049,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,249,000
51Packet Page 314 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2018 and 2025 (unsecured
funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$35,000
Construction $140,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000
52Packet Page 315 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2018 and 2025 (unsecured
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$35,000
Construction $140,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000
53Packet Page 316 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
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 2018 and 2025 (unsecured
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$210,000
Construction $840,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,050,000
54Packet Page 317 of 404
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Residential Neighborhood
Traffic Calming
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Varies
* 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: annual program
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
Construction $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $23,000 $23,000 $23,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000
55Packet Page 318 of 404
56Packet Page 319 of 404
CFP
STORMWATER
57Packet Page 320 of 404
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
2
-
2
0
2
5
)
$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
)
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
2
6
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$2
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
2
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
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
)
$6
7
5
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$
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
$
1
2
3
,
0
0
0
$6
7
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$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
$
1
2
3
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
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
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
1
0
0
,
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
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
(P
a
r
k
s
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
)
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$9
4
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
3
8
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
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
$0
$0
$0
(D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$0
$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
$2
,
3
2
5
,
0
0
0
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$
5
5
8
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
5
2
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
1
2
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
9
6
2
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
s
So
u
r
c
e
20
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
$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
0
0
,
0
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
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Pa
r
k
s
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2
,
2
2
5
,
0
0
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
)
$4
5
8
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
3
,
0
0
0
20
1
2
2
0
1
3
3-
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
t
w
o
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
y
e
a
r
'
s
C
F
P
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
D
a
y
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
)
1
-
2
0
1
2
v
a
l
u
e
i
s
5
0
%
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
v
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
p
i
l
e
s
.
5
0
%
p
a
i
d
b
y
w
a
t
e
r
+
s
e
w
e
r
f
u
n
d
s
.
5
1
1
F
u
n
d
w
i
l
l
c
o
v
e
r
P
h
a
s
e
2
i
n
20
1
3
-
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
W
a
s
h
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
b
y
Y
e
a
r
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
/
S
h
e
l
l
a
b
a
r
g
e
r
Cr
/
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
/
D
a
y
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
/
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
2&
3
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
g
a
t
e
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
b
e
t
t
e
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
,
a
n
d
r
e
m
o
v
e
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
.
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
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
.
Pe
r
r
i
n
v
i
l
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
H
i
g
h
F
l
o
w
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Fi
n
d
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
h
i
g
h
p
e
a
k
s
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w
s
c
a
u
s
e
d
b
y
e
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
r
u
n
o
f
f
t
h
a
t
e
r
o
d
e
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
a
m
,
c
a
u
s
e
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
ha
v
e
n
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
n
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
2-
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
i
n
2
0
1
2
i
s
S
t
o
r
m
F
u
n
d
m
o
n
e
y
t
o
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
w
i
t
h
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
f
r
o
m
p
a
r
k
s
t
o
m
a
t
c
h
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
g
r
a
n
t
;
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
s
t
u
d
y
f
o
r
tw
o
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
r
o
m
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
y
e
a
r
'
s
C
F
P
(
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
D
a
y
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
)
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
W
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
F
o
r
u
m
o
n
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
im
p
r
o
v
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
20
1
7
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
L
a
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
s
y
s
t
e
m
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
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
.
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
Pr
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
.
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
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
(C
o
v
e
r
f
o
r
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
P
i
l
e
s
)
1
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
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
P
e
r
m
i
t
(
N
P
D
E
S
)
20
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
Gr
a
n
t
O
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
Gr
a
n
t
/
D
a
t
e
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
(2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
58Packet Page 321 of 404
PROJECT NAME: Southwest Edmonds Basin
Study Project 2 – Connect Sumps near
Robinhood Lane – 1B
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $546,000
Sumps along Friar Tuck Lane
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 1600 ft of 12 inch diameter pipe (600 ft in the public right of
way and 1000 ft on private property), 4 manholes, and 9 new connections to the existing storm
drain system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Several sumps (dry wells) in the vicinity of Robin Hood
Drive in Southwest Edmonds overflow during large storm events. Over time they have clogged
and may cause flooding. Connecting the sumps to the City of Edmonds storm drain system
with an overflow pipe, to function in large storm events, will reduce the potential for flooding.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2017
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study $105,000 $441,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $105,000 $441,000
1. Total costs are in 2011 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%
59Packet Page 322 of 404
PROJECT NAME: Southwest Edmonds Basin
Study Project 3 – Connect Sumps on 238th St
SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System – 1C
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $553,000
Alignment of the proposed storm drain pipe along 238th St SW.
Existing catch basin sumps in the foreground.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 825 ft of 12 inch diameter pipe, replace 950 ft of existing 12
inch diameter pipe, 3 manholes, and 12 new connections to the existing storm drain system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Several sumps (dry wells) along 238th St SW in
Southwest Edmonds are not functioning properly. They have become clogged and are
contributing to area flooding during large storm events. Connecting the sumps to the City of
Edmonds infiltration system in Hickman Park will reduce the potential for flooding.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2017
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study $105,000 $448,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $105,000 $448,000
1. Total costs are in 2011 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%
60Packet Page 323 of 404
PROJECT NAME: 95th / 93rd St Drainage
Improvement Project - 5
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $226,000
Project area along 93rd Pl W, south of 224th St SW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install storm drain pipe, catch basins, and Low Impact
Development features, such as infiltration galleries and rain gardens.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The drainage system in the vicinity of 95th Pl W, 93rd
PL W, and 224th St SW is inadequate; therefore causing flooding. This area was annexed
into the City in October 1995. Installing a new stormwater infrastructure will handle the
stormwater runoff more efficiently and will reduce the potential for flooding.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2017
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study $26,000 $200,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $26,000 $200,000
1. Total costs are in 2011 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%
61Packet Page 324 of 404
PROJECT NAME: Lake Ballinger Associated
Projects - 7
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $675,000
Lake Ballinger
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work independently and with other members of the Greater Lake
Ballinger/McAleer Creek Watershed Forum to implement the Strategic Action Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Homes surrounding Lake Ballinger and McAleer Creek
have flooded during very large storm events. There are also significant water quality issues in
the watershed. Working with other entities will ensure cohesive standards between all
jurisdictions that will help reduce flooding and improve the water quality concerns.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2017
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study $102,000 $106,000 $110,000 $115,000 $119,000 $123,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $102,000 $106,000 $110,000 $115,000 $119,000 $123,000
1. Total costs are in 2011 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%
62Packet Page 325 of 404
PROJECT NAME: Public Works Yard Water
Quality Upgrades (Cover for Material Piles) - 9
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000
Existing Stockpiles
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide 12,000 square feet of covered space for
materials/aggregates at the Public Works Yard to meet requirements for the Federal and State
Clean Water Act. A vehicle wash station, formerly part of this project has been moved to the
Fleet 511B Fund for 2013. Users of the wash station would reimburse the fund.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Materials/aggregates are needed onsite due to daily
usage by the Public Works Operations Crews Providing coverage will allow for the City to meet
the requirements under the Federal and State Clean Water Act. The estimated cost of this
project is $250,000. Half will be paid by the stormwater utility and the other half by a
combination of water and sewer utility funds.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2017
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study $125,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $125,000
1. Total costs are in 2011 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%
63Packet Page 326 of 404
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds
Marsh/Shellabarger Cr/Willow Cr – 12 & 13
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $7,173,000
Edmonds Marsh as seen from the vie wing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source:
www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/gallery.php
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initially, conduct a feasibility study to improve drainage and assess
the potential for increasing salmonid habitat. The final project may include 23 acres of
revegetation, construct new tide gate to allow better connectivity to the Puget Sound, removal
of sediment, 1,100 linear ft of new creek channel lined with an impermeable membrane (6 ft
bottom width x 4 ft depth; 3H:1V side slopes)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The daylight of willow creek will help reverse the negative
impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped. It
will also help eliminate the sedimentation of the marsh and the transition to freshwater species
and provide habitat for salmonids.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2017
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study $150,000 $942,000 $2,381,000 $3,700,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $150,000 $942,000 $2,381,000 $3,700,000
1. Total costs are in 2011 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%
64Packet Page 327 of 404
PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow
Management Project – 15
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $8,906,000
Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that
will be addressed by restoration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Following up on a basin study scheduled for 2013 (CIP project),
this project would implement recommendations in that plan for flow reduction in the Creek.
One possible option may include the construction of a high flow diversion pipe, 4560 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)
and 1,000 ft of streambank restoration.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Urbanization of the Perrinville Creek Basin has increased
flows in the creek, incision of the creek, and sedimentation in the low-gradient downstream
reaches of the creek. The high flow diversion pipe will divert high peak stream flows caused by
excessive stormwater runoff at the intersection of 76th Ave W and Olympic View Dr and reduce
the erosion to Perrinville Creek.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2017
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Planning/Study $3,199,000 $2,868,000 $2,839,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $3,199,000 $2,868,000 $2,839,000
1. Total costs are in 2011 dollars.
2. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2012 2%; 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%
65Packet Page 328 of 404
AM-4447 Item #: 12.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Review
Committee:
Public Safety Committee
Action:
Recommend Review by Full
Council
Type:Information
Information
Subject Title
Non Represented Salary and Benefits Study: Survey Comparators
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Council discuss and give staff guidance on survey comparators.
Previous Council Action
Council awarded a contract to Public Service Personnel Consultants ( PSPC) to complete a job
description update, a Non represented employee market survey, and update of the Non represented
compensation policy on October 18, 2011.
PSPC presented the scope of work and process to Council on October 25th, 2011.
PSPC presented recommended comparator cities to Council on December 6, 2011.
Narrative
PSPC was given direction from Council on December 6, 2011 about the survey comparators for the
nonrepresented salary survey and compensation policy update. Council voiced some concerns and gave
the consultant some guidance. Council requested the consultant to come back with three proposals of
survey comparators for consideration. Attached is the PSPC memo with three proposals with the pros
and cons outlined.
Matt Weatherly will not be present at the Council meeting, but will be available by phone if needed.
Attachments
Draft Models
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 03:56 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 04:40 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 04:41 PM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 12/15/2011
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 329 of 404
Page 1
To: City Council
From: Matt Weatherly, President PSPC
Re: Comparison Cities for Non-Represented Compensation Survey
Pursuant to Council request, please accept the following memo outlining the suggested
comparator cities for the non-represented total compensation survey. Because the number of
vacancies filled and number applicants hired is far less than the number of current Edmonds staff,
the recommended model focuses on Puget Sound Basin cities within close commuting distance.
Note: Populations in 1,000’s from State of Washington Revenue Allocation Fund documentation.
RECOMMENDED MODEL – PUGET SOUND BASIN
Modified to reflect Council concerns, the following list of area cities is the recommended model:
Auburn (71) Issaquah (31) Puyallup (37)
Bellevue (123) Kent (118) Redmond (55)
Bothell (34) Kirkland (49) * Renton (93)
Bremerton (39) Lynnwood (36) Sammamish (47)
Burien (48) Marysville (61) SeaTac (27)
Des Moines (30) Mercer Island (23) Shoreline (53)
Everett (103) Mill Creek (18) Tukwila (19)
Federal Way (89) Mukilteo (20)
Benefits: best represents the geographical area Edmonds competes in for staff; requires
no cost of living adjustments; includes cities Council mentioned on 12/6.
Pitfalls: minimal pitfalls; director-level comparisons 75K + could be adjusted for “fit”
* pre-2011 annexation population
ALTERNATIVE MODEL – ALREADY USED IN EDMONDS UNION NEGOTIATIONS
The following Council-approved cities have been utilized in recent Edmonds union negotiations:
Auburn (71) Lake Stevens (28) SeaTac (27)
Bothell (34) Lakewood (58) Shoreline (53)
Burien (48) Lynnwood (36) University Place (31)
Des Moines (30) Marysville (61)
Federal Way (89) Puyallup (37)
Issaquah (31) Redmond (55)
Kent (118) Renton (93)
Kirkland (49) Sammamish (47)
Benefits: ensures consistency between union and non-represented compensation growth;
dominated by cities within close commuting distance to Edmonds.
Pitfalls: minimal pitfalls; director-level comparisons 75K + could be adjusted for “fit”;
Packet Page 330 of 404
Page 2
NOT RECOMMENDED
Current “4 Up, 4 Down” Model
Following the current Edmonds non-represented compensation policy, comparisons are made
with 4 cities immediately smaller and 4 cities immediately larger than Edmonds within King,
Snohomish, and Pierce Counties (note some contract cities that may fit this criteria are not used):
Bothell (34) Lynnwood (36)
Burien (48) Puyallup (37)
Issaquah (31) Sammamish (47)
Kirkland (49) Shoreline (53)
Benefits: no “size fit” adjustments needed
Pitfalls: too limited and includes contract cities; will perpetuate compression between
union and non-represented positions in that several of the nearby cities included
in union comparisons are missing; not reflective of true Seattle-area competition;
list could change year to year.
NOT RECOMMENDED
Statewide Cities 30K-50K Population
Utilizing cities state-wide that are similar in population to Edmonds:
Bremerton (39) Lacey (43) Pullman (30)
Burien (48) Longview (37) Puyallup (37)
Des Moines (30) Lynnwood (36) Sammamish (47)
Issaquah (31) Mount Vernon (32) Wenatchee (32)
Kirkland (49) Olympia (47)
Benefits: no “size fit” adjustments needed
Pitfalls: too complex to administer due to significant cost-of-living differentials would need
to be calculated and applied to calculate true job values; will perpetuate
compression between union and non-represented positions in that several of the
nearby cities included in union comparisons are missing; not reflective of true
Seattle-area competition.
Packet Page 331 of 404
AM-4417 Item #: 13.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Stephen Clifton Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Department:Community Services
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Extension of sunset date for Citizens Economic Development Commission.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Recommend approving attached ordinance extending the sunset date of the Economic Development
Commission to December 31, 2014.
Previous Council Action
April 21, 2009 - The Edmonds City Council approved Resolution No. 1198 related to addressing
long-term revenue challenges facing the City of Edmonds.
June 2, 2009 - The Edmonds City Council approved Ordinance 3735 which amended the Edmonds City
Code, Title 10, to add a new Chapter 10.75, thus creating a Citizens Economic Development Commission.
October 5, 2011 - The Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance No. 3808 amending the provisions of
ECC 10/75.010(B) which extended the sunset date for the Economic Development Commission one year
to December 31, 2011.
Narrative
Following several presentations by members of the 2009 Levy Review Committee, the City Council
approved Resolution No. 1198 which directed staff to create an ordinance forming a Citizens' Economic
Development Commission (EDC) for the purposes of determining new strategies for economic
development within the City of Edmonds, and identifying potential new sources of revenue. On June 2,
2009, the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance 3735, which amended the Edmonds City Code, Title
10, adding a new Chapter 10.75 Citizens Economic Development Commission. The provisions of
Ordinance establishing the EDC was to expire on December 31, 2010.
As mentioned earlier, the Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance No. 3808 which extended the sunset
date one year to December 31, 2011. During the November 16, 2011 EDC meeting, commissioners
discussed the topic of further extending the sunset date and asked whether there is interest by the City
Council to extend the sunset date. There was a consensus by EDC members that the sunset date should
be extended in order to continue a concentrated effort on addressing economic development related
matters, and if this were to happen, the extension time frame should exceed one year with City staff
suggesting up to 3 years.
Regarding the appointment of EDC members, City staff is recommending that the City Council initiate a
similar process used for selecting and appointing initial EDC members in year 2009. More specifically,
the City would issue a press release similar to what was issued on June 4, 2009 (see attached) soliciting
Packet Page 332 of 404
the City would issue a press release similar to what was issued on June 4, 2009 (see attached) soliciting
interested citizens to fill out and submit an application to the City. The applications would then be
forwarded to the City Council for their review and consideration prior to appointing EDC members. If
the City Council chooses to extend the sunset date 3yrs, the Council could also consider staggering
terms, e.g., one appointment would be for 2 years and the second appointment would be for 3 years. This
would work well if in the future the City Council chooses to extend the sunset date beyond a 3-year
timeframe. In order to maintain some continuity on, and institutional memory within the EDC, City staff
recommends encouraging existing EDC members to submit an application for reappointment. Applicants
will be asked to identify whether they currently serve on the EDC.
Attachments
Draft Ordinance Extending the Sunset Date of the EDC to December 31, 2014
Resolution 1198
Ordinance 3735 Creating CEDC
Resolution 1224
June 4, 2009 Press Release
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/12/2011 03:08 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:57 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:58 AM
Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 12/07/2011
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 333 of 404
- 1 -
ORDINANCE NO. _______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF ECC
10.75.010(B) IN ORDER TO EXTEND A SUNSET DATE FOR
THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR AN
ADDITIONAL THIRTY SIX (36) MONTHS, AND FIXING A
TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the Citizens Economic Development Commission was established
by Ordinance No. 3735 in order to make recommendations to the City Council and the other
commissions of the City in order to develop new strategies for economic development within the
City and identify new sources of revenue for consideration, and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds City Council deemed it appropriate to extend the life
of the Commission for an additional twelve months and approved Ordinance 3808 on October 5,
2010, thus extending the sunset date of the Economic Development Commission to December
31, 2011, and
WHEREAS, the continuing economic crisis affecting both the nation and the City
of Edmonds has created a continuing situation in which the City Council deems it appropriate to
extend the life of the Commission for an additional thirty six (36) months, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Packet Page 334 of 404
- 2 -
Section 1. The Edmonds City Code, Section 10.75.010 Commission created -
membership.
10.75.010 Commission created - membership.
, subsection B, relating to the Citizens Economic Development Commission is
hereby amended to read as follows:
. . .
B. The term of appointments of Economic Development
Commission members shall serve thirty six (36) months until
December 31, 2014, unless that date is extended by action of the
City Council. The authority for the Commission shall also
automatically sunset and expire on December 31, 2014.
Section 2. Effective Date
APPROVED:
. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
MAYOR DAVE EARLING
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
Jeffrey B. Taraday, City Attorney
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
PUBLISHED:
Packet Page 335 of 404
- 3 -
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORDINANCE NO.
Packet Page 336 of 404
- 4 -
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2011, the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
passed Ordinance No. _____________. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting
of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF ECC 10.75.010(B) IN ORDER TO EXTEND A SUNSET DATE FOR THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOR THREE ADDITIONAL YEARS, 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 ________________, 2011.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
4822-1816-8334, v. 2
Packet Page 337 of 404
Packet Page 338 of 404
Packet Page 339 of 404
Packet Page 340 of 404
Packet Page 341 of 404
Packet Page 342 of 404
Packet Page 343 of 404
Packet Page 344 of 404
Press Release
City of Edmonds
Mayor Gary Haakenson
June 4, 2009
For Immediate Release
To: Edmonds City Council
The Edmonds Beacon editor@edmondsbeacon.com
The Edmonds Enterprise edmonds@heraldnet.com
The Everett Herald newstips@heraldnet.com
cfyall@heraldnet.com
The Seattle Times lthompson@seattletimes.com
KIRO-TV jorsillo@kirotv.com
Contact: Stephen Clifton, Community Services & Economic Development Director
425.775.7724
City seeks applicants for new economic development commission
(Edmonds - WA) The City Council recently authorized the formation of a citizens commission to
address the specific issues related to economic development within the city of Edmonds.
The Citizens Economic Development Commission will determine new strategies for economic
development within the city of Edmonds; design strategies to improve commercial viability and
tourism development; and identify new sources of revenue for consideration by the Edmonds
City Council. In addition to its other duties, the commission will work in conjunction with the
Planning Board to review and consider economic development strategies.
Each councilmember may appoint up to two members; the mayor may appoint up to three
members. Commission members must reside within Edmonds city limits. Meetings of the
commission will be held at a time and place determined by the commission chair or a majority of
the members of the commission. The commission will be in effect through December 31, 2010.
Interested individuals may pick up an application at the reception desk in the lobby of City Hall
located at 121 5th Ave. N., or call 425.771.0247 to receive an application by mail or email.
Applications must be submitted by 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 30, 2009.
# # #
Packet Page 345 of 404
AM-4428 Item #: 14.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Strom Peterson Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Department:Community Services
Review
Committee:
Committee
Action:
Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Transportation Partnership - Seeking City of Edmonds Support.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
City administration recommends Edmonds City Council express support for Transportation Partnership
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Our state’s economic health and livability is fundamentally linked to an efficient transportation system.
Following nearly a decade of major investments, funding is now depleted and our state faces a significant
transportation crisis. Growing demand for congestion relief, infrastructure preservation and transit service
are far out pacing declining funding.
The Transportation Partnership is a coalition of business, labor, local government and environmental
representatives from around the state who are advocating for a comprehensive solution to our
transportation challenges. Participation is open to all organizations interested in advancing a balanced
statewide funding package. The Transportation Partnership, believes the next transportation improvement
package should:
• Invest in infrastructure to create near?term jobs and long term economic vitality through the
efficient movement of goods and services.
• Fund an integrated multi?modal transportation system with city, county, transit, port
and state governments.
• Advance economic and environmental objectives, such as freight movement and
stormwater management.
• Improve project delivery and accountability, and leverage local, state and federal funds.
• Provide balance among geographic, modal and mobility needs and goals.
An overview of the Transportation Partnership is attached.
On December 6, 2011, over 150 people were able to attend a 'big tent' meeting in Seattle which
included business, labor, local government and environmental representatives. Welcoming remarks were
given by Duke Schaub, Phil Bussey and Cliff Traisman, the case for investment by Transportation
Secretary Paula Hammond, an update on the Connecting WA Task Force effort by Jennifer Ziegler and
John Howell, a presentation on the political landscape (see attached) by Christian Sinderman, the results
of a recent Transportation Commission survey (see attached) by Andrew Thibault, and remarks on the
effort to move a proposal forward by Governor Gregoire’s Chief of Staff Marty Loesch. The group then
discussed the challenges and opportunities ahead, and the importance of sticking together over the next
Packet Page 346 of 404
weeks and months. The list of coalitions, businesses, labor unions, public agencies, elected officials and
former elected officials who have signed on in support of the partnership is attached — currently there
are over 75 companies and organizations who “support moving forward with a balanced, multi-modal
transportation funding package in 2012 that creates near-term jobs and long-term economic benefits”.
Attachments
Overview of Transportation Partnership
Transportation Partnership List of Supporters
December 6, 2011 presentation on the political landscape
Results of a recent Transportation Commission survey
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works Phil Williams 12/14/2011 05:54 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:57 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 01:35 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 01:38 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 01:51 PM
Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 12/09/2011 02:35 PM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 347 of 404
The Transportation Partnership
A Strategy for our Economic Health and Mobility
The Challenge
Our state’s economic health and livability is fundamentally linked to an efficient transportation system.
Following nearly a decade of major investments, funding is now depleted and we face a significant
transportation crisis. Growing demand for congestion relief, infrastructure preservation and transit
service are far out pacing declining funding. If we don’t invest, we place our state’s economic
competitiveness , jobs and recovery at risk. A recommitment to our transportation system is needed.
Progress Has Been Made
The Nickel Gas Tax increase of 2003 and the Transportation
Partnership Act of 2005 were critical steps in the right
direction. WSDOT has delivered nearly all of the projects
funded by these packages on time and on budget. Several
billion dollars‐worth of roads and transit projects are currently
under construction across the state and providing good jobs
when we need them most.
But the Need is Still Great
Our state will grow by more than 2.5 million people by 2030 and the need for transportation
improvements to meet our current and future growth cannot be met with current funds. Coupled with
declining gas and sales tax revenue, our state is on the cusp of a transportation crisis.
The Opportunity
We have a tremendous opportunity in the 2011 legislative session
and beyond to continue the progress we’ve made to ensure our
state’s economic and transportation needs are met.
The Transportation Partnership, a statewide coalition of business,
labor, local government and environmental representatives, believes
the next transportation improvement package should:
• Invest in infrastructure to create near‐term jobs and long term economic vitality through the
efficient movement of goods and services.
• Fund an integrated multi‐modal transportation system with city, county, transit, port
and state governments.
• Advance economic and environmental objectives, such as freight movement and
stormwater management.
• Improve project delivery and accountability, and leverage local, state and federal funds.
• Provide balance among geographic, modal and mobility needs and goals.
For more information or to be added to the Partnership’s mailing list, contact Charles Knutson at charlesk@seattlechamber.com
Packet Page 348 of 404
DRAFT
Last updated November 30, 2011
COALITIONS
Packet Page 349 of 404
DRAFT
Last updated November 30, 2011
Packet Page 350 of 404
Lessons from 2011 and 2012 Political Landscape
Packet Page 351 of 404
Lessons from 2011
Voters embraced things they knew, trusted and
understood:
Light Rail to Bellevue
520 replacement and funding
C-Tran (Clark County)
Seattle Deep Bore Tunnel
Safety and Thrift Generally
Packet Page 352 of 404
More Lessons from 2011
Voters rejected measure they didn’t understand or
didn’t believe were needed:
Seattle $60 fee (no clear immediate need, not tied to
specific transit investments)
Pierce Transit (bad press about admin and labor costs,
teeth of recession)
Red Light Cameras (intrusive)
Packet Page 353 of 404
1125 Results: King over 60% No
Packet Page 354 of 404
2012 Electorate
30% larger than 2011 (52% to 80% plus)
Younger and More Urban
More Transit Friendly
Jobs will remain #1 issue
Central Puget Sound (as always) key to statewide
issues with revenue
Packet Page 355 of 404
Just how different is electorate?
Packet Page 356 of 404
Next Steps
If past measures are any precedent, we know a little
about what voters want in a measure:
Clear objectives (safety; mobility; jobs)
Short and long term benefits
Proven cost-effectiveness
Understandable revenue source
Not too big…. But not too small
Packet Page 357 of 404
2011 Statewide
Transportation Survey
Summary Report of Findings
Presented to the Transportation Partnership
December 6, 2011
Packet Page 358 of 404
2 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Research Overview
Goal
To provide WSTC, the Governor, and the Legislature with clear and accurate data about the
attitudes, perceptions, and priorities that drive residents’ thinking about transportation
needs and funding.
The data and analysis will help inform specific transportation funding, program and
investment decisions.
Approach
Reach out to a random sample of 100,000 adult residents in Washington state to
participate in an online transportation survey (the survey could also be taken by phone).
Structure the sample based on the state’s 14 Regional Transportation Planning
Organizations (RTPOs) so that each region has statistically valid data for comparison.
Collect a minimum of 5,000 interviews. A total of 5,518 responses demographically
representative surveys were collected September 16th and October 24th, 2011. Results
were weighted by RTPO and other key demographics to reflect the statewide adult
population based on the 2010 Census.
Offer a companion public survey for the public to share their views (4,060 completes to
date) and to help build a panel for future research (over 7,300 signups to date).
Packet Page 359 of 404
3 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Regional Transportation Planning Organizations
PSRC counties make
up 51% of the State.
Packet Page 360 of 404
4 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Notes
•There was one survey questionnaire, administered via two approaches:
Approach 1: 100,000 randomly selected households received a post card inviting them to take the
survey online or by phone. This random survey ran from September 16th to October 24th, 2011.
Approach 2: The survey was posted on the WSTC web site in early October, opening it up to those
who did not get a post card invite in the mail. The data collected via this “open” approach is being
kept separate from the random survey data and the results will be tabulated separately so as to
provide further input as well as to serve as a comparative point against the random/statistically
valid survey.
•This presentation only covers the results for the 5,518 completes from the random, by invitation
survey. The results from the open, public survey are not included.
•To minimize self-selection bias the survey: 1) offered multiple ways (web and phone) to
participate, 2) used an aggressive follow up strategy (phone and mail) to encourage participation,
and 3) was regularly monitored and compared to 2010 Census data based on key demographics.
•The Puget Sound Regional Council, which includes King, Pierce and Snohomish counties, makes up
51.4% of the state and, therefore, has a significant impact on the statewide results.
•San Juan County is not part of any RTPO, but for the purposes of this study San Juan County is
included in the Island/Skagit RTPO. Kitsap County is a member of both the Peninsula RTPO and the
PSRC. For the purposes of this study, Kitsap County is only included in the Peninsula RTPO.
Packet Page 361 of 404
Summary of Findings
Packet Page 362 of 404
6 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Key Findings
1.Most residents do not see the transportation system’s needs or funding situation as immediately
critical, however they still feel it is urgent to maintain an effective transportation system now and
in the future.
2.Even though most residents are not convinced that the immediate need is critical, a strong
majority are still willing to consider raising “some transportation taxes & fees.” However, only 3
of the 9 specific revenue sources tested – electric vehicle fee, emissions fee, and tolling – receive
majority support as ways to fund increased transportation investment.
3.Information about the urgency of the funding need does not appear to be an effective way to
increase support for new revenue. Support does increase several percentage points after
descriptions of the benefits of increased transportation investment.
4.Residents across the state place a high importance on maintenance and preservation and there
are also clear regional priorities - e.g. transit, year round roads, ferries.
5.Tolling has majority support across the state – including Variable Tolls and Express Toll Lanes –
and a majority favor using toll revenue to fund improvements within a travel corridor rather than
just on the specific facility.
6.Increased state funding for transit and passenger rail has strong support in most of the state.
7.There is strong support for state funding of the ferry system, although initial support is primarily
driven by strong numbers in the areas that rely on the ferry system.
Packet Page 363 of 404
Overall Attitudes about the
Washington’s Transportation System
Packet Page 364 of 404
8 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Maintaining an Effective Transportation System
Q1. How urgent do you feel it is to make sure Washington’s transportation system works effectively
today and into the future? (*not asked relative to other state priorities)
45%
32%
13%
6%
2% 1% 1%
7: Extremely
Urgent
654321: Not at all
Urgent
Mean: 6.08
Urgent (5-7): 90%
Not urgent (1-3): 4%
Packet Page 365 of 404
9 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Grading the Transportation System
Q2. Using an A, B, C, D or F grading scale, how would you rate Washington’s transportation system overall?
Q7. How would you rate the transportation system in your local area - that is in your city or town and the areas
immediately surrounding it?
Q9. How would you rate the transportation system in your region – that is in your county and nearby counties?
24%
27%
23%
46%
43%
52%
30%
30%
25%
Statewide
In your
local area
In your
region
Q2, 7, & 9. Transportation System Grade
Above Average Average Below Average
“C” or
Better
70%
70%
75%
Packet Page 366 of 404
10 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Local System by RTPO
70
84 82 80 78 78 76 75 73 69 69 66
56 56 52
73
69 67
Q7. Local Transportation System Grade
”C” or Better
Grades somewhat higher in Urban areas – low in NE WA SW RTPO, Spokane.
Packet Page 367 of 404
11 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Funding Fairness by RTPO
Q5. What grade would you give the state for making sure your area of the state gets a fair share of transportation funding?
59 63 62 61 60 60 58 58 57 53 51 50 49
38 36
63 60
54
Q5. Funding Fairness
"C" or Better Grade
Majority “C” or Better in 10 of 14 RTPOs – weakest in Spokane & NE WA.
Packet Page 368 of 404
Transportation Priorities
Packet Page 369 of 404
13 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Prioritizing Transportation Objectives
Q12. There are a number of objectives our transportation system is designed to meet. If you had 100 points to divide
between the five objectives below, how many points would you assign to each objective?
For example, if you assign 25 points to “improving safety” that means you think “improving safety” should get 25%
of the focus. The total for the 5 objectives should add up to 100 points.
Maintaining the system: preserving and extending the life of our current transportation
system through ongoing maintenance of our roads, bridges, transit systems, ferries,
sidewalks and bike paths
26
Increasing capacity: improving the movement of goods and people through things like
widening existing roads, and building new roads to accommodate our growing population
and to connect more remote communities
23
Expanding travel options: giving people more options for getting around through things
like expanded public transit, more passenger rail, carpooling and bike and pedestrian
improvements
21
Improving safety: making our roads, bridges, transit systems, airports, ferries, sidewalks
and bike paths safer through things like improved design and increased enforcement 16
Protecting the environment: promoting transportation investments that help reduce air
and water pollution, conserve energy and minimize impacts on the environment 14
Packet Page 370 of 404
14 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Transportation Investments
Q14-Q24. Please indicate how important each of the following transportation components is to you.
51%
35%
28%
28%
19%
17%
14%
16%
15%
14%
6%
33%
21%
23%
23%
27%
26%
26%
21%
22%
16%
17%
85%
55%
51%
51%
46%
44%
40%
38%
37%
30%
23%
Q14) Maintain/repair roads
Q18) Add/increase passenger rail
Q17) Expand transit
Q15) More roads & hwys
Q21) Operate/maintain ferries
Q16) Year-round roads/mtn passes
Q23) Improve infrastructure at ports
Q24) Increase enforcement/safety
Q20) Build/improve sidewalks
Q19) Build bike lanes
Q22) Improve regional airports
5 - Extremely important 4 - Important
Packet Page 371 of 404
15 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Investments by RTPO
ALL BFWW NE
WA
N.
Central Palouse Penin-
sula PSRC Quad
Co
Skagit/
Island
Spok-
ane
SW
RTC
SW
RTPO
Thur-
ston
What-
com Yakima
Maintenance 85 91 88 85 83 89 82 85 84 92 88 89 83 82 88
Passenger rail 55 43 30 46 44 51 64 40 53 42 41 47 64 53 39
Expand transit 51 42 36 44 41 55 58 37 54 43 40 46 49 51 39
More roads 51 56 48 47 45 45 54 53 39 50 54 49 41 39 50
WA ferry system 46 32 26 35 27 80 50 38 69 29 31 36 35 54 27
Yr -round roads 44 56 68 76 63 44 36 64 43 56 40 54 34 37 72
Port infrastruct 40 38 27 36 43 43 40 49 33 38 46 44 33 33 40
Enforcmt/safety 38 40 35 32 30 33 36 44 39 40 46 43 35 38 48
Sidewalks 37 38 18 28 35 28 39 34 35 34 37 32 39 39 41
Bike lanes 30 31 21 31 27 33 30 30 35 34 26 23 30 43 27
Regional airport 23 32 16 30 34 19 20 31 20 33 22 21 19 33 28
Q14-Q24. This table shows the importance of the 11 transportation investments ranked by color– green squares
indicate the most important investments followed by yellow, and then red for the lowest rated. Scanning the table
for green squares indicates which investments are most important in each RTPO.
Maintenance is strong across the state – significant regional differences on others.
Packet Page 372 of 404
Revenue
Packet Page 373 of 404
17 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Is there enough revenue?
Q13. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
The State has enough revenue to keep our transportation system safe, effective and properly maintained.
Strongly
16%
Strongly
18%
Somewhat
27%
Somewhat
22%
43% 40%
17%
Agree Disagree Not sure
Q13. State has Enough Transportation Revenue
Packet Page 374 of 404
18 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Support for Additional Revenue
Q25. In general, would you support or oppose
raising some transportation taxes and fees to
increase funding for those transportation
elements you feel are important?
Strg
21%
Strg
20%
Smwt
38%
Smwt
16%
59%
37%
4%
Support Oppose Not sure
Q25. Initial Support
Q27. Over the next 20 years, our state will need to
fund more than $64 billion in state transportation
needs. This amount does not include the long-term
unfunded transportation needs of cities, counties
and local transit agencies. Current transportation
revenues are already dedicated to paying for
existing projects …
Strg
18%
Strg
19%
Smwt
41%
Smwt
17%
59%
(+0)
36%
(-1)
5%
Support Oppose Not sure
Q27. Informed Support
Q46. This survey has highlighted a number of
different benefits of increased transportation
funding. Given all of this, would you support or
oppose increasing some transportation taxes and
fees to meet our transportation system’s needs?
Strg
19%
Strg
19%
Smwt
44%
Smwt
15%
62%
(+3)
35%
(-2)
3%
Support Oppose Not sure
Q46. After Benefits
Packet Page 375 of 404
19 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Additional Revenue by RTPO
59 64 64 60 59 56 55 55 54 53 50 50 45 45 40
68
60 51
37 33 34 36 39 36 39 44 42 41 44 47 48 48 55
29 36 44
Q25. Initial Support for Revenue Oppose
Support
Majority support in 11 of 14 RTPOs – strong support in Urban, Suburban.
Packet Page 376 of 404
20 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Additional Revenue by Travel Habits
Transit users/less frequent drivers strongest supporters of new revenue.
59 66
81
54 59 59 61
37
26
17
42 38 37 33
ALL Transit
50%+
Transit
<50%
No Transit Drive Alone
75%+
Drive alone
25-74%
Drive alone
<25%
Q25. Initial Support for Revenue Oppose
Support
Packet Page 377 of 404
21 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Additional Revenue by Demographics
59
70 67 67 65 61 61 61 60 58 58 57 57 57 55
37
25 30 31 31 33 36 35 37 35 38 40 39 38 44
Q25. Initial Support for Revenue Oppose
Support
All majority support – older, higher income women strongest support.
Packet Page 378 of 404
22 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Preferred Revenue Sources
Q28-Q36. Below are some ways we could fund our unmet transportation needs. For each one, please indicate
whether or not you think that method is a good way to fund increased investment in our transportation system.
29%
31%
16%
17%
16%
17%
17%
10%
4%
32%
29%
36%
29%
28%
28%
27%
20%
16%
2%
3%
5%
3%
2%
3%
4%
3%
4%
17%
16%
18%
17%
19%
24%
22%
21%
24%
20%
21%
26%
33%
34%
29%
31%
46%
52%
Q32) Vehicle emissions fee
Q36) EV licensing fee
Q31) Tolls
Q28) Gas tax
Q29) Fee based on value
Q33) Fuel efficiency fee
Q34) Fee based on miles
Q35) Sales tax on gas
Q30) Statewide prop tax
Definitely Probably Not Sure Probably Not Definitely Not
Packet Page 379 of 404
23 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Revenue Sources by RTPO
ALL B-F-
WW
NE
WA
N.
Centrl
Pa-
louse
Penin-
sula PSRC Quad
Co
Skagit
Island
Spo-
kane
SW
RTC
SW
RTPO
Thurs-
ton
What-
com
Ya -
kima
Emissions
fee 61 42 35 43 48 54 69 39 54 61 65 49 59 51 49
EV licensing 60 59 66 66 59 61 57 58 63 65 68 58 61 54 65
Electronic
Tolls 52 45 43 47 49 59 55 51 52 49 38 46 65 40 49
Gas tax 46 39 29 40 36 43 52 26 47 40 43 36 51 44 37
Vehicle
value 44 30 28 36 39 40 50 30 43 40 34 34 50 50 42
Fuel
efficiency 44 33 26 31 38 34 52 24 35 41 42 27 45 39 37
VMT 44 39 29 38 40 49 46 33 42 47 37 32 44 45 43
Sales tax 30 21 16 18 25 30 34 14 23 27 25 24 38 34 23
Property tax 20 15 8 12 20 17 23 11 17 20 17 13 20 17 28
Q28-Q36. This table shows the revenue sources colored by the percent who think that source is “definitely” or “probably” a
good way to fund transportation needs. Green squares indicate 55%+ support, Yellow from 50% to 54% and Red below 50%.
Most sources are well below a majority across the state.
Packet Page 380 of 404
24 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Adjusting Fees/Taxes with Inflation
Q37. Transportation fees like vehicle licenses, permits and
other fees are fixed amounts and do not change with
inflation. This means that even as transportation costs
increase, these fees stay flat creating funding challenges for
key transportation programs like law enforcement, traffic
safety and aviation. In general, would you support or
oppose having these transportation fees rise with rate of
inflation, so that they provide a more stable funding source?
Strg
15%
Strg
22%
Smwt
41% Smwt
17%
56%
40%
5%
Support Oppose Not sure
Q37. Support for Indexing Fees
Q38. A combination of inflation, changing driving habits and
increased fuel economy of vehicles means the state gas tax brings
in less money each year. This creates a growing transportation
funding shortfall. In general, would you support or oppose having
the gas tax rise with the rate of inflation so that it provides a more
stable funding source?
Strg
14%
Strg
35%
Smwht
27%
Smwht
22% 40%
56%
4%
Support Oppose Not sure
Q38. Support for Indexing the Gas Tax
Packet Page 381 of 404
25 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Benefits Messages
Q39-Q44. There are a number of benefits that come from increased long term investments in our transportation
system. For each of the following, please indicate how important that benefit is to you in terms of justifying
additional taxes to fund new investments in our transportation system.
44%
43%
41%
34%
31%
18%
35%
29%
21%
29%
32%
28%
79%
72%
62%
63%
64%
45%
Q44) Preserving
Infrastructure
Q40) Reducing Congestion
Q43) Expanding Transit
Q39) Creating Jobs
Q41) Boosting Trade
Q42) Year Round Roads
5 - Extremely important 4 - Important
Packet Page 382 of 404
26 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Benefit Messages by RTPO
ALL B-F-
WW
NE
WA
N.
Centrl
Pa-
louse
Penin
-sula PSRC Quad
Co
Skagit
Island
Spo-
kane
SW
RTC
SW
RTPO
Thurs
-ton
What
-com
Ya -
kima
Preserving
infrastructure 79 74 74 80 74 76 82 73 79 79 74 70 79 73 73
Reducing
congestion 72 56 41 58 53 65 81 53 63 55 73 56 75 59 64
Boosting trade 64 66 53 65 62 66 64 64 56 65 64 63 60 61 69
Creating jobs 63 58 51 60 59 67 65 58 56 63 65 60 57 62 60
Expanding
transit 62 47 41 55 50 63 72 45 57 44 45 46 61 64 49
Year-round
roads 45 52 68 73 57 47 41 60 41 56 43 50 35 39 63
Q39-Q44. This table shows the 6 benefits messages ranked by importance using color – green squares indicate the
most important messages followed by yellow, and then red for the lowest rated. Scanning the table for green
squares indicates which messages are most important in each RTPO.
Preserving infrastructure strong across the state – transit, year round roads are regional.
Packet Page 383 of 404
Tolling
Packet Page 384 of 404
28 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Support for Tolling
Q47. In general, do you support or oppose tolling as a way
to help pay for major state transportation projects?
Strg
20%
Strg
21%
Smwt
39% Smwt
17%
59%
37%
4%
Support Oppose Not sure
Q47. Initial Support
Q48. One argument for using tolls to help pay for major state
projects is that those who use and benefit the most from a project
pay a bigger share of the cost. That means that less money is
required from the rest of the state.
Strg
27% Strg
17%
Smwht
39%
Smwht
14%
66%
(+7)
31%
(-6)
3%
Support Oppose Not sure
Q48. Informed Support
Packet Page 385 of 404
29 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Support for Variable Toll/HOT Lanes
Q49. Tolls that change based on traffic volumes or time of day
and day of week are known as variable tolls. Variable tolls help
reduce congestion by encouraging people to shift optional trips to
less busy times of the day, thus reducing congestion during the
busiest times of the day. The idea is similar to the way movie
theaters charge less for matinees to get people to come to the
theater at less busy times.
Strg
27% Strg
20%
Smwt
35%
Smwt
14%
62%
34%
4%
Support Oppose Not sure
Q49. Variable Tolls
Q50. Express Toll Lanes, also referred to as High Occupancy Toll
(HOT) lanes, allow people traveling alone to pay a toll to use the
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. The toll amount changes
based on traffic flow so that the HOV lane doesn’t slow down.
Strg
29% Strg
19%
Smwt
34%
Smwt
13%
63%
32%
5%
Support Oppose Not sure
Q50. Express Toll Lanes
Packet Page 386 of 404
30 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Use of Toll Revenue
Q51. Which of the following statements is closest to your opinion:
Toll money should be
available to fund
transportation
improvements within
a travel corridor –
that is, on the roads
and bridges that
connect to where the
toll is collected.
51%
Toll money should
only be spent on the
specific road or
bridge where the toll
is collected and not
on any other
transportation
investments.
37% Not sure
12%
Q51. Use of Toll Revenue
Packet Page 387 of 404
31 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Facility vs. Corridor by RTPO
51
60 56 54 54 53 53 52 51 50 48 47 44 43 40
55 53 46
37 29 26 30 32 38 31 29 35 30 35 41 41 45 44
31 38 41
Q51. Use of Toll Revenue Travel Corridor
Where Collected
Net support for Corridor 12 of 14 RTPOs – strong preference in Urban/Suburban.
Packet Page 388 of 404
Transit, Passenger Rail
and State Ferries
Packet Page 389 of 404
33 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
State Funds for Transit & Rail
Q52. The state primarily provides funding for state highways, bridges, & the ferry system, as well as providing
funding to cities & counties for transportation needs. Local jurisdictions and the federal government provide most of
the funding for transit. Do you support or oppose providing more state funding for public transit and passenger rail?
Strong
30% Strong
16%
Somewhat
33%
Somewhat
14%
63%
30%
6%
Support Oppose Not sure
Q52. More State Funds for Transit/Passenger Rail
Packet Page 390 of 404
34 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Transit Funding by Travel Habits
63
87 88
56 58 63
75
30
9 9
37 35 31
19
ALL Transit
50%+
Transit
<50%
No Transit Drive Alone
75%+
Drive alone
25%-74%
Drive alone
<25%
Q52. More State Funds for Transit/Passenger Rail Oppose
Support
Majority support even among more frequent drivers.
Packet Page 391 of 404
35 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
State Funding for Ferries
Q53. State gas tax revenues also help fund the Washington State
Ferry system. Do you support or oppose using state
transportation funds to help maintain and operate the
Washington State Ferry system?
Strg
20%
Strg
16%
Smwt
37% Smwt
21%
57%
37%
6%
Support Oppose Not sure
Q53. Initial Support
Strg
27% Strg
13%
Smwt
37%
Smwt
18%
64%
(+7)
31%
(-6)
5%
Support Oppose Not sure
Q54. Informed Support
Q54. Washington State ferries carry 23 million passengers a year and are
part of the state highway system just like bridges or highways. Ferry
users pay about 70% of the ferry’s operational costs and state tax
revenues provide the other 30%. The state also fully funds the capital
needs of the ferry system, such as buying new boats and making ferry
terminal improvements. Knowing this, do you support or oppose using
state funds to help maintain and operate the WA State Ferry system?
Packet Page 392 of 404
36 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Takeaways
•Residents do not see the need as immediate and most are not convinced that the
funding situation is critical, but that they are still willing to invest in the transportation
system because they understand the value of maintenance and preservation.
•Trying to convince residents that the funding situation really is critical will be very
challenging because it runs counter to what they see and believe to be true.
•Talking about the benefits of increased long term investment does resonate with
residents and is effective in increasing support – particularly the concept of preserving
infrastructure so that we “extend the life of our [infrastructure]” and repair things
instead of having to replace them.
•The revenue sources with the most support contain an element of fairness/user pays:
an EV fee on vehicles that “do not pay any gas tax,” an emissions fee where “vehicles
that pollute more would pay a higher fee,” and tolls.
•Tolling has higher support when linked to “pay[ing] for major state projects” over
simply “fund[ing] increased investment in our transportation system” – and that
support increases even more when linked to a fairness element: “those who use and
benefit the most from a project pay a bigger share of the cost.”
Packet Page 393 of 404
37 WSTC Statewide Transportation Survey | EMC 11-448
Contact Info
THANK YOU!
For More Information Contact:
Reema Griffith, Executive Director
Washington State Transportation Commission
360.705.7070
OR
Andrew Thibault, Principal
EMC Research, Inc.
206.652.2454
Packet Page 394 of 404
AM-4435 Item #: 15.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Robert English Submitted By:Megan Cruz
Department:Engineering
Committee:Community/Development Services Type:Action
Information
Subject Title
Report on final project costs for 1025 12th Ave N Storm System Improvement Project and
Council acceptance of Project.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
Accept project.
Previous Council Action
On July 19, 2011, Council authorized the Mayor to award a contract in the amount of $59,935 to
Trenchless Construction Services, LLC.
On December 13, 2011, the CS/DS Committee recommended Council acceptance of project and a
presentation to the full Council.
Narrative
The 1025 12th Ave N Storm System Improvement Project is now complete and the project was inspected
and accepted by City staff. The final construction cost for the contractor is $66,503, including one
change order in the amount of $6,568. The project costs were paid by the 412-200 Stormwater Utility
Fund.
Attached is a letter from the property owner at 1025 12th Ave expressing her satisfaction with how the
project was managed and constructed.
Attachments
Attachment 1-Citizen Letter
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 12/14/2011 03:04 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 12/14/2011 05:54 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 08:40 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 10:53 AM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 10:57 AM
Form Started By: Megan Cruz Started On: 12/14/2011
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 395 of 404
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
6
o
f
4
0
4
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
3
9
7
o
f
4
0
4
AM-4444 Item #: 16.
City Council Meeting
Date: 12/20/2011
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 December 13, 2011.
Recommendation from Mayor and Staff
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached are copies of the following City Council Committee Meeting Minutes:
•12-13-11 Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting
•12-13-11 Finance Committee Meeting
•12-13-11 Public Safety/Human Resources Committee Meeting
Attachments
12-13-11 CSDS Committee Meeting Minutes
12-13-11 Finance Committee Meeting Minutes
12-13-11 PSHR Committee Meeting Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 12/15/2011 01:37 PM
Final Approval Sandy Chase 12/15/2011 01:51 PM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 12/15/2011 08:47 AM
Final Approval Date: 12/15/2011
Packet Page 398 of 404
M I N U T E S
Community Services/Development Services Committee Meeting
December 13, 2011
Elected Officials Present: Staff Present:
Council Member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Chair Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Council Member Michael Plunkett Rob English, City Engineer
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jen Machuga, Associate Planner
The committee convened at 6:00 p.m.
A. Report on final project costs for 1025 12th Ave N Storm System Improvement Project and
Council acceptance of Project.
Mr. English reviewed the improvements that were constructed and the benefit the project
provided to the City’s storm system and the property owner at 1025 12th Ave. He referred to the
letter submitted by Ms. Sheldon and her satisfaction with the project. There was one change
order for additional quantities required during construction to complete the project.
ACTION: Recommend project acceptance and presentation to the full Council.
B. Report on final construction costs for the Alderwood Intertie and Reservoir Improvement
Project and acceptance of Project.
Mr. English provided background on the water system improvements that were constructed and
how the improvements will help Public Works meter and operate the water flow from Alderwood
Water District. The project also included security improvements to the Seaview and Yost
Reservoirs. Two change orders were processed, one for time adjustment and the other for
electrical and miscellaneous changes at the Yost and Seaview Reservoirs.
ACTION: Moved to consent agenda for approval.
C. Authorization to approve an easement for installation of storm pipe and a catch basin at
220th 7th Ave N.
Mr. English described an easement that was being secured for new stormwater improvements at
220 7th Ave. The improvements include a new pipe and catch basin that will convey stormwater
from the new catch basin to an existing basin located on Edmonds St.
ACTION: Moved to consent agenda for approval.
Packet Page 399 of 404
CS/DS Committee Minutes
December 13, 2011
Page 2
D. 2012 CDBG Application Resolution
Mr. Williams explained that Council must pass a resolution in support of a CDBG application for
the upcoming grant cycle. The projects being requested this year are siding replacement on the
Puget Sound face of the Senior Center, renewing the upstairs restrooms, and for floor repair
work to the interior in the lobby and library. The total value of the request being made for
CDBG funding is $161,248. In order to maintain eligibility for this application, Snohomish County
must receive a fully signed copy of this resolution no later than January 15, 2012.
ACTION: Moved to consent agenda for approval.
E. Discussion regarding draft revisions to the outdoor dining regulations of ECDC 17.75 and
addition of a definition of outdoor dining to ECDC 21.75. (File No. AMD20110005)
Ms. Machuga explained that the current outdoor dining regulations are cost prohibitive to small
businesses because a conditional use permit, which costs approximately $1,500, is required for
outdoor dining areas that have seating exceeding 10% of the interior seating or 8 seats,
whichever is greater. The draft revised code language as recommended by the Planning Board
includes provisions to allow outdoor dining areas outright if the site is not directly adjacent to a
residentially-zoned property and/or if the outdoor dining area meets certain screening
requirements. Additionally, the draft revised code language includes restrictions on hours of
operation of the outdoor dining area for sites directly adjacent to residentially-zoned property.
ACTION: Forward to full Council for a public hearing with no recommendation.
F. Public Comments
The meeting adjourned at 6:45p.m.
Packet Page 400 of 404
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
December 13, 2011
Councilmembers Present Staff Present
Councilmember Petso Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Councilmember Buckshnis Al Compaan, Police Chief
Mayor Dave Earling Deb Sharp, Accountant
Public Present
Carrie Hite, Interim Human Resources/Parks &
Recreation Director
Ron Wambolt Carl Nelson, CIO
Bruce Witenberg Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
MaryAnn Hardie, Human Resources Manager
Councilmember Petso called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
A. Non-Represented Employee Compensation Ordinance
Interim Human Resources/Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained staff discovered that a
1.5% COLA for non-represented employees was included in the 2011 budget that was approved by
Council. It has been the City’s past practice to bring an ordinance to the Council with, 1) the
compensation survey and adjustment to the bands, and 2) award of an annual COLA. She suggested
bringing the 1.5%COLA to the Council as a separate issue and not adjusting the bands or conducting
any surveys because that is being done by the compensation consultant. The SEIU and Teamsters
bargained for and received a 1.5% COLA and there are compression issues between supervisors and
employees. For consistency and equity sake, the Mayor and staff recommend approval of a 1.5%
COLA for non-represented employees. Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her displeasure with the
bands and her preference to wait until the compensation study has been completed.
Mayor Earling strongly supported implementing a 1.5% COLA for non-represented employees,
viewing it as a matter of equity. Councilmember Petso agreed with Councilmember Buckshnis, but
disagreed it was an equity issue because the unions bargained for their COLA. If a COLA for non-
represented employees is determined to be warranted, it can be awarded retroactively after the salary
survey is completed.
Mr. Hunstock explained because funds were appropriated for the non-represented employees’ COLA
in the budget, the Mayor has the authority to implement it January 1 even if Council does not pass the
non-represented employee compensation ordinance.
Ms. Hite reported the compensation consultant developed four baskets of comparator cities that will
be discussed with Council on December 20. (1) The cities that SEIU and Teamsters use, (2) four
cities above and four cities below Edmonds’ population, (3) cities statewide with a population of
40,000 with cost of living adjustments, and (4) the original list minus the big cities plus some smaller
cities. Mayor Earling expressed concern with using eastern Washington cities as comparators due to
the differences in cost of living and standards of living in eastern Washington. He felt the most
relevant cities were in the Puget Sound basin. Councilmember Petso agreed.
Action: Forward to full Council. Finance Committee recommends delaying consideration of the non-
represented employees’ 1.5% COLA until the compensation study is completed.
Packet Page 401 of 404
12-13-11 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2
B. Holiday and Kelly Day Buy Back EPOA and Law Support
Ms. Hardie explained as required by the EPOA contract, every year on or before December 1 officers
are paid for holiday hours not scheduled/used and for Kelly hours. Chief Compaan explained Kelly
days are compensation for hours worked over 2080/year due to alternate work schedules.
Action: Forward to Consent Agenda
C. Reserve Policy
Mr. Hunstock reviewed the proposed reserve policy, explaining this is the approximate policy
implemented in Tukwila, and funds a 16% reserve over 4 years. The policy contains provisions
regarding how the funds can be used, how the fund is replenished and maximum transfer amounts.
The proposed policy includes an 8% General Fund contingency reserve and an 8% risk
management/capital facilities reserve for a total of 16%. He also suggested consideration be given to
a 20% enterprise fund reserve policy. Discussion followed regarding existing reserves, the reserve
percentage used by other cities, whether to separate the reserves, and proposed amounts in the
ordinance. Mr. Williams commented on the need for a utility capital asset reserve.
Action: Finance Committee to review policy again in January
D. Investment Policy
Mr. Hunstock reviewed the proposed investment policy that is based on the model investment policy
from Washington Municipal Treasurers Association. The Association will review and certify cities’
investment policies. The list of authorized investments is from the RCW.
Action: Finance Committee to review policy again in January
E. Amendment #16 to Seattle Fiber Partners Agreement
Mr. Nelson explained this is the first of three amendments; two additional amendments will be
presented next month. The amendment adds Edmonds, Shoreline, US Coast Guard, Port of Seattle,
and FBI to the Seattle Fibers Partners Agreement.
Action: Forward to Consent Agenda.
F. General Fund Update – October 2011
Mr. Hunstock reviewed the General Fund update, highlighting revenues and expenditures that are
over and below budget including sales tax, telephone utility tax, license and intergovernmental and
goods and services, salaries/wages and benefits. He pointed out the report now reflects fund balance
rather than working capital.
Action: Information only.
G. Public Comments - None
Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m.
Packet Page 402 of 404
Public Safety & Human Resources Committee
December 13, 2011
Page 1 of 2
Minutes
Public Safety and Human Resources Committee Meeting
December 13, 2011
Elected Officials Present: Council member Stephen Bernheim
Council member Strom Peterson
Staff Present: Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
ACOP Gannon explained that the contract with Orchid Cellmark which provides
DNA analysis, will expire on December 31, 2011. He explained there is a
change in the pricing for the proposed new two year contract. The cost per
sample will remain the same, but there is an additional $500 administrative fee
for submitting less than 10 DNA samples at a time.
Mr. Bernheim asked how many submissions we have made to Orchid Cellmark
this year. ACOP Gannon advised him that it was in the range of 14 to 20. ACOP
Gannon also told Mr. Bernheim that the testing was for property crimes and that
all major case DNA submissions go the Washington State Patrol Crime
Laboratory.
ACOP Gannon explained that Orchid Cellmark is in the process of being
purchased by the company Labcorp. He explained that if the sale goes through
prior to December 20, then the there would be a change in the name on the
contract.
ACOP Gannon recommended the Orchid Cellmark contract be renewed and be
placed on the December 20, 2011 Council Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Bernheim agreed.
Councilmember Peterson arrived as the discussion of Orchid Cellmark contract
was concluding.
Action: Forward to December 20, 2011 City Council Consent Agenda with a
recommendation to approve.
The next topic of discussion was medical marijuana.
Packet Page 403 of 404
Public Safety & Human Resources Committee
December 13, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Councilmember Peterson said that he is waiting to hear what AWC’s guidelines
will be. He said that Mike Doubleday will be bring information to the December
20th Council Meeting. Also a brief discussion took place regarding the Governor
Gregoire’s letter to the DEA changing the classification of marijuana from a
schedule I drug to a schedule II drug.
Councilmember Bernheim asked ACOP Gannon what the department’s position
was on the Governor’s proposal. ACOP Gannon said the department is not
opposed to the proposal. He also said the City should monitor the medical
marijuana legislation on the state level before the City moves ahead with any
further legislation.
Councilmember Peterson and Bernheim discussed the next step for Council and
felt the topic should remain on the December 20th, agenda. They felt there
should be a review and discussion of the Governor’s proposal, then approve the
draft letter from the Governor.
Action: Forward to December 20, 2011 City Council with a recommendation to
review and approve Governor Gregoire’s letter to the DEA.
The meeting adjourned at 6:09 p.m.
ACOP Gannon
Packet Page 404 of 404