2012.09.11 CC & Committee Meetings Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
_____________________________________________
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012
5:45 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
1.(15 Minutes)Convene in executive session regarding potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i).
6:00 P.M. - RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION / FLAG SALUTE
2.(5 Minutes)Approval of Agenda
3.(5 Minutes)Approval of Consent Agenda Items
A.Roll Call
B. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2012.
C. Approval of claim checks #133953 through #134054 dated August 30, 2012 for $162,148.46 (replacement
checks #133954 $175.20, #133968 $1,285.20, #134011 $100.00, #134018 $45.84 & #134036 $15.50),
claim check 134055 dated August 31, 2012 for $255.00 and claim checks #134056 through #134141 dated
September 6, 2012 for $285,258.49 (replacement checks #134068 $2,671.20, #134113 $15.50 & #134127
$46,960.40). Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #51635 through #51669 for $467,725.21 and
benefit checks #51670 through #51682 & wire payments for $200,548.94 for the period August 16, 2012
through August 31, 2012.
4.Audience Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings
5.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
6.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
7.Adjourn to Committee Meetings
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Packet Page 1 of 488
CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The City Council Committee meetings are work sessions for the City Council and staff only.
The meetings are open to the public but are not public hearings.
The Committees will meet in separate meeting rooms as indicated below.
8.Finance Committee
Jury Meeting Room
A.(10 Minutes)Acceptance of a gift of artwork from the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation
B.(15 Minutes)Authorization for Mayor to sign agreements with Blue Star Gas Seattle Co. and Carburetor Connection
Inc. re: vehicle fleet propane conversion.
C.(10 Minutes)Stormwater Exemptions
D.(10 Minutes)REET Fund Discussion
E.(10 Minutes)July 2012 Monthly Financial Report
F.(10 Minutes)Addition to Budget Document for 2013 Budget.
G.(10 Minutes)2013 Budget Schedule
H.(10 Minutes)Public Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
9.Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee
Meeting Room: Council Chambers
A.(10 Minutes)Interim Zoning Ordinance to allow farmers markets in Business Commercial (BC) and Business
Downtown (BD) Zones.
B.(5 Minutes)Approve a Bill of Sale to transfer ownership of sewer pipe on 224th that is currently in Esperance from
being City owned to OVWSD owned.
C.(5 Minutes)Report on final construction costs for the 2010 Watermain Replacement Project and final acceptance of
project.
D.(5 Minutes)Authorization for the Mayor to sign the 2012 Statewide Stormwater Grant Program Agreement between the
State of Washington Department of Ecology and the City of Edmonds for $259,745 for a Vactor Waste
Facility Retrofit at the Public Works Yard.
E.(15 Minutes)Introduction to the Capital Facilities Plan (2013-2018) and the Capital Improvement Program (2013-2018).
F.(10 Minutes)Public Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
10.Public Safety and Personnel Committee
Meeting Room: Police Training Room
A.(60 Minutes)Review of updated job descriptions, draft Personnel Policies
B.(20 Minutes)Amendment to Citizens Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials Ordinance
C.(20 Minutes)Discussion regarding taking minutes/notes during executive sessions.
D.(10 Minutes)Public Comments (3 Minute Limit Per Person)
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 488
Packet Page 3 of 488
AM-5093 3. B.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Committee: Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of August 28, 2012.
Recommendation
Review and approval.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
08-28-12 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 09/04/2012 11:01 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/04/2012 11:16 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/04/2012 10:17 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/04/2012
Packet Page 4 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
August 28, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Rob English, City Engineer
Pamela Lemcke, Capital Projects Manager
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
At 6:00 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 75 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 Yamamoto, Johnson, Fraley-
Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Public
Works Director Phil Williams, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Finance Director Shawn
Hunstock, and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 7:15 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:20 p.m. and led the flag salute.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED
(6-0). (Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.)
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED (6-0).
(Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 21, 2012.
Packet Page 5 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 2
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #133824 THROUGH #133952 DATED AUGUST 23,
2012 FOR $638,586.89.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Alvin Rutledge, Edmonds, displayed a photograph of a car boat. He referred to the ordinance that
prohibits motorboats on Lake Ballinger and suggested the City consider revising the ordinance to allow
an event that would showcase car boats and the Fire Department’s rescue equipment and training.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, asked why copies of the June 5, 2007 minutes were available on the public
information table in Council Chambers. Next, he referred to chip sealing done by the cities of Mountlake
Terrace and Shoreline, citing specific projects in Shoreline on 10th Avenue NE, 15th Avenue NE and NE
175th Street. He suggested 5th Avenue be the first road considered for chip sealing in Edmonds as it is
scheduled for an overlay. Because chip sealing is less expensive than an overlay, it would free up money
to chip seal other roads. He suggested the Council contact Shoreline to determine how much money
Edmonds could save by chip sealing rather than overlays.
5. REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 27, 2012 FOR THE MAIN STREET DECORATIVE
LIGHTING AND SIDEWALK ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT (5TH AVE TO 6TH AVE) AND
POSSIBLE AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.
City Engineer Rob English reported this is the second time this project has been bid; the first bids were
rejected due to problems with documentation provided by the bidders related to the Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise program. The project was re-advertised and the City received four bids. The low bid
was provided by Interwest Construction; their bid amount was $1,092,552. The engineer’s estimate was
$1,084,553. In the first round of bids opened on August 7, the lowest bid was $1,179,015. Interwest
Construction’s bid is $87,000 lower than the lowest bid in the first round of bids.
Mr. English reviewed the scope of the project, displaying several photographs illustrating the existing
condition of the sidewalks:
• 12-foot sidewalks
• 16 LED Sternberg street lights
• 18 street trees
• Raised mid-block pedestrian crossing
• Relocation of overhead electrical utility service (currently on the south side of the street, will be
relocated to the south alley)
• Street pavement reconstruction
• Waterline replacement (existing is 1920s cast iron)
• Stormwater improvements
• 4 artistic flower poles
• Street furniture (bike rack, solid waste receptacles and benches)
Mr. English reviewed the construction budget:
Element Amount
Construction contract $1,092,553
Construction management 185,800
Contingency 10% 109,300
Street lights 49,500
Art 8,000
Miscellaneous 5,500
Public art (1% of stormwater) 1,700
Total $1,452,353
Packet Page 6 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 3
Mr. English reviewed funding sources:
Source Amount
Federal grant $ 596,000
State grant 477,867
Water Utility 181,305
Storm Utility 197,181
Total $1,452,353
Mr. English introduced Interwest Construction Owner Eban Twaddle (360-757-7574) and Project
Manager Andy Conner (360-757-7574) and the City’s Project Manager Pam Lemcke (425-771-0220
x1329).
Mr. English reported a meeting is scheduled with downtown businesses in this corridor on Tuesday,
September 4 at 8:30 a.m. in the Brackett Room in City Hall where Interwest Construction, City staff and
the consultant management team will review the schedule and answer questions. There will also be a
meeting with the Downtown Edmonds Merchant’s Association (DEMA) on September 7 to provide an
update on the project. The goal is for construction to begin on September 10. Main Street will be closed
between 5th & 6th during construction; a 5-foot sidewalk width will remain open to provide access to
businesses. The contract is structured so that the project is completed by mid-November.
WSDOT concurs with the contract award, particularly the DBE participation. Staff recommends award of
the project to Interwest Construction in the amount of $1,092,552.65.
Mayor Earling pointed out the high quality work staff has done leading up to this point including 4-5
meetings with the business community. Everyone is satisfied with the communication and he was pleased
Interwest would be constructing the project. He relayed that several staff members have worked with
Interwest in the past.
For Councilmember Petso, Mr. English stated the engineer’s estimate was $1,084,553 and the prior low
bid amount was $1,179,015.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Mr. English to identify where construction would occur. Mr. English
answered the east boundary is approximately 50 feet east of the intersection of 6th Avenue and will
include intersection improvements at 6th & Main (reconstruction of each corner with curb returns, ramps
and pedestrian crossings); the west boundary is just short of the intersection of 5th & Main.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the $8,000 for art. Mr. English explained that is for the four
artistic flower poles. The $8,000 covers the cost of the art element and fabrication. The cost is reimbursed
by the federal Transportation Enhancement grant.
COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AWARD THE MAIN STREET DECORATIVE LIGHTING AND SIDEWALK
ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT (5TH AVE TO 6TH AVE) CONTRACT TO INTERWEST
CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,092,552.65. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
6. PERMITTING FEES FOR SOLAR INSTALLATIONS
Building Official Leonard Yarberry relayed staff was asked to describe how fees for solar installations are
calculated so that the Council could consider potentially reducing or waiving fees for certain projects.
This item was presented to the Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee on August 14 and referred
to full Council for discussion.
Packet Page 7 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 4
Mr. Yarberry explained there have been three residential solar projects and one commercial solar project
(phase 1 of the installation on the Frances Anderson Center). Following the Frances Anderson Center
project and applications for residential projects, staff began researching how permitting fees for solar
projects were established by other jurisdictions. There is currently no specific fee for solar permits in the
City’s adopted fee schedule. In accordance with City policy regarding establishing fees, a fee was
calculated based on staff time and determined to be two hours; one hour for plan review and permit
processing and one hour for inspection. The total permit fee for a residential solar project is $135. For the
Frances Anderson Center project, the standard valuation format was utilized; the fee for that project was
approximately $13,000. Since then a policy was adopted that is consistent with other jurisdictions
(Portland and San Jose) where the valuation does not include the cost of the solar panels and inverters.
Based on information provided by Steve Bernheim regarding phase 2 of the Frances Anderson Center
project, using the new valuation methodology, the permit fee would be $621.
Mr. Yarberry explained the above valuation methodology is consistent with a guide for local governments
published by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), “Solar Power in Your Community.” DOE
recommends a fee of $300 or less for most residential systems and Solar America Board for Codes and
Standard recommends fees of $75-$200 for a system up to 4 kilowatts. The fee Edmonds currently
charges is within those ranges.
The question before the Council is whether to continue with the current fees or to reduce or waive fees for
certain projects. One option would be a reduction or elimination of fees for solar projects as an incentive
to be consistent with the Sustainability Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Edmonds is a participant in a Department of Energy grant project, the Evergreen State Solar Partnership
(ESSP) along with Bellevue, Seattle, and Ellensburg as well as Puget Sound Energy, Snohomish PUD,
City of Ellensburg and Seattle City Light. ESSP is examining ways of standardizing and minimizing costs
for solar energy projects statewide.
Councilmember Johnson relayed it appeared that the residential fee considers the time for plan review and
inspection to develop a fee. Recognizing the City has little experience with commercial solar projects, she
asked whether staff could calculate the amount of staff time for plan review and inspection for the
Frances Anderson Center solar project. Mr. Yarberry answered residential solar installations projects are
similar and are typically not very large; conversely the size of a commercial project could be extremely
variable depending on the roof structure, number of panels, type of installation, etc. It would be difficult
to establish a single fee for a commercial solar installation; it is possible a sliding fee schedule could be
developed for commercial installations based on size and kilowatts. He relayed some jurisdictions such as
Seattle established a low threshold for small residential projects that do not require a permit.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed an email from Steve Bernheim expressing Sustainable Edmonds'
and his personal support for the way solar permitting fees are being handled by the Planning Department.
They generally support lowering commercial and residential fees for solar energy projects (and/or all
renewable energy projects in Edmonds) in a way that values the project fairly and results in a fair fee so
that fees do not become a disincentive to the project. The Planning Department has acted very reasonably
in its revised valuation approach to commercial installations and its reasonable flat fee approach to
residential installations. They also support the anticipated success of the ongoing statewide ESSP fee-
standardizing efforts. They also acknowledge that everyone needs to pay their fair share of everything, so
that a waiver of fees is neither politically appropriate or necessary as a matter of public policy. Edmonds
wants to do all it can to incentivize the installation of renewable energy projects, and the Planning
Department's current approach to permitting fees is a small but successful step toward attaining that goal.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about the ongoing statewide ESSP fee standardizing efforts. Mr.
Yarberry answered it is part of DOE’s SunShot Initiative; different elements of solar have been
Packet Page 8 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 5
distributed to different groups around the county. The ESSP is studying a standardized permitting
process. Because this is new technology, many jurisdictions do not have a permitting process to address
it. The ESSP will likely make a recommendation regarding fees, but each jurisdiction will establish its
own fees.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out without a permit, the City would not know how many residences
have solar systems. She supported lowering the permit fee to provide incentive for solar installations. She
asked about Exhibit 1 in the packet, Community Solar Fee Comparison. Mr. Yarberry advised the
numbers were provided by Mr. Bernheim and were used by staff to calculate a baseline fee for Phase 1 of
the Frances Anderson Center project.
Councilmember Johnson suggested evaluating the amount of time spent on plan review and inspection in
determining the fee for a commercial solar installation.
Council President Peterson observed if the Council took no action, staff would continue with the fee
structure for residential installations as described. Mr. Yarberry agreed. Council President Peterson
observed waiving fees would require Council action. Mr. Yarberry agreed.
Council President Peterson disclosed he owns a slice of the solar installation on the Frances Anderson
Center and has promised to donate any profits from it to Sustainable Edmonds.
The Council took no action with regard to this item.
7. DISCUSSION REGARDING TAKING MINUTES/NOTES DURING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.
Council President Peterson explained the Council began discussing the taking of minutes/notes during
executive sessions at the 2012 Council retreat. Upon further Council and Committee direction, he was
asked to schedule a broader discussion along with presentations from outside interested parties.
Jim Doherty, Legal Consultant, Municipal Research Service Center (MRSC), explained MRSC has
functioned in Washington for over 75 years as an advisory group to cities, counties and special purpose
districts on a wide range of issues. MRSC has 25 staff members including 6 attorneys, 2 planners, a
finance consultant, policy consultants and has the most extensive local government library in the State.
MRSC’s website, www.MRSC.org, is open to the public. He has been with MRSC for over 19 years and
authors and updates the Public Records Act (PRA) publication as well as has addressed many questions
over the years regarding Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) issues.
Mr. Doherty relayed he had reviewed Council minutes where the issue of taking minutes/notes during
executive session had been discussed and City Attorney Taraday’s input regarding the pattern in
Washington cities. He was also provided an email from Ken Reidy that contained a blog post and
responses regarding this issue.
Mr. Doherty relayed MRSC is not aware of any cities in the State of Washington that take minutes of
executive sessions or record executive sessions. He found a reference that was confirmed by Mr. Nixon
that the Port of Seattle records their executive sessions because of scrutiny by the State Auditor’s Office
due to past problems. MRSC’s advice to cities over the last 20 years is that cities not take minutes of
executive sessions. He clarified it was not that MRSC was for or against open government, as a practical
matter there is some uncertainty regarding the status of minutes of executive sessions because they
usually are not taken; there is no specific exemption in the PRA for minutes of executive sessions.
MRSC’s position is cautious; their advice is why create a problem that cities do not need.
Packet Page 9 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 6
Mr. Doherty explained the purpose of minutes is an official record of action taken by the Council.
Executive sessions are discussion and not final action; any action is taken during open session. Thus the
purpose of minutes of an executive session is not clear because no action is taken.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the work MRSC does for city officials,
recalling she utilized their resources regarding financial transparency. She asked about taking notes of
executive session rather than minutes. Mr. Doherty asked who would take the notes. If a Councilmember
takes notes in executive session for their own use, they are similar to notes taken during an open Council
meeting. There is case law that supports the view that those are public records, they are a
Councilmember’s own personal notes, not taken at the request of the City, and not used by the City. He
cited Jacobellis v. Bellingham where the court found personal notes are not a public record.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about notes taken by the City Clerk. Mr. Doherty answered if those
notes are minutes, a record of the executive session, under one statute they are not open to public
inspection. He noted it is unclear as the statute was written long before the PRA was adopted.
Councilmember Petso asked about the statute that distinguishes Clerk’s notes from a public record. Mr.
Doherty answered RCW 42.32.030 which was passed in 1953 and has never been amended.
Councilmember Johnson observed one question is whether a written record should be kept of executive
sessions. She asked what should be done with the records maintained of executive sessions over the past
seven years if the Council decided to stop keeping a written record; should they be destroyed or were they
subject to public record requests. Mr. Doherty answered their destruction would depend on how the
records retention schedule applied to those records. The retention schedule for minutes of regular Council
meeting minutes requires they be kept permanently. He was uncertain whether that would apply to notes
of an executive session. With regard to public records requests for those notes, he referred the Council to
the City Attorney. He recognized many of the notes are related to attorney-client privilege where
exemptions clearly apply.
Councilmember Johnson commented if the Council chose to stop taking minutes of executive sessions,
the Council could audio record executive sessions. She asked whether Mr. Doherty knew of any other
cities, other than the Port of Seattle, that audio record their executive sessions. Mr. Doherty answered he
did not. He pointed out there is no exemption that applies to an audio recording, whether video or voice,
and if no exemption applies, it must be disclosed. If the City made an audio recording of an executive
session and someone requested it, the City would need to provide it. That could be problematic if the
Council was discussing a real estate purchase or other sensitive issues. Councilmember Johnson
commented she had not heard that before; it was a key point. Mr. Doherty commented there was
legislation pending this year and in past years regarding recording of executive sessions but it included a
provision that any challenge would require a judge review the recording in chambers and exemptions
would apply. That legislation did not pass and there is currently no exemption in the law for a recording
of an executive session. Unless that is clarified, he recommended cities not record executive sessions.
Councilmember Johnson asked whether any legislation regarding recording of executive sessions was
anticipated in the next legislative session. Mr. Doherty answered that was difficult to anticipate; it has
been raised in the past and has not been passed. It may be introduced again as the Coalition for Open
Government and other groups believe it is an important issue.
Councilmember Johnson summarized Mr. Doherty’s recommendation was that the City do not maintain
written records or audio recordings of executive sessions and whatever records of executive sessions the
City has created would be maintained in accordance with the records retention schedule. Mr. Doherty
agreed with her summary.
Packet Page 10 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 7
Toby Nixon, President, Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG), explained he is a
former member of the State Legislature, served as ranking member on a Committee of the House that had
responsibility for the open government laws of Washington, and is currently a City of Kirkland
Councilmember, elected in November 2011.
Mr. Nixon commented this has been one of WCOG’s highest priority issues for several years. WCOG is a
statewide non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to defending and extending the people’s right to
know what their government is doing. WCOG focuses most of its energy on the PRA and OPMA but also
works on open courts, open legislative process, open rule-making processes, follows the workings of the
Public Disclosure Commission, disclosure of campaign finance and lobbyist information, whistle-blower
laws, ethics laws, and anything related to transparency and accountability in government. This is
accomplished via four programs: education, litigation, legislation and recognition.
He relayed language from RCW 42.30.010, “The legislature finds and declares that all public
commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other
public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It
is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted
openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The
people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the
people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that
they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
Mr. Nixon provided a definition of executive session: “Executive sessions are meetings allowed (but not
required) to be closed to the public because the people, through their legislative representatives, have
determined that it is more in the public interest than not that the specific information to be discussed be
kept secret for some period of time.”
To the question of whether recordings should be made, Mr. Nixon said yes. Agencies can choose today to
make audio or video recordings, or to keep notes or minutes, of executive sessions. There is no
prohibition of such recordings. Recordings can be useful for a number of agency purposes:
• To resolve disagreements over what transpired or was said
• To hold attorneys and others accountable for advice given or information provided in closed
meetings
• To allow newly-appointed or newly-elected members of the body to catch up on previous
executive session discussions
• To improve the ability of the agency to defend itself if it is accused of having an inappropriate
discussion in an executive session
Mr. Nixon relayed reasons some many do not want executive sessions recorded:
• Would interfere with frank, honest, free-flowing conversations. He emphasized that is the point,
executive sessions should be limited to only the allowed topic and nothing more. Members should
not need to be behind closed doors to have a frank and honest discussion.
• Recording is expensive. He cited the reasonable cost of a digital audio recorder. Operation is
trivial. The recorder can be plugged into a PC via USB cable and recordings transferred to a
secure server, and be as well protected as any other confidential electronic city records. No need
for expensive safes, locked file cabinets, or large amounts of storage space.
• Risk of disclosure under the Public Records Act. Mr. Nixon relayed information from RCW
42.56.010 Definitions, of “public record” and “writing,” agreeing that audio recordings are
records, including voicemails. He acknowledged recordings are not automatically exempt.
Recordings of several of the allowed topics for executive sessions would be exempt from
disclosure, but not all.
Packet Page 11 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 8
Mr. Nixon explained the Port of Seattle Digitally records all executive sessions. They submit records to
outside counsel for periodic review for compliance. They have not had many requests for disclosure
although who knows what will happen with current controversy.
Mr. Nixon described the allowable topics for executive session (RCW 42.30.110) and his response to
each (in italics):
(a) To consider matters affecting national security.
Rarely applies to cities. Some topics covered under 42.56.420 (security plans and vulnerabilities,
prevention of terrorist acts).
(b) To consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase when
public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased price.
(c) To consider the minimum price at which real estate will be offered for sale or lease when public
knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of decreased price. However,
final action selling or leasing public property shall be taken in a meeting open to the public.
Real estate appraisals are covered by 42.56.260, but not discussion of price willing to pay or sell
for, or the fact that the city is interested in the property.
(d) To review negotiations on the performance of publicly bid contracts when public knowledge
regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased costs.
Not covered by any known PRA exemption.
(f) To receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee.
However, upon the request of such officer or employee, a public hearing or a meeting open to the
public shall be conducted upon such complaint or charge.
Records of complaints against public employees are disclosable unless determined to be
unsubstantiated or false. 42.56.230(3), Bellevue John Does v. Bellevue School District.
Some records may be exempt under the investigatory records exemption, 42.56.240(1).
Identity of persons filing complaints may be exempt under 42.56.240(2) if their life, safety, or
property may be endangered by disclosure, and they request non-disclosure.
(g) To evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment or to review the
performance of a public employee. However, subject to RCW 42.30.140(4), discussion by a
governing body of salaries, wages, and other conditions of employment to be generally applied
within the agency shall occur in a meeting open to the public, and when a governing body elects
to take final action hiring, setting the salary of an individual employee or class of employees, or
discharging or disciplining an employee, that action shall be taken in a meeting open to the
public;
Names, resumes, other application materials are exempt from disclosure under 42.56.250(2). No
exemption for other content of discussion.
(h) To evaluate the qualifications of a candidate for appointment to elective office. However, any
interview of such candidate and final action appointing a candidate to elective office shall be in a
meeting open to the public;
Not exempt under PRA.
(i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement
actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to
which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to
become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse
legal or financial consequence to the agency.
All materials are likely exempt under RCW 42.56.290 or 5.60.060(2)(a), which are broader than
the allowed purposes for executive sessions for attorney-client communication, and include all
“attorney work product”.
Topics for executive session not applicable to cities include:
(e) …export trading company…;
(j) …state library…;
Packet Page 12 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 9
(k) …state investment board…;
(l) …state purchased health care services…;
(m) …life sciences discovery fund authority…;
(n) …health sciences and services authority…;
(o) …innovate Washington…
Mr. Nixon referred to RCW 42.30.140 that describes meetings that are not technically “executive
sessions,” in that they do not require the agency to first convene in an announced public meeting, declare
the purpose and duration of the closed meeting, and then return to public session to adjourn. He explained
“140” meetings can be entirely secret, although many agencies treat them the same as “110” executive
sessions. Mr. Nixon reviewed the four types of meetings described in RCW 42.30.140 and his response to
each (in italics):
(1) The proceedings concerned with the formal issuance of an order granting, suspending,
revoking, or denying any license, permit, or certificate to engage in any business,
occupation, or profession or to any disciplinary proceedings involving a member of such
business, occupation, or profession, or to receive a license for a sports activity or to
operate any mechanical device or motor vehicle where a license or registration is
necessary; or
Business license proceedings occur in cities, but are not exempt under the PRA.
(2) That portion of a meeting of a quasi-judicial body which relates to a quasi-judicial matter
between named parties as distinguished from a matter having general effect on the public
or on a class or group; or
Cities have quasi-judicial discussions for permitting, etc. Not exempt under the PRA.
(3) Matters governed by chapter 34.05 RCW, the Administrative Procedure Act; or
Does not apply to cities.
(4)(a) Collective bargaining sessions with employee organizations, including contract
negotiations, grievance meetings, and discussions relating to the interpretation or
application of a labor agreement; or (b) that portion of a meeting during which the
governing body is planning or adopting the strategy or position to be taken by the
governing body during the course of any collective bargaining, professional negotiations,
or grievance or mediation proceedings, or reviewing the proposals made in the
negotiations or proceedings while in progress.
Information regarding unfair practices exempt under 42.56.250(4) and (5). Otherwise,
not exempt under PRA.
Mr. Nixon relayed WCOG’s support for enactment of additional PRA exemptions:
• Specific public records exemptions to cover each of the executive session topics, even if the
material is discussed in writing rather than in an executive session.
• Blanket public records exemption for all recordings, minutes, and notes of executive sessions.
This would also cover materials prepared by staff for review during executive sessions. Materials
provided in executive session today are not exempt from disclosure under the PRA unless
communications from the City Attorney protected by attorney-client privilege.
In the meantime, WCOG recommends Council’s be selective; have a policy to not record executive
sessions when the discussion would not be exempt from the PRA, or retain only a high-level summary of
the nature of the discussion without the key details. They recommend cities consider the benefits of
recordings or notes on key topics that would be exempt from disclosure. For example because there is a
broad exemption for attorney-client privilege communications and since attorney-client communications
are the most frequent purpose for executive sessions, the Council may decide to record those executive
sessions.
Mr. Nixon provided WCOG’s contact information: Washington Coalition for Open Government, 6351
Seaview Avenue NW, Seattle, WA 98107; (206) 782-0393; info@washingtoncog.org;
www.washingtoncog.org.
Packet Page 13 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 10
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why no cities in the State kept minutes or record executive
sessions. Mr. Nixon answered it is due to the concern about possible disclosure if a member of the public
submitted a properly worded public records request. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether
Kirkland keeps minutes or records executive sessions. Mr. Nixon answered Kirkland does not.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why Councils have executive sessions. Mr. Nixon answered it
was because the legislature decided it was more in the public interest than not to have that discussion in
secret and to keep the content secret for at least some period of time. For example if the Council were to
discuss the most they were willing to pay for property and that information became public and known to
the property owners, that would become the price of the property and the City’s ability to negotiate a
lower price would be extremely limited.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about executive session for labor negotiations. Mr. Nixon
responded when he was in the legislature, he advocated for removing labor negotiations as an allowed
topic for executive session; he personally believes labor negotiations should occur in public as they do in
many other states.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if one of the legislature’s responsibilities was to be risk managers. Mr.
Nixon answered one would hope they had that exposure in mind when they passed bills. In his
experience, that did not always happen because the analysis has not been deep enough. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked as risk managers, shouldn’t the goal be to prevent litigation; recordings of executive
session could expose Councilmembers and the City to liability. Mr. Nixon answered it was unlikely to
expose Councilmembers individually. There could be scenarios for liability based on the content of the
recording such as inappropriate statements or incorrect information made in executive session that could
be considered libel. His focus was the purpose of the executive session; attorney-client privilege is
obvious, the Council does not want to expose its courtroom strategy to the opposition in a lawsuit.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented if executive sessions were recorded, Councilmembers would need
to be more careful about what they said. Mr. Nixon answered that was a good thing; people in leadership
positions should think carefully before they speak. As a Councilmember himself, before saying or
emailing anything, he assumes it will be printed on the front page of the Seattle Times the next day.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she did not object to disclosing information discussed in
executive sessions regarding real estate once the transaction had been completed. She recognized
confidentiality must be maintained for some other topics. Mr. Nixon referred to the fundamental
principles of the PRA and OPMA, the people are sovereign, they have a right to know what their
government is doing, and it is up to them to decide what is good for them to know, not for elected
officials to decide what is good for them to know.
Rather than determining what topics were exempt from the PRA, Councilmember Yamamoto suggested it
would be simpler not to record executive sessions. He suggested that was why no other cities recorded
executive sessions. Mr. Nixon agreed without a blanket exemption for recordings of executive sessions,
cities are unwilling to determine what executive session topics should and should not be recorded. If the
idea of recording executive sessions for its own use is something the Edmonds City Council would like,
he urged them to request that AWC support legislation that would allow it.
Councilmember Yamamoto referred to Mr. Nixon’s comment about handouts provided during executive
sessions. Mr. Nixon explained if a document is produced by City staff and distributed in executive
session, it does not become a protected document because it was viewed in executive session. It is a
public record like any other City document. Unless there is an exemption covering the content of the
document, it must be released if a member of the public requested it. Councilmember Yamamoto asked
what documents would be protected. Mr. Nixon answered it would depend on the nature of the document;
Packet Page 14 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 11
a memo from the attorney regarding a case and strategies would be exempt from disclosure. Other
documents may not be exempt. For example in the case of real estate, there is an exemption in the PRA
for an appraisal but there is no exemption for other types of information such as a staff analysis of the
property, how a facility would fit on the property, etc., unless it was protected by the generic deliberative
process exemption. Simply collecting documents distributed in executive session and shredding them is
not enough; the original is still on someone’s computer and required to be retained under the records
retention schedule. If a member of the public requested it, the City Attorney would need to determine how
to prevent its disclosure.
Councilmember Yamamoto summarized his understanding was that every document and handout
provided at executive session should be processed accordingly. Mr. Nixon answered similar to any
document handled by the Council in its official role it is considered a public record and unless a specific
exemption applies, someone could request it. Councilmember Yamamoto asked Mr. Doherty’s opinion.
Mr. Doherty agreed with Mr. Nixon’s statement; just because something is looked at in executive session
does not create an automatic exemption for it.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether comparisons provided by staff in executive session regarding
labor negotiations would be subject to a public records request. Mr. Nixon answered he was not aware of
any exemption for that. Mr. Doherty referred to a case, ACLU v. Seattle, where strategy papers reviewed
in executive session were not exempt under the PRA.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether the attorney should check everything that staff provided prior
to an executive session. City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out it was not sufficient for him to check
something; it would need to be advice from him in order to be attorney-client privilege exempt. It was not
enough for a director to have the City Attorney review it for it to become attorney-client privilege exempt.
Mr. Nixon agreed having the City Attorney in the room does not make a conversation attorney-client
privilege nor does the City Attorney reading a document make it attorney-client privilege. Mr. Nixon
suggested the Council could ask the City Attorney whether a document would be exempt from disclosure.
Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. Nixon said the Council could choose to record some executive
sessions. If the Council made a decision to record all executive sessions regarding attorney-client
privilege, would they be exempt from disclosure under the PRA? Mr. Nixon answered yes, as long as the
executive session followed the guidelines in the OPMA.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether those recordings would be exempt forever from public disclosure?
Mr. Nixon answered according to a Supreme Court decision, there is no timeout on attorney-client
communication, particularly related to litigation. Even though one lawsuit completes, there is nothing to
stop someone else from suing on a similar topic; therefore, privileged information should not be released
and benefit the next person filing a lawsuit.
Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification whether notes taken by the City Clerk or any record kept of
executive sessions related to attorney-client privilege would be subject to public disclosure. Mr. Nixon
answered the portion of the notes related to questions asked of the attorney and the attorney’s responses
could be redacted. Anything else would be disclosable. Councilmember Bloom asked who made the
decision regarding what was exempt and what was not if a public records request was submitted. Mr.
Nixon answered the Public Records Officer; if he/she had any questions, he/she would seek direction
from the City Attorney. Ultimately the State Supreme Court decides what is exempt or not exempt. Even
if staff makes a decision they believe is correct with regard to disclosure, someone could still sue the City.
Councilmember Bloom commented Edmonds is in the unique position of having taken summary minutes
of executive sessions for several years in accordance with direction provided by resolution. She
commented it would be difficult to go backward when that practice was started for a legitimate reason.
Packet Page 15 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 12
There was also discussion at a Council meeting that certain executive session meetings could be disclosed
when the issue was resolved. She questioned how the City should proceed when it was “already more
advanced in some ways in terms of open government than other cities are.” Mr. Nixon answered
according to the law, if someone made a public records request for them, the non-exempt portions would
need to be disclosed. If they meet the legal definition of minutes, they must be retained forever. If they are
only notes, their retention is determined by the records retention schedule.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the question she asked previously, should the City maintain a paper
record; if the answer is yes, it is important to know the retention schedule. Although the ordinance refers
to them as minutes, the City Attorney has advised they do not meet the legal definition of minutes
because they are not voted upon and are actually notes kept by the City Clerk. Given the current laws, she
asked for Mr. Nixon’s recommendation whether a paper record should be kept. Mr. Nixon clarified under
the PRA, all types of records are the same, whether paper, electronic or an audio recording, the content of
the record is what is important. It is easier to redact paper records. With regard to a recommendation, he
has not loudly demanded that Kirkland start recording executive sessions because he recognizes the value
of their being exempt. He has encouraged Kirkland to urge AWC not to oppose legislation regarding
executive sessions.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding that it made a difference who took the notes. She
asked if an audio recording or notes taken by the City Attorney would be exempt. Mr. Nixon answered it
would depend whether it was an attorney-client privileged discussion. The City Attorney’s record of
questions asked and responses he gave would be exempt as an attorney-client work product. If the City
Attorney was simply being used as a clerk to take notes about something other than an attorney-client
privilege discussion, the fact that he was the City Attorney would make no difference with regard to
whether the notes were disclosable.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding that there was no exemption for audio recordings
other than regarding an assessed valuation of a real estate transaction and would need to be made
available upon a public records request. Mr. Nixon answered audio recordings are included in the
definition of public records. Whether a recording was disclosable would depend on the content of the
recording; portions of the recording for which there is an exemption could be redacted, the rest of the
recording would have to be disclosed.
With regard to minutes versus notes, Council President Peterson asked if there could be such a thing as
executive session minutes when the Council did not vote on the minutes in executive session or in public
session. And if they are just cursory notes that are not reviewed by the Council, who outside the City
Clerk has the ability to verify their authenticity/accuracy if they become a public record upon a public
records request. Mr. Nixon answered that is why the Port of Seattle is recording their executive sessions.
He asked if the executive session minutes/notes the City currently maintains are distributed to Council
following executive session. Council President Peterson answered they are not. Mr. Nixon agreed the
Council was very dependent upon the accuracy of the person taking notes during executive session. If
there were a dispute in the future regarding an executive session, he envisioned a judge and jury would
ultimately make a decision regarding the accuracy of the record. Council President Peterson summarized
the Council was in a very nebulous situation with any kind of recording device, whether pen or audio
recording.
Mr. Nixon clarified he is not an attorney and urged the Council not to act on anything he said without first
checking with the City Attorney.
Councilmember Petso asked how confident Mr. Nixon was in his statement that a Councilmember’s
personal notes made in executive session were not a public record. Mr. Nixon answered that was
established in the case Jacobellis v. Bellingham which is summarized on the MRSC website. As long as a
Packet Page 16 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 13
Councilmember does not share their notes with others, it is a personal record and not a City record.
Councilmember Petso asked whether that applied to notes typed into her city-provided iPad. Mr. Nixon
answered yes; he sends emails to himself and was told by Kirkland’s City Attorney that emails he sends
to himself as personal notes and not shared with anyone else were exempt from disclosure. If the emails
are forwarded to someone else, they become a public record. Mr. Taraday stated he was unsure about that
interpretation.
Council President Peterson asked for Council direction regarding recording executive sessions.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to wait to see what action the legislature took.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
YAMAMOTO, TO RESCIND RESOLUTION 853 BECAUSE MINUTES ARE IN FACT NOT
BEING TAKEN.
Councilmember Petso pointed out this was listed on the agenda as a discussion item. She preferred to
rescind the resolution at a future meeting when the item is on the agenda for action.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Petso. She suggested holding a public hearing.
Councilmember Petso suggested the Council consider keeping a record of attorney-client privileged
discussions as they would be exempt under the PRA.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Council President Peterson asked whether this issue should go back through the committee process.
Councilmember Bloom commented it would be prudent to have it discussed at committee as
Councilmember Johnson was not on the Committee at that time and new information has been provided
that warrants further discussion.
Council President Peterson explained the purpose of committee discussion was so staff could update the
committee. There is no City staff person in that role for this item. He did not want it to be a discussion
between two Councilmembers and members of the public that excluded the other five Councilmembers.
He preferred any further discussion occur at a regular Council meeting.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented discussions at committee should only be with the two
Councilmembers on the committee; the public is not included in discussion other than by providing input
during public comment.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the City Attorney can participate at the committee level. The
discussion at committee could include attorney-client privilege, recording, which executive sessions could
be recorded, etc. Mr. Taraday responded he is happy to attend a committee meeting if there is meaningful
discussion he needs to participate in. His advice on this matter is straight-forward and remains the same.
The vast majority of executive sessions are attorney-client privileged. Any recording of executive
sessions regarding potential litigation is in all likelihood protected under the PRA and it is up to the City
Council to decide whether to record those. With regard to other types of executive sessions, they should
not be recorded because there is no clear exemption from disclosure. He summarized it is an
administrative, logistical question; whether the City wants to deal with the hassle of turning on and off a
recording device or having the City Clerk enter and leave the room for the portion of the executive
session the Council wants a written record maintained. He was unsure he needed to attend the committee
Packet Page 17 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 14
meeting to have that discussion. The presentations by Mr. Doherty and Mr. Nixon were excellent; he
would broaden what Mr. Nixon said would be included under the potential litigation exemption.
Councilmember Yamamoto commented this was a work session and presentations were made by two
parties. He was unclear what sending it to committee would accomplish. He preferred the full Council
participate in any further discussions.
For Council President Peterson, Councilmember Johnson said she was present when the committee last
discussed this matter. Council President Peterson asked whether Councilmember Johnson preferred to
have it discussed at committee. Councilmember Johnson suggested the committee could discuss it at the
September 11 meeting and it could be scheduled for full Council discussion on September 18. She was
uncertain Councilmember Bloom and she were of like minds but they could narrow the issues to facilitate
Council discussion.
Council President Peterson concluded since both committee members asked for this issue to be scheduled,
he will schedule it on the September 11 Committee agenda. He echoed Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’
comments that committee meetings are not open discussions with the public. He will discuss with Mr.
Taraday whether his presence at the committee meeting is necessary.
Councilmember Johnson requested staff determine the records retention for notes.
8. REPORT ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Councilmember Yamamoto reported SnoCom is working to resolve issues with the New World system.
The Port of Edmonds is in the process of presenting the Harbor Square Master Plan to the Planning
Board. The Citizens Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC) did not meet this month.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Snohomish County Health District Program Policy
Committee discussed fluoride in the water and agreed to send the matter to the full Board with a
recommendation not to change the current policy regarding fluoride in water. The Committee has
requested that testimony be limited to recent data and not old data from the 1950s and 1960s.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported WRIA 8 is having a Cedar River Watershed event. She reported
Governor Gregoire gave each Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) member a merit award for
intergovernmental collaboration in the preparation of the Countywide Planning Policies. SCT is also
discussing dispute resolution for municipal urban growth areas (MUGA).
Council President Peterson reported the Council will be provided an update on the Regional Fire
Authority (RFA) discussion at the September 18 meeting. Mayor Earling, Councilmember Petso and he
participate on the planning committee as well as individual subcommittees.
Mayor Earling requested Council President Peterson and Councilmember Petso meet with him after the
meeting regarding the RFA.
Councilmember Bloom reported staff provided updates to the Economic Development Commission
regarding Highway 99, the Harbor Square Master Plan, Main Street project, etc. Evan Pierce and Bruce
Witenberg were elected co-chairs.
Councilmember Johnson reported there will be a formal dedication of the Allen House on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places on August 29 at 3:00 p.m.
Packet Page 18 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 15
Mayor Earling reported in the next few weeks, the Sound Transit Board will begin discussions regarding
elements of Sound Transit 3 which in theory will launch an extension from Lynnwood to Everett.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling announced the September 4 Council meeting has been cancelled.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Bloom reported she has attended the Planning Board meetings regarding the Harbor
Square Master Plan. The Planning Board is doing an exceptional job reviewing the Master Plan. She
encouraged the public to watch the video that airs daily at 8:00 a.m. on Channels 21 and 39.
Councilmember Buckshnis invited the public to the Puget Sound Bird Fest on September 7 – 9. It starts at
the Edmonds Wildlife Habitat Native Plant Demonstration Garden and includes viewing of birds in the
marsh. She next thanked several of her neighbors who assisted her and her husband with their fourth
annual block party. She explained anyone living on a non-essential street can obtain a special event
permit for a block party.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she led this year’s last senior center walk. It was a successful
summer and great deal of fun.
Councilmember Yamamoto reported the Chamber golf tournament at the White Horse in Kingston was
well attended.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
Packet Page 19 of 488
AM-5097 3. C.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Committee: Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #133953 through #134054 dated August 30, 2012 for $162,148.46 (replacement checks #133954
$175.20, #133968 $1,285.20, #134011 $100.00, #134018 $45.84 & #134036 $15.50), claim check 134055 dated August 31,
2012 for $255.00 and claim checks #134056 through #134141 dated September 6, 2012 for $285,258.49 (replacement checks
#134068 $2,671.20, #134113 $15.50 & #134127 $46,960.40). Approval of payroll direct deposit & checks #51635 through
#51669 for $467,725.21 and benefit checks #51670 through #51682 & wire payments for $200,548.94 for the period August
16, 2012 through August 31, 2012.
Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit direct deposit, checks and wire payments.
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:2012 Revenue:Expenditure:1,115,936.10
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $447,661.95
Claims Replacement Checks $51,268.84
Claims Total $498,930.79
Payroll Employee checks & direct deposit $467,725.21
Payroll Benefit checks & wire payments $200,548.94
Total Payroll $668,274.15
Attachments
Claim Checks 08-30-12
Claim Checks 08-31-12
Claim Checks 09-06-12
Project Numbers 09-06-12
Payroll Aug 16-31 Benefits
Payroll Aug 16-31 Summary
Form Review
Packet Page 20 of 488
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 09/05/2012 03:58 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/05/2012 04:13 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2012 07:13 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/06/2012 08:39 AM
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 09/05/2012 03:05 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/06/2012
Packet Page 21 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
133953 8/30/2012 073947 A WORKSAFE SERVICE INC 164348 Drug testing services
Drug testing services
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 35.00
Total :35.00
133954 8/30/2012 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 278043 RODENT CONTROL
RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 82.12
RODENT CONTROL278062
RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 93.08
Total :175.20
133955 8/30/2012 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 310219 1-13992
PEST CONTROL
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 69.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 6.56
Total :75.56
133956 8/30/2012 073862 ADAMS CONSULTING SERVICES LLC 2078/10 Professional HR Consulting Services
Professional HR Consulting Services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 1,316.25
Total :1,316.25
133957 8/30/2012 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND SEPT 2012 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 9/2012 EDMONDS AC
ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 9/2012
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 2,097.71
Total :2,097.71
133958 8/30/2012 074143 AFFORDABLE WA BACKFLOW TESTING 3418 BACKFLOW TESTS
2 BACKFLOW TESTS
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 60.00
Total :60.00
133959 8/30/2012 074151 ALLEN, STEPHANIE ALLEN0823 REFUND
1Page:
Packet Page 22 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
133959 8/30/2012 (Continued)074151 ALLEN, STEPHANIE
CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 376.00
Total :376.00
133960 8/30/2012 065568 ALLWATER INC 082312033 COEWASTE
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 33.25
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.67
Total :33.92
133961 8/30/2012 069667 AMERICAN MARKETING 15654 PLAQUES FOR HAZEL MILLER PLAZA
RAILING AND MOSAIC PLAQUES FOR HAZEL
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 296.80
Freight
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 7.90
9.5% Sales Tax
132.000.640.594.760.310.00 28.95
Total :333.65
133962 8/30/2012 066025 ANDERSON, ANGIE ANDERSON0825 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 8/25/12
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00
Total :105.00
133963 8/30/2012 073769 ANTONCICH, WALTER J ANTONCICH15481 BASKETBALL CLINICS
CLINIC #15481
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 262.50
CLINIC #15482
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 112.50
Total :375.00
133964 8/30/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6356444 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 27.45
2Page:
Packet Page 23 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
133964 8/30/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.61
Total :30.06
133965 8/30/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6356450 21580001
UNIFORMS
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 57.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 5.46
Total :62.96
133966 8/30/2012 070251 ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY 122826 POLYETHYLENE ROLL GRID
POLYETHYLENE ROLL GRID
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 1,470.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 122.65
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 139.65
Total :1,732.30
133967 8/30/2012 074152 BACHMANN, ROBERT BACHMANN0822 REFUND
CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 78.00
Total :78.00
133968 8/30/2012 061659 BAILEY'S TRADITIONAL TAEKWON BAILEY11012 TAEKWONDO CLASSES
TAEKWON DO #11012
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 842.80
TAEKWON DO #11016
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 442.40
Total :1,285.20
133969 8/30/2012 002170 BARTON, RONALD 64 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.230.00 233.58
3Page:
Packet Page 24 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :233.58133969 8/30/2012 002170 002170 BARTON, RONALD
133970 8/30/2012 074136 BEYONDNET SOLUTIONS LLC 14399A WWTP SSV UPGRADE SERVICES
WWTP SSV upgrade services
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 2,250.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 213.75
Total :2,463.75
133971 8/30/2012 074136 BEYONDNET SOLUTIONS LLC 14399 C-395 IN PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
C-395 IN PLANT IMPROVEMENTS
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 5,940.00
9.5% Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 564.30
Total :6,504.30
133972 8/30/2012 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 935489 INV#935489 - EDMONDS PD -RICHARDSON
2ND CHANCE SUMMIT II VEST
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 725.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 68.88
INV#941166-02 - EDMONDS PD -BICKAR941166-02
2ND CHANCE SUMMIT 11 VEST
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 725.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 68.88
INV#941244-02 - EDMONDS PD -STRUM941244-02
2ND CHANCE SUMMIT II VEST
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 725.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 68.88
Total :2,381.64
133973 8/30/2012 003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY BF64635 MARINA BEACH LEASED LAND
LEASE OF LAND @ MARINA BEACH
001.000.640.574.100.450.00 1,751.00
4Page:
Packet Page 25 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,751.00133973 8/30/2012 003074 003074 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY
133974 8/30/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12095721 572105
COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 84.28
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 1.52
Total :85.80
133975 8/30/2012 003710 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS 35404402 INV#35404402 ACCT#7898305185 EDMONDS PD
FUEL FOR NARCS VEHICLE
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 164.92
TAX EXEMPT FILING FEE
104.000.410.521.210.320.00 1.65
Total :166.57
133976 8/30/2012 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9609 INV#9609 CUST#47 -EDMONDS PD
PRISONER R&B FOR JULY 2012
001.000.410.523.600.510.00 890.00
Total :890.00
133977 8/30/2012 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2460959 005302
BIGFOLD TOWELS/PAPER TOWELS
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 258.66
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.23 24.57
Total :283.23
133978 8/30/2012 070300 CODE 4 INC 10888 INV 10888 EDMONDS PD -MCCLURE
EMOTIONAL SURVIVAL - 9/27/12
001.000.410.521.400.490.00 99.00
Total :99.00
133979 8/30/2012 074154 COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY LLC 6038 FLOWMETER
FLOWMETER
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 7,255.00
Freight
5Page:
Packet Page 26 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
133979 8/30/2012 (Continued)074154 COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY LLC
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 128.67
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 701.45
Total :8,085.12
133980 8/30/2012 006200 DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE 3265631 E7AA.ADVERTISING FOR RE-BID
E7AA.Advertising for Re-Bid
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 518.00
E2CA.NOTICE OF SMALL WORKS PROJECT3265644
E2CA.Notice of Small Works Project
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 43.05
Total :561.05
133981 8/30/2012 070230 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 8/1/12 - 8/29/12 STATE SHARE OF CONCEALED PISTOL
State Share of Concealed Pistol
001.000.000.237.190.000.00 327.00
Total :327.00
133982 8/30/2012 006626 DEPT OF ECOLOGY 2013-BA0024058 BA0024058
BIOSOLIDS PERMIT
411.000.656.538.800.510.00 880.46
Total :880.46
133983 8/30/2012 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 12-3295 MINUTE TAKING
8/14 & 8/21 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 495.00
Total :495.00
133984 8/30/2012 073914 ECS ENTERPRISES CONTROL SYSTEM ECS12716-A UPS TOWER
UPS TOWER
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 3,923.20
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 84.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 380.69
6Page:
Packet Page 27 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :4,387.89133984 8/30/2012 073914 073914 ECS ENTERPRISES CONTROL SYSTEM
133985 8/30/2012 007775 EDMONDS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CHAMBER0823 TASTE OF EDMONDS REFUND
REFUNDABLE DAMAGE DEPOSIT FROM THE
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 1,420.00
Total :1,420.00
133986 8/30/2012 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP GIFFORD0822 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIPS FOR ANDREW
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 118.00
Total :118.00
133987 8/30/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 1-00575 CITY PARK
CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 201.26
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM1-00825
BRACKETT'S LANDING RESTROOM
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 906.55
SPRINKLER1-00875
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 42.27
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER1-02125
CITY PARK SPRINKLER METER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 52.43
290 MAIN ST1-03710
290 MAIN ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 34.65
SPRINKLER1-03900
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 70.21
SPRINKLER1-05125
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 67.67
GAZEBO IRRIGATION1-05285
GAZEBO IRRIGATION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
7Page:
Packet Page 28 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
133987 8/30/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
CORNER PARK1-05340
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 72.75
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05650
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP1-05675
PARKS MAINTENANCE SHOP
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 664.24
EDMONDS CITY PARK1-05700
EDMONDS CITY PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 47.35
CORNER PARK1-09650
CORNER PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 42.27
SW CORNER SPRINKLER1-09800
SW CORNER SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 75.29
PLANTER1-10780
PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 47.35
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH1-16130
CORNER PLANTER ON 5TH
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 67.67
CORNER PARKS1-16300
CORNER PARKS
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 245.48
118 5TH AVE N1-16420
118 5TH AVE N
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 37.19
CITY HALL TRIANGLE1-16450
CITY HALL TRIANGLE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 73.43
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX1-16630
6TH & MAIN PLANTER BOX
8Page:
Packet Page 29 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
133987 8/30/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 77.83
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER1-17475
5TH & DAYTON ST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 108.31
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD1-19950
PINE STREE PLAYFIELD
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 60.21
1141 9TH AVE S1-36255
1141 9TH AVE S
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER2-25150
9TH & CASPER ST (WEST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 29.57
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER2-25175
9TH & CASPER ST (EAST PLANTER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 32.11
SPRINKLER2-28275
SPRINKLER
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 34.65
MINI PARK2-37180
MINI PARK
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 41.32
820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY7-05276
820 15TH ST SW/CEMETERY
130.000.640.536.500.470.00 124.76
23708 104TH AVE W8-40000
23708 104TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 802.97
Total :4,148.50
133988 8/30/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 2-26950 LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN
LIFT STATION #3 1529 NORTHSTREAM LN
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 60.19
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN2-29118
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN
9Page:
Packet Page 30 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
133988 8/30/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 44.81
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN2-29119
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 70.35
Total :175.35
133989 8/30/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 078889 MK0653
COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 146.18
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 13.89
Total :160.07
133990 8/30/2012 071967 ENG, STEPHEN ENG15385 BEGINNING TAEKWONDO
BEGINNING TAEKWON DO #15385
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 159.00
Total :159.00
133991 8/30/2012 074149 ERIC JOHNSON & GRACE MUN 8-19525 #112313-SB UTILITY REFUND
#112313-SB Utility Refund - received
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 69.10
Total :69.10
133992 8/30/2012 074155 ESTATE OF PATRICIA E HANSON 3-57700 #12-444-JMO UTILITY REFUND
#12-444-JMO Utility Refund due to
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 185.69
Total :185.69
133993 8/30/2012 067599 EWING ELECTRIC INC M852 INSTALLED WIRE/INTRINSIC PANEL
INSTALLED WIRE/INTRINSIC PANEL
411.000.656.538.800.410.22 18,897.71
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.22 1,795.28
Total :20,692.99
133994 8/30/2012 074062 FITNESS INDUSTRIOUS LLC FITNESS0823 XFIT CAMP NUTRITION CLASS
10Page:
Packet Page 31 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
133994 8/30/2012 (Continued)074062 FITNESS INDUSTRIOUS LLC
XFIT CAMP NUTRITION CLASS~
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 300.00
Total :300.00
133995 8/30/2012 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 200056 July 2012 Section 125 Plan fees
July 2012 Section 125 Plan fees
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 52.20
Total :52.20
133996 8/30/2012 072932 FRIEDRICH, KODY FRIEDRICH15474 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE 13+ 15474
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 162.50
IRISH DANCE 13+ 15470
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 50.00
Total :212.50
133997 8/30/2012 011900 FRONTIER 253-007-4989 SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR TELEMETRY CIRCUIT
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 29.02
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES253-012-9166
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 151.72
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINES
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 281.76
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-014-8062
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 18.53
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.42
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE253-017-4360
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 43.86
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 81.46
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE425-712-8347
11Page:
Packet Page 32 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
133997 8/30/2012 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 55.35
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 166.05
CITY HALL ALARM LINES 121 5TH AVE N425-776-6829
CITY HALL FIRE AND INTRUSION ALARM
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 111.36
UTILITY LOCATE DESIGNATED LINE425-778-3297
UTILITY LOCATE DESIGNATED LINE
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 19.06
UTILITY LOCATE DESIGNATED LINE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 35.39
Total :1,027.98
133998 8/30/2012 068617 GLEISNER, BARBARA GLEISNER15459 QIGONG & TAI CHI CLASSES
QIGONG #15459
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 226.50
QIGONG #15457
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 210.00
TAI CHI #15408
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 96.50
TAI CHI #15406
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 180.00
TAI CHI #15405
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 585.75
Total :1,298.75
133999 8/30/2012 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 961979594 0000482902
CONNECTOR KIT
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 3.12
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 8.96
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1.15
12Page:
Packet Page 33 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :13.23133999 8/30/2012 012233 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
134000 8/30/2012 073533 H2NATION PUBLISHING INC 1257 PUGET SOUND BIRD FEST WEB DEVELOPMENT
Re-development of Puget Sound Bird Fest
120.000.310.575.420.490.00 540.00
Total :540.00
134001 8/30/2012 074141 HAMILTON, LISA HAMILTON16170 LITTLE SCIENTISTS
LITTLE SCIENTISTS #16170
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 630.00
LITTLE SCIENTISTS #15360
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 756.00
Total :1,386.00
134002 8/30/2012 067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 4047859 0205
LUMBER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 79.70
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.57
02054047980
ROLLER, COATING
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 87.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.27
020541291
PEAT, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 24.51
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.33
02055030142
COUPLINGS, SAW, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 69.03
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.56
02055037769
WELDED RINGS, LINKS,BATTERIES
13Page:
Packet Page 34 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134002 8/30/2012 (Continued)067862 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 16.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 1.53
02055047553
EYE BOLTS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.36
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.51
02055084531
EDGER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 0.69
02055264183
SUPPLIES FOR CEMETERY RAILING
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 62.98
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 5.98
02056049877
REBAR CAPS, ETC.
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 57.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 5.50
02058078433
SPRAYER
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 29.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.85
02059041529
PEAT
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 33.81
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.21
Total :518.71
14Page:
Packet Page 35 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134003 8/30/2012 074150 IKEDA, RITA BAILEY IKEDA0823 SISTER CITY REIMBURSEMENT
REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES FOR HEKINAN
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 405.80
Total :405.80
134004 8/30/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2128359 Copy paper - 3rd floor
Copy paper - 3rd floor
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 36.01
Copy paper - 3rd floor
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 36.00
Copy paper - 3rd floor
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 35.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 3.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 3.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 3.42
Total :118.26
134005 8/30/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2137681 WIREBOUND NOTEBOOKS W/POCKET DIVIDER
Three subject wirebound notebooks
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 29.96
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.310.00 2.85
SHARP CALCULATOR FOR D BURKE2138358
Sharp 2 color printing calculator
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 134.99
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.310.00 12.82
Total :180.62
134006 8/30/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2136277 INDEX MAKER DIVIDERS
INDEX MAKER DIVIDERS
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 231.90
9.5% Sales Tax
15Page:
Packet Page 36 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134006 8/30/2012 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
411.000.656.538.800.310.41 22.03
Total :253.93
134007 8/30/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2136738 Misc. office supplies including chair
Misc. office supplies including chair
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 217.28
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 20.65
Total :237.93
134008 8/30/2012 072146 JOHNSON, BREANNE BJOHNSON0825 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR FOR 1 HOUR ON
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 15.00
Total :15.00
134009 8/30/2012 065056 JOHNSON, TROY TJOHNSON0826 PLAZA ROOM MONITOR
PLAZA ROOM MONITOR 8/26/12
001.000.640.574.100.410.00 105.00
Total :105.00
134010 8/30/2012 062477 KEEP POSTED 16114 DISTRIBUTION OF BIRD FEST POSTERS
Distribution of Bird Fest posters
120.000.310.575.420.490.00 278.00
Total :278.00
134011 8/30/2012 073322 LUTES, LEONARD ENG2010.0233 Refund to Lutes -permit not necessary
Refund to Lutes -permit not necessary
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 100.00
Total :100.00
134012 8/30/2012 066191 MACLEOD RECKORD 6485 CITY PARK SPRAY & PLAY
CITY PARK PROJECT #1203
125.000.640.575.500.410.00 7,305.00
Total :7,305.00
134013 8/30/2012 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1020 INTERPRETER FEE
16Page:
Packet Page 37 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134013 8/30/2012 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE724
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE725
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE726
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.32
Total :353.28
134014 8/30/2012 019920 MCCANN, MARIAN 63 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
009.000.390.517.370.290.00 998.00
Total :998.00
134015 8/30/2012 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 34204330 123106800
TAPE/WEATHERPROOF BOX/RECEPTACLE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 242.79
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.93
12310680034888964
STRUT CHANNEL/DUCT TAPE/TUBING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 916.98
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 39.60
Total :1,208.30
134016 8/30/2012 069365 MOON CONSTRUCTION INC 12014 C-396 SWITCHGEAR ACCESS CATWALK
C-396 SWITCHGEAR ACCESS CATWALK
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 4,742.40
9.5% Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 474.24
17Page:
Packet Page 38 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :5,216.64134016 8/30/2012 069365 069365 MOON CONSTRUCTION INC
134017 8/30/2012 069923 MOTION INDUSTRIES INC WA23-247674 101690-01
GEAR BOX
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6,408.77
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 82.59
Total :6,491.36
134018 8/30/2012 024300 NEBAR HOSE & FITTINGS LLC 212963-001 DUROFLEX
DUROFLEX
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 37.44
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 8.40
Total :45.84
134019 8/30/2012 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-517285 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:HAINES WHARF PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 220.77
Total :220.77
134020 8/30/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 008179 WRITE ON THE SOUND SUPPLIES
WRITE ON THE SOUND SUPPLIES
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 334.87
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 31.81
OFFICE SUPPLIES020990
STAPLES & LEGAL SIZED PAPER
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 19.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.87
VERTICAL ORGANIZER037302
VERTICAL ORGANIZER & PENS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 42.69
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 4.05
18Page:
Packet Page 39 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134020 8/30/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
PRESCHOOL NAME BADGES038224
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL NAME BADGE HOLDERS
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 39.84
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 3.79
WOTS SUPPLIES055294
WRITE ON THE SOUND FOLDERS
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 13.20
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 1.26
COPY PAPER057648
COPY PAPER
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 193.98
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 18.43
PRESCHOOL PAPER CUTTER103714
MEADOWDALE PRESCHOOL PAPER CUTTER
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 89.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.560.310.00 8.54
COLD PACKS988460
INSTANT COLD PACKS FOR FIRST AID KIT
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 8.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.81
BANDAGES988578
BANDAGES
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 6.06
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 0.57
Total :819.68
134021 8/30/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 045974 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Office Supplies
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 305.53
19Page:
Packet Page 40 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134021 8/30/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 29.03
Total :334.56
134022 8/30/2012 068709 OFFICETEAM 36014994 Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant Services
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant Services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 525.36
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant Services36052450
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant Services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 525.36
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant Services36097673
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant Services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 525.36
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant services36144393
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 525.36
Total :2,101.44
134023 8/30/2012 074148 OLSON, VIVIAN PLN20120031 Application withdrawn for tree cutting
Application withdrawn for tree cutting
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 570.00
Total :570.00
134024 8/30/2012 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 058113 YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 252.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 23.98
Total :276.38
134025 8/30/2012 070003 PAXTON, LAUREL PAXTON15353 ACTING CAMP
ACTING CAMP #15353
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 3,546.60
Total :3,546.60
134026 8/30/2012 071362 PEACHTREE BUSINESS PRODUCTS P2744465 PARKING PERMITS
20Page:
Packet Page 41 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134026 8/30/2012 (Continued)071362 PEACHTREE BUSINESS PRODUCTS
Res. Parking Permits
121.000.340.517.900.310.00 368.20
PARKING PERMITSP2753658
Res. Parking Permits
121.000.340.517.900.310.00 87.00
Total :455.20
134027 8/30/2012 028400 PITNEY BOWES INC 341665 POSTAGE METER SUPPLIES
Sealer for the Postage Meter
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 187.92
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.250.514.300.310.00 17.85
Total :205.77
134028 8/30/2012 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 2161324 211958
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 23.54
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.24
2119582165526
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 82.14
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 7.80
2119582174811
WIRE/CONNECTOR BLOCK
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 641.77
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 60.97
2119582195743
WIRE
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 236.64
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 22.48
21Page:
Packet Page 42 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,077.58134028 8/30/2012 028860 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
134029 8/30/2012 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 200443 2000
UPS
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 54.45
Total :54.45
134030 8/30/2012 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 7918807004 YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,604.02
Total :2,604.02
134031 8/30/2012 046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY 010-187-400-6 SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 47.71
FACILITY MAINTENANCE SHOP 600 3023-075-700-7
FACILITY MAINTENANCE SHOP 600 3
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 41.14
LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST191-676-600-7
LIFT STATION #7 71 W DAYTON ST
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.81
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N275-316-600-4
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 239.52
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW277-636-500-5
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
001.000.650.519.910.470.00 4.50
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
111.000.653.542.900.470.00 17.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 17.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 17.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 17.09
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ST SW
22Page:
Packet Page 43 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134031 8/30/2012 (Continued)046900 PUGET SOUND ENERGY
411.000.652.542.900.470.00 17.08
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST368-997-600-3
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 37.84
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD525-492-600-8
CLUBHOUSE 6801 N MEADOWDALE RD
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 36.75
FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW532-232-313-9
FIRE STATION # 16 8429 196TH ST SW
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 119.04
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR567-289-500-9
LIFT STATION #9 8001 SIERRA DR
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 35.65
FLEET MAINTENANCE SHOP 21105 72590-308-500-8
FLEET MAINTENANCE SHOP 21105 72
511.000.657.548.680.470.00 61.12
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N643-956-600-8
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 124.51
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700649-032-700-1
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 713.66
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE885-190-800-7
LIFT STATION #8 107 RAILROAD AVE
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 54.94
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W991-966-110-9
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 60.16
Total :1,695.79
134032 8/30/2012 070955 R&R STAR TOWING 77145 INV#77145 - EDMONDS PD
TOWING 2011 FORD FUSION #AEU
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
23Page:
Packet Page 44 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134032 8/30/2012 (Continued)070955 R&R STAR TOWING
INV#78252 - EDMONDS PD78252
TOWING 1997 SUBARU #AGT6387
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 158.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.410.00 15.01
Total :346.02
134033 8/30/2012 006841 RICOH USA INC 5023558098 Meter charges for reception
Meter charges for reception
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 12.05
Total :12.05
134034 8/30/2012 073959 SALGADO, ANGELICA SALGADO15580 ZUMBA CLASSES
ZUMBA #15580
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 43.20
Total :43.20
134035 8/30/2012 067802 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIP CO 603303 INV#603303 CUST#0001733 -EDMONDS PD
FED-LE13200-CF BUCK
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 489.20
FED-T223A-CF 55GR SOFT POINT
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 1,326.78
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.400.310.00 172.52
Total :1,988.50
134036 8/30/2012 072969 SHELBY-MARTIN, KATHY 10092009 JURORS
JURORS
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50
Total :15.50
134037 8/30/2012 037801 SNO CO HUMAN SERVICE DEPT I000307476 02-12 LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS &TAXES
Quarterly Liquor Board Profits &Taxes
001.000.390.567.000.510.00 4,240.78
Total :4,240.78
24Page:
Packet Page 45 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134038 8/30/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2004-9314-6 19827 89TH PL W
19827 89TH PL W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 31.68
23202 EDMONDS WAY2009-4334-8
23202 EDMOND WAY
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 114.76
24000 78TH AVE W2026-2041-5
24000 78TH AVE W
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 30.64
Total :177.08
134039 8/30/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 123828755 2030-9778-7
WWTP ELECTRICITY
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 23,052.51
Total :23,052.51
134040 8/30/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2002-0256-2 TRAFFIC LIGHT 20829 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20829 76TH AVE W
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 30.64
LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AVE2002-0291-9
LIFT STATION #8 113 RAILROAD AVE
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 230.78
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W2002-7495-9
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23602 76TH AVE W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 35.97
TRAFFIC LIGHT 9730 220TH2007-4860-6
SIGNAL LIGHT 9730 220TH
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.68
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND AVE S2009-1385-3
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 115 2ND AVE S
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 36.20
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W2011-9222-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 20408 76TH AVE W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.74
LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WAY2014-2731-7
LIFT STATION 7403 BALLINGER WAY
25Page:
Packet Page 46 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134040 8/30/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.68
LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON ST2015-3292-6
LIFT STATION #7 121 W DAYTON ST
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 283.54
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W2015-8215-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 19600 80TH AVE W
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 42.71
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W2020-7719-4
FIRE STATION #20 23009 88TH AVE W
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 791.49
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST2020-8787-0
LIFT STATION #6 100 PINE ST
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 220.56
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 992022-8909-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 HWY 99
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 92.53
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 992022-8912-0
TRAFFIC LIGHT 23801 HWY 99
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 98.05
LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST2024-9953-9
LIFT STATION #1 105 CASPERS ST
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 738.61
Total :2,696.18
134041 8/30/2012 073549 STERRETT CONSULTING LLC 1201-04 Edmonds Westgate Process.
Edmonds Westgate Process.
001.000.620.558.600.410.00 1,544.90
Total :1,544.90
134042 8/30/2012 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC SUNSETBAY15306 BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY
BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY #15306
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 9,900.00
BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAYSUNSETBAY15307
BEACH CAMP @ SUNSET BAY #15307
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 9,480.00
26Page:
Packet Page 47 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :19,380.00134042 8/30/2012 072319 072319 SUNSET BAY RESORT LLC
134043 8/30/2012 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 440011468163 C/A 440001304654
Basic e-commerce hosting 08/02/12 -
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
C/A 440001307733440011468177
08/2012 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
Total :69.90
134044 8/30/2012 073621 TANIMURA, NAOAKI TANIMURA15399 KENDO CLASSES
KENDO #15399
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 264.00
KENDO #15401
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 135.00
Total :399.00
134045 8/30/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1791044 BANKING SERVICES RFP
Banking Services RFP 8/17/12
001.000.310.514.230.490.00 22.36
Total :22.36
134046 8/30/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY I01790550-08122012 E7AA.ADVERTISING FOR RE-BID
E7AA.Advertising for Re-Bid
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 120.40
E2CA.NOTICE OF SMALL WORKS PROJECTI01791285-08202012
E2CA.Notice of Small Works Project
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 15.48
Total :135.88
134047 8/30/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1789606 ODGERS/PLN20120029 Legals.
ODGERS/PLN20120029 Legals.
001.000.620.558.600.440.00 36.12
Total :36.12
134048 8/30/2012 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 1109962712 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg
27Page:
Packet Page 48 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134048 8/30/2012 (Continued)067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 98.18
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 172.08
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 68.26
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 13.40
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 64.46
Cell Service-PD
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 443.08
Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 28.85
Cell Service-PW Storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 13.97
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 47.00
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 47.00
Cell Service-PW Water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 139.67
Cell Service-PW Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 52.62
Cell Service-WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 40.22
Total :1,228.79
134049 8/30/2012 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5611 INV#5611 - EDMONDS PD
4,000 POLICE LETTERHEAD
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 251.66
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.100.310.00 23.91
Total :275.57
134050 8/30/2012 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5615 BUSINESS CARDS, P&R & DEV.SER
28Page:
Packet Page 49 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134050 8/30/2012 (Continued)073552 WELCO SALES LLC
Business Cards-Debbie Johnson250-00287
001.000.640.574.100.490.00 17.20
Jennifer Lambert250-00287
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 17.20
Jeanie McConnell250-00287
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 17.20
Megan Luttrell250-00287
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 17.20
Edward Sibrel250-00287
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 17.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.490.00 1.63
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 6.54
Total :94.17
134051 8/30/2012 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5613 Engineering letterhead.
Engineering letterhead.
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 145.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 13.78
Total :158.78
134052 8/30/2012 074153 WHELAN, JULIANA WHELAN0824 REFUND
CUSTOMER REQUESTED REFUND
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 140.00
Total :140.00
134053 8/30/2012 045565 WSPCA 2012 - MCCLURE 2012 DUES -JOSH MCCLURE EDMONDS PD
RENEWAL MEMBERSHIP 2012 -MCCLURE
001.000.410.521.260.490.00 45.00
Total :45.00
134054 8/30/2012 073479 WU, THOMAS 1017 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
29Page:
Packet Page 50 of 488
08/30/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
8:24:09AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134054 8/30/2012 (Continued)073479 WU, THOMAS
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 147.44
Total :147.44
Bank total :163,770.20102Vouchers for bank code :front
163,770.20Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report102
30Page:
Packet Page 51 of 488
08/31/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
10:27:21AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134055 8/31/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 HAWKINS PUD INSPECTION FEE
PUD INSPECTION FEE FOR TALBOT ROAD
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 255.00
Total :255.00
Bank total :255.001Vouchers for bank code :front
255.00Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report1
1Page:
Packet Page 52 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134056 9/6/2012 072627 911 ETC INC 20547 MONTHLY 911 DATABASE MAINT
Monthly 911 database maint
001.000.310.518.880.480.00 100.00
Total :100.00
134057 9/6/2012 061029 ABSOLUTE GRAPHIX 812525 SOFTBALL & VOLLEYBALL SHIRTS
SHIRTS FOR SUMMER SOFTBALL &
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 114.91
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.575.520.310.00 10.92
Total :125.83
134058 9/6/2012 071177 ADVANTAGE BUILDING SERVICES 11-1284 JANITORIAL SERVICE
JANITORIAL SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 334.00
FLOORING MAINTENANCE11-1285
FLOORING MAINTENANCE
411.000.656.538.800.410.23 273.33
Total :607.33
134059 9/6/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6368511 UNIFORM SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE UNIFORM SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 27.45
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.240.00 2.61
Total :30.06
134060 9/6/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6320306 FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS655-6324843
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
1Page:
Packet Page 53 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134060 9/6/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY 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 DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6324844
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 12.53
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 12.52
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 1.19
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 1.19
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS &MATS655-6324845
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 6.50
2Page:
Packet Page 54 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134060 9/6/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.55
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.61
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6332322
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS655-6336829
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY 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
3Page:
Packet Page 55 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134060 9/6/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6336830
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.03
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.02
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 DIVISION UNIFORMS &MATS655-6336831
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 6.45
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.55
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.61
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6344256
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS655-6348741
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
4Page:
Packet Page 56 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134060 9/6/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY 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 DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6348742
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.03
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.02
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 DIVISION UNIFORMS &MATS655-6348743
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 6.45
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.55
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.61
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
5Page:
Packet Page 57 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134060 9/6/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6356445
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 30.07
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.240.00 2.86
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS655-6361012
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
001.000.650.519.910.410.00 1.01
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
111.000.653.542.900.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.652.542.900.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATS
411.000.655.535.800.410.00 3.84
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY 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 DIVISION UNIFORMS655-6361013
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
111.000.653.542.900.240.00 5.03
STREET/STORM DIVISION UNIFORMS
6Page:
Packet Page 58 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134060 9/6/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
411.000.652.542.900.240.00 5.02
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 DIVISION UNIFORMS &MATS655-6361014
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 6.45
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 3.55
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.240.00 0.61
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.410.00 0.34
Total :324.48
134061 9/6/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6368518 21580001
UNIFORM SERVICE
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 57.50
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.240.00 5.46
Total :62.96
134062 9/6/2012 072576 ART ACCESS 12458 EXHIBIT ADS
EXHIBIT LISTINGS
123.000.640.573.100.440.00 35.00
Total :35.00
134063 9/6/2012 073853 BECKWITH CONSULTING GROUP 09012012 STRATEGIC PLAN TASK #19
Strategic Plan Task #19 25%
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 2,100.00
Total :2,100.00
134064 9/6/2012 066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC 462601 E7AA.COPIES OF PLANS AND SPECS
E7AA.Copies of plans and specs
7Page:
Packet Page 59 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134064 9/6/2012 (Continued)066673 BILLS BLUEPRINT INC
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 96.70
E7AA.Copies of plans and specs
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 96.70
E7AA.Copies of plans and specs
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 96.70
9.5% Sales Tax
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 9.19
9.5% Sales Tax
412.100.630.594.320.410.00 9.19
9.5% Sales Tax
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 9.18
Total :317.66
134065 9/6/2012 070803 BITCO SOFTWARE LLC 456 ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES
Annual Implementation Services
001.000.620.558.800.410.00 6,000.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.558.800.410.00 570.00
Total :6,570.00
134066 9/6/2012 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 935490 INV#935490 - EDMONDS PD -TRYKAR
2ND CHANCE SUMMIT II VEST
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 725.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 68.88
INV#952856 - EDMONDS PD -CAMERON952856
SEW ON YRS OF SERVICE (COGS)
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.50
SEW ON NAME TAG
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 2.00
SEW ON YRS OF SERVICE (COGS)
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 5.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 0.90
8Page:
Packet Page 60 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :804.28134066 9/6/2012 002500 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP
134067 9/6/2012 070483 BREWER, MARTY BREWER0830 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 100.00
Total :100.00
134068 9/6/2012 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN13058 PILATES & YOGA CLASSES
PILATES RELAXED MAT #13058
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 347.20
YOGA #13017
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 917.70
YOGA #13008
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 392.00
YOGA #13011
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 1,014.30
Total :2,671.20
134069 9/6/2012 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY BROCKMANN15548 YOGA CLASSES
YOGA #15548
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 252.00
YOGA #15551
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 391.50
YOGA #15554
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 266.22
YOGA #15557
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 443.70
YOGA #15560
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 313.20
Total :1,666.62
134070 9/6/2012 061801 CHRISMAN, ADDISON LYLE DRS Refund REFUND OF DRS FUNDS NOT ELIGIBLE
DRS refund for ineligible fund reported
811.000.000.231.540.000.00 87.60
Total :87.60
9Page:
Packet Page 61 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134071 9/6/2012 074142 CITRIX SYSTEMS INC 91317592 15652280
VIRTUAL SERVER LICENSE
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 3,063.56
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 291.06
Total :3,354.62
134072 9/6/2012 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9613 INV#9613 CUST#1655 -EDMONDS PD
VERIZON INTERNET SERVICES 07/
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 40.01
Total :40.01
134073 9/6/2012 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9615 MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS
JOINT MAINTENANCE &OPERATION COSTS FOR
001.000.640.576.800.510.00 28,807.20
Total :28,807.20
134074 9/6/2012 062891 COOK PAGING WA 1126518 8800262
WATER WATCH PAGERS
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 3.95
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 0.30
Total :4.25
134075 9/6/2012 065683 CORRY'S FINE DRY CLEANING AUG 2012 DRY CLEANING JULY/AUG -EDMONDS PD
CLEANING/LAUNDRY JULY-AUG 2012
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1,140.35
Total :1,140.35
134076 9/6/2012 029900 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS August DRS AUGUST DRS
August DRS contributions
811.000.000.231.540.000.00 159,953.21
Total :159,953.21
134077 9/6/2012 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 12-3297 MINUTE TAKING
8/28 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 252.00
10Page:
Packet Page 62 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :252.00134077 9/6/2012 064531 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
134078 9/6/2012 068591 DOUBLEDAY, MICHAEL 08312012 STATE LOBBYIST AUGUST 2012
State lobbyist for August 2012
001.000.610.519.700.410.00 2,391.00
Total :2,391.00
134079 9/6/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 079230 COPIER MAINT
COPIER MAINT
001.000.230.512.501.450.00 115.08
Total :115.08
134080 9/6/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 078965 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE
Maintenance for printers 08/21/12 -
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 312.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 29.64
CUST# MK5533 C5051 GQM52286 COPIER079377
Meter charges 07/30/12 - 08/30/12 B&
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 122.04
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.514.230.480.00 11.59
Total :475.27
134081 9/6/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 078992 COPIER LEASE
COPIER LEASE/PARK MAINTENANCE
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 8.52
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 0.81
Total :9.33
134082 9/6/2012 009895 FELDMAN, JAMES A 83112 PUBLICE DEFENDER FEE
PUBLICE DEFENDER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 7,560.00
Total :7,560.00
134083 9/6/2012 074062 FITNESS INDUSTRIOUS LLC X FIT 15606 X FIT CAMP
11Page:
Packet Page 63 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134083 9/6/2012 (Continued)074062 FITNESS INDUSTRIOUS LLC
PAYMENT #2 FOR X FIT CAMP #15606
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,750.00
X FIT CAMPX FIT 15608
X FIT CAMP #15608
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,750.00
X FIT CAMPXFIT15602
PAYMENT #2 FOR X FIT CAMP #15602
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 1,750.00
Total :5,250.00
134084 9/6/2012 011900 FRONTIER 253-017-8148 CITY PARK T1 LINE
City Park T1 Line
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 407.50
Total :407.50
134085 9/6/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-712-0647 IRRIGATION SYSTEM
IRRIGATION SYSTEM
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 95.11
Total :95.11
134086 9/6/2012 011900 FRONTIER 253-003-6887 POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SR
POINT EDWARDS CIRCUIT LINE SR
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 41.67
Total :41.67
134087 9/6/2012 011900 FRONTIER 253-012-9189 AUTO DIALER
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 41.08
AUTO DIALER253-017-7256
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 217.18
AUTO DIALER425-771-5553
AUTO DIALER
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 93.34
Total :351.60
12Page:
Packet Page 64 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134088 9/6/2012 073922 GAVIOLA, NIKKA GAVIOLA15389 TAEKWON DO CLASSES
TAEKWON DO #15389
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 44.00
TAEKWON DO #15393
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 364.00
Total :408.00
134089 9/6/2012 012199 GRAINGER 9907729678 WATER HOSE
WATER HOSE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 103.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 9.83
Total :113.33
134090 9/6/2012 073533 H2NATION PUBLISHING INC 1801 WEB DEVELOPMENT SERVICE
Web Development Service -Newsletter
001.000.310.518.880.410.00 540.00
Total :540.00
134091 9/6/2012 074164 HARDY, JOHN HARDY0830 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 300.00
Total :300.00
134092 9/6/2012 074160 HARRY LABAN & GRETCHEN SEWALL 4-25315 #0063-001346736-001 UTILITY REFUND
#0063-001346736-001 Utility Refund du
411.000.000.233.000.000.00 74.03
Total :74.03
134093 9/6/2012 074150 IKEDA, RITA BAILEY IKEDA0829 SISTER CITY REIMBURSEMENT
SISTER CITY REIMBURSEMENT FOR HEKINAN
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 72.14
Total :72.14
134094 9/6/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2140234 POINT OF SALE ROLLS
POINT OF SALE ROLLS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 33.98
13Page:
Packet Page 65 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134094 9/6/2012 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.23
Total :37.21
134095 9/6/2012 073924 KEARNS, JESSIKA CHRISTINE KEARNS15381 TAEKWON DO CLASSES
TAEKWON DO #15381
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 120.00
TAEKWON DO #15377
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 22.00
Total :142.00
134096 9/6/2012 062477 KEEP POSTED 16169 WOTS POSTERS
WRITE ON THE SOUND POSTERS
123.000.640.573.100.490.00 100.00
Total :100.00
134097 9/6/2012 070285 KPLU-FM IN-1120829139 KPLU RADIO AD PROMOTION AND TOURISM
Radio promotion ad KPLU 7/30/12 -
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 890.00
Total :890.00
134098 9/6/2012 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 384826-001 INV#384826-001 ACCT#1005003 EDMONDS PD
PAPER ROLL FOR HP PRINTER
001.000.410.521.710.310.00 85.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.710.310.00 8.12
INV#348828-001 ACCT#1005003 EDMONDS PD384828-001
FLOR. ORANGE PAVEMENT PAINT
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 47.40
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 4.50
Total :145.52
134099 9/6/2012 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 384850-001 SMART LEVEL
Smart Level 47-1/4"
14Page:
Packet Page 66 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134099 9/6/2012 (Continued)016850 KUKER RANKEN INC
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 189.85
Smart Level 23-5/8"
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 167.75
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 33.97
Total :391.57
134100 9/6/2012 067631 LODESTAR COMPANY INC 32927 2795
HVAC REPAIR
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 299.74
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.480.21 28.48
Total :328.22
134101 9/6/2012 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 799022 SUPPLIES
WASHERS, BEARINGS, CLIPS,ETC
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 147.56
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 14.02
Total :161.58
134102 9/6/2012 069362 MARSHALL, CITA 1042 INTERPRETER FEE
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE1043
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE1044
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.390.512.520.410.00 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE1045
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE1054
INTERPRETER FEE
15Page:
Packet Page 67 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134102 9/6/2012 (Continued)069362 MARSHALL, CITA
001.000.230.512.501.410.01 88.32
INTERPRETER FEE1057
INTERPRETER FEE
001.000.230.512.500.410.01 88.32
Total :529.92
134103 9/6/2012 074099 MARTIN, GARY MARTIN0820 YOGA INSTRUCTOR
YOGA INSTRUCTOR~
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 54.00
Total :54.00
134104 9/6/2012 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 34818814 123106800
BULLETIN BOARD/POLY SHEET
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 491.99
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 85.51
12310680035011587
BRASS GAUGE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 559.34
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.82
12310680035070168
STEEL PIN/THREADED PIPE/ROPE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 192.27
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.45
12310680035084937
HEX NUT/FLAT WASHER/STUD ANCHOR
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 562.30
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 14.11
Total :1,917.79
134105 9/6/2012 074157 NOEL, LAURA 0515427 REFUND SPAY/NEUTER REFUND #0515427
SPAY/NEUTER REFUND IMP#8462
16Page:
Packet Page 68 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134105 9/6/2012 (Continued)074157 NOEL, LAURA
001.000.000.343.930.000.00 50.00
Total :50.00
134106 9/6/2012 073678 NORTHSHORE FITNESS LLC NORTHSHORE15581 ZUMBA CLASSES
ZUMBA #15581
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 243.00
ZUMBA #15575
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 124.20
ZUMBA #15577
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 42.75
Total :409.95
134107 9/6/2012 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-519539 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:YOST PARK POOL
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 310.99
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-521345
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:HICKMAN PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 587.88
Total :898.87
134108 9/6/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 135077 PARK MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
PARK MAINTENANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 268.77
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 25.53
Total :294.30
134109 9/6/2012 072171 OLIVER, EDWIN DRS Refund REFUND OF DRS FUNDS NOT ELGIBLE
DRS Contributions made in error.
811.000.000.231.540.000.00 12,093.68
Total :12,093.68
134110 9/6/2012 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0021400 FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W
FIRE STATION #20 88TH AVE W
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 177.36
17Page:
Packet Page 69 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :177.36134110 9/6/2012 026200 026200 OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT
134111 9/6/2012 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 058260 YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 405.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 38.49
Total :443.64
134112 9/6/2012 071222 PARKS, ELMER PARKS0830 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 300.00
Total :300.00
134113 9/6/2012 072762 PHILLIPS, KAREN 060509 JURY FEE
JURY FEE
001.000.230.512.540.490.00 15.50
Total :15.50
134114 9/6/2012 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 2148629 211958
120 VOLT COIL
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 255.17
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 24.24
2119582215498
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 120.65
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 11.46
2119582215544
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 28.50
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 5.87
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 3.27
18Page:
Packet Page 70 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134114 9/6/2012 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
2119582231335
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 236.64
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 34.46
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 25.75
2119582235607
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 15.99
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1.52
Total :763.52
134115 9/6/2012 072384 PLAY-WELL TEKNOLOGIES PLAYWELL15167 LEGO CAMPS
LEGO CAMP #15167
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 5,250.00
Total :5,250.00
134116 9/6/2012 071811 PONY MAIL BOX & BUSINESS CTR 202699 UPS/ATWATER CT
UPS/ATWATER CT
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 91.93
Total :91.93
134117 9/6/2012 065021 PRINTING PLUS 72101 WOTS POSTERS
WRITE ON THE SOUND POSTERS
123.000.640.573.100.490.00 286.29
9.5% Sales Tax
123.000.640.573.100.490.00 27.20
Total :313.49
134118 9/6/2012 064088 PROTECTION ONE 2010551 ALARM MONITORING MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
ALARM MONITORING CLUBHOUSE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 102.00
Total :102.00
19Page:
Packet Page 71 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134119 9/6/2012 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ15508 FELDENKRAIS CLASS
FELDENKRAIS CLASS #15508
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 174.50
Total :174.50
134120 9/6/2012 070480 RINALDI, MATT RINALDI0830 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 700.00
Total :700.00
134121 9/6/2012 036070 SHANNON TOWING INC 197591 INV#197591 - EDMONDS PD
TOW 1982 HONDA #415WJV
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
134122 9/6/2012 065803 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY SKYHAWKS15328 SUMMER SPORTS CAMPS
SKYHAWKS CAMP #15328
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 280.00
SKYHAWK CAMP #15329
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 577.50
SKYHAWK CAMP #15333
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 1,050.00
Total :1,907.50
134123 9/6/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2006-6395-3 131 SUNSET AVENUE
131 SUNSET AVE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 171.50
50 RAILROAD AVE2010-5432-7
50 RAILROAD AVE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 66.77
100 RAILROAD AVE2021-3965-5
100 RAILROAD AVE
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 37.99
Total :276.26
20Page:
Packet Page 72 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134124 9/6/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2004-9315-3 TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22000 76TH AVE W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 46.39
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W2005-9488-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22400 76TH AVE W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 73.71
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21506 84TH W2011-5142-0
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHT 21506 84TH W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.68
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W2011-8789-5
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21132 76TH AVE W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 33.76
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW2015-0127-7
LIFT STATION #14 7905 1/2 211TH PL SW
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.68
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W2023-5673-9
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21530 76TH AVE W
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 38.04
Total :255.26
134125 9/6/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 103927827 2019-2991-6
23219 74 AVE WEST/BALLINGER
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 31.68
Total :31.68
134126 9/6/2012 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103583 CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
CIVIC CENTER 250 5TH AVE N
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 550.68
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700103585
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 700
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 674.47
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST103586
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 555.23
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N103588
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N
21Page:
Packet Page 73 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134126 9/6/2012 (Continued)038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 459.89
Total :2,240.27
134127 9/6/2012 067148 STERNBERG LANTERNS INC 19584 E7AA.STERNBERG LIGHTS
E7AA.Sternberg Lights
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 46,960.40
Total :46,960.40
134128 9/6/2012 074159 STEWART, BILL 08302012 PROMOTION AD IN MAP OF EDMONDS
Ad in promotional map of Edmonds to be
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 250.00
Total :250.00
134129 9/6/2012 072562 STUDIO3MUSIC LLC STUDIO315541 KINDERMUSIK CLASSES
KINDERMUSIK #15541
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 339.68
KINDERMUSIK #15539
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 188.76
Total :528.44
134130 9/6/2012 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 13874 C-402 NON POT WATER UPGRADE
C-402 NON POT WATER UPGRADE
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 1,114.50
9.5% Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 105.88
Total :1,220.38
134131 9/6/2012 073970 TALLMAN, TYLER TALLMAN083012 SOFTBALL FIELD ATTENDANT
SOFTBALL ATTENDANT @ MEADOWDALE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 660.00
Total :660.00
134132 9/6/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY I01791933-08252012 E2FE.SEPA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICAN
E2FE.SPEA Determination of
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 61.92
22Page:
Packet Page 74 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :61.92134132 9/6/2012 009350 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY
134133 9/6/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1791907 NEWSPAPER ADS
Ordinance 3893
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 25.80
Total :25.80
134134 9/6/2012 038315 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 195IF06766 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE SENIOR CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 172.82
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 16.42
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER195IM09195
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING CIVIC CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 46.73
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER195IM09891
ELEVATOR PHONE MONITORING SENIOR CENTER
001.000.651.519.920.480.00 14.06
Total :250.03
134135 9/6/2012 073216 TRIUNITY ENGINEERING & MGMNT 3 C-386 HYPO PROJECT
C-386 HYPO PROJECT
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 7,200.00
C-367 OUTFALL DIFFUSER
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 1,350.00
INSTRUMENTATION SUPPORT
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 600.00
Total :9,150.00
134136 9/6/2012 065010 UNIVERSAL ANALYZERS INC 158561 FILTER ELEMENT
FILTER ELEMENT
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 244.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 16.37
Total :260.37
134137 9/6/2012 070481 WHITE, DAN WHITE0830 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
23Page:
Packet Page 75 of 488
09/05/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
2:50:43PM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134137 9/6/2012 (Continued)070481 WHITE, DAN
SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 280.00
Total :280.00
134138 9/6/2012 064213 WSSUA TREASURER 10 AUGUST SOFTBALL OFFICIALS
AUGUST SOFTBALL OFFICIALS
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 2,739.00
Total :2,739.00
134139 9/6/2012 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1008 AUG-12 RETAINER
Monthly Retainer August 2012
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 13,000.00
Total :13,000.00
134140 9/6/2012 070484 ZYLSTRA, JERRY JZYLSTRA0830 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 340.00
Total :340.00
134141 9/6/2012 070485 ZYLSTRA, RON ZYLSTRA0830 SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
SENIOR SOFTBALL UMPIRE
001.000.640.575.520.410.00 160.00
Total :160.00
Bank total :334,905.5986Vouchers for bank code :front
334,905.59Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report86
24Page:
Packet Page 76 of 488
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1FA
STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
Revised 9/5/2012Packet Page 77 of 488
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 E8GC
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
WTR 5th Avenue Overlay Project c399 E2CC
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
Revised 9/5/2012Packet Page 78 of 488
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
STR E0AA c329 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
STM E0FC c326 Stormwater GIS Support
WTR E0IA c324 AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
WTR E0JA c363 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
FAC E0LA c327 Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
FAC E0LB c332 Senior Center Roof Repairs
STR E1AA c342 Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR E1AB c343 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
STR E1CA c368 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
STR E1DA c354 Sunset Walkway Improvements
General E1EA c372 SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM E1FA c336 SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM E1FD c339 Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
STM E1FF c341 Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STM E1FH c349 Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
STM E1FM c374 Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
STM E1FN c376 Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
SWR E1GA c347 Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
WTR E1GB c370 Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
WTR E1JA c333 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JB c344 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR E1JC c345 Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
WTR E1JD c346 PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
WTR E1JE c340 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E1JK c375 Main Street Watermain
STR E2AA c391 Transportation Plan Update
STR E2AB c392 9th Avenue Improvement Project
WTR E2CA c388 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR E2CB c389 Pioneer Way Road Repair
WTR E2CC c399 5th Avenue Overlay Project
PM E2DB c146 Interurban Trail
STM E2FA c378 North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM E2FB c379 SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM E2FC c380 Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM E2FD c381 Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
STM E2FE c382 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
Revised 9/5/2012Packet Page 79 of 488
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Engineering Number)
Funding
Engineering
Project
Number
Project
Accounting
Number Project Title
SWR E2GA c369 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
SWR E2GB c390 Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
SWR E3GA c398 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
SWR E3GB c142 OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
WTR E3JA c397 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
WTR E3JB c141 OVD Watermain Improvements
STR E6DA c245 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR E6DB c256 Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
General E6MA c238 SR99 Enhancement Program
STR E7AA c265 Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR E7AC i005 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STR E7CB c268 Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
STM E7FG m013 NPDES
PM E7MA c276 Dayton Street Plaza
SWR E8GA c298 Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR E8GC c300 BNSF Double Track Project
SWR E8GD c301 City-Wide Sewer Improvements
PM E8MA c282 Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM E8MB c290 Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR E9CA c294 2009 Street Overlay Program
STR E9DA c312 226th Street Walkway Project
STM E9FB c307 Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements
SWR E9GA c304 Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
PM E9MA c321 Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
Revised 9/5/2012Packet Page 80 of 488
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c141 E3JB OVD Watermain Improvements
SWR c142 E3GB OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements
PM c146 E2DB Interurban Trail
General c238 E6MA SR99 Enhancement Program
STR c245 E6DA 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project
STR c256 E6DB Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project
STR c265 E7AA Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements
STR c268 E7CB Shell Valley Emergency Access Road
PM c276 E7MA Dayton Street Plaza
PM c282 E8MA Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor
PM c290 E8MB Marina Beach Additional Parking
STR c294 E9CA 2009 Street Overlay Program
SWR c298 E8GA Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)
SWR c300 E8GC BNSF Double Track Project
SWR c301 E8GD City-Wide Sewer Improvements
SWR c304 E9GA Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design
STM c307 E9FB Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements
STR c312 E9DA 226th Street Walkway Project
PM c321 E9MA Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements
WTR c324 E0IA AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements
STM c326 E0FC Stormwater GIS Support
FAC c327 E0LA Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project
STR c329 E0AA 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade
FAC c332 E0LB Senior Center Roof Repairs
WTR c333 E1JA 2011 Waterline Replacement Program
STM c336 E1FA SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements
STM c339 E1FD Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades
WTR c340 E1JE 2012 Waterline Replacement Program
STM c341 E1FF Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects
STR c342 E1AA Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)
STR c343 E1AB 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming
WTR c344 E1JB 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood
WTR c345 E1JC Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study
Revised 9/5/2012Packet Page 81 of 488
PROJECT NUMBERS (By New Project Accounting Number)
Funding
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number Project Title
WTR c346 E1JD PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment
SWR c347 E1GA Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement
STM c349 E1FH Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)
STR c354 E1DA Sunset Walkway Improvements
WTR c363 E0JA 2010 Waterline Replacement Program
STR c368 E1CA 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements
SWR c369 E2GA 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update
WTR c370 E1GB Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update
General c372 E1EA SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing
STM c374 E1FM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives
WTR c375 E1JK Main Street Watermain
STM c376 E1FN Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement
STM c378 E2FA North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements
STM c379 E2FB SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System
STM c380 E2FC Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study
STM c381 E2FD Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012
STM c382 E2FE 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements
WTR c388 E2CA 2012 Waterline Overlay Program
WTR c389 E2CB Pioneer Way Road Repair
SWR c390 E2GB Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation
STR c391 E2AA Transportation Plan Update
STR c392 E2AB 9th Avenue Improvement Project
WTR c397 E3JA 2013 Waterline Replacement Program
SWR c398 E3GA 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project
WTR c399 E2CC 5th Avenue Overlay Project
STR i005 E7AC 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements
STM m013 E7FG NPDES
Revised 9/5/2012Packet Page 82 of 488
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR 100th Ave W/Firdale Ave/238th St. SW/Traffic Signal Upgrade c329 E0AA
STR 2009 Street Overlay Program c294 E9CA
WTR 2010 Waterline Replacement Program c363 E0JA
STR 2011 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming c343 E1AB
WTR 2011 Waterline Replacement Program c333 E1JA
STM 2012 Citywide Storm Drainage Improvements c382 E2FE
SWR 2012 Sanitary Sewer Comp Plan Update c369 E2GA
WTR 2012 Waterline Overlay Program c388 E2CA
WTR 2012 Waterline Replacement Program c340 E1JE
SWR 2013 Sewerline Replacement Project c398 E3GA
WTR 2013 Waterline Replacement Program c397 E3JA
STR 226th Street Walkway Project c312 E9DA
STR 228th St. SW Corridor Improvements i005 E7AC
WTR 5th Ave Overlay Project c399 E2CC
STR 76th Ave W at 212th St SW Intersection Improvements c368 E1CA
WTR 76th Ave W Waterline Extension with Lynnwood c344 E1JB
STR 76th Avenue West/75th Place West Walkway Project c245 E6DA
STR 9th Avenue Improvement Project c392 E2AB
SWR Alder Sanitary Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation c390 E2GB
SWR Alder/Dellwood/Beach Pl/224th St. Sewer Replacement c347 E1GA
WTR AWD Intertie and Reservoir Improvements c324 E0IA
SWR BNSF Double Track Project c300 E8GC
STR Caspers/Ninth Avenue/Puget Drive (SR524) Walkway Project c256 E6DB
SWR City-Wide Sewer Improvements c301 E8GD
STM Dayton Street & SR104 Storm Drainage Alternatives c374 E1FM
PM Dayton Street Plaza c276 E7MA
WTR Edmonds General Facilities Charge Study c345 E1JC
STM Edmonds Marsh Feasibility Study c380 E2FC
FAC Edmonds Museum Exterior Repairs Project c327 E0LA
STR Five Corners Roundabout (212th Street SW @ 84th Avenue W)c342 E1AA
PM Fourth Avenue Cultural Corridor c282 E8MA
PM Interurban Trail c146 E2DB
STM Lake Ballinger Associated Projects 2012 c381 E2FD
SWR Lift Station 2 Improvements (Separated from L/s 13 - 09/01/08)c298 E8GA
Revised 9/5/2012Packet Page 83 of 488
PROJECT NUMBERS (By Project Title)
Funding Project Title
Project
Accounting
Number
Engineering
Project
Number
STR Main Street Lighting and Sidewalk Enhancements c265 E7AA
WTR Main Street Watermain c375 E1JK
PM Marina Beach Additional Parking c290 E8MB
STM North Talbot Road Drainage Improvements c378 E2FA
STM NPDES m013 E7FG
SWR OVD Sewer Lateral Improvements c142 E3GB
WTR OVD Watermain Improvements c141 E3JB
STM Perrinville Creek Culvert Replacement c376 E1FN
WTR Pioneer Way Road Repair c389 E2CB
WTR PRV Station 11 and 12 Abandonment c346 E1JD
STM Public Facilities Water Quality Upgrades c339 E1FD
PM Senior Center Parking Lot & Landscaping Improvements c321 E9MA
FAC Senior Center Roof Repairs c332 E0LB
SWR Sewer Lift Station Rehabilitation Design c304 E9GA
WTR Sewer, Water, Stormwater Revenue Requirements Update c370 E1GB
STR Shell Valley Emergency Access Road c268 E7CB
General SR104 Telecommunications Conduit Crossing c372 E1EA
General SR99 Enhancement Program c238 E6MA
STM Storm Contribution to Transportation Projects c341 E1FF
STM Stormwater Development Review Support (NPDES Capacity)c349 E1FH
STM Stormwater GIS Support c326 E0FC
STR Sunset Walkway Improvements c354 E1DA
STM SW Edmonds Basin #3-238th St. SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System c379 E2FB
STM SW Edmonds-105th/106th Ave W Storm Improvements c336 E1FA
STM Talbot Road/Perrinville Creek Drainage Improvements c307 E9FB
STR Transportation Plan Update c391 E2AA
Revised 9/5/2012Packet Page 84 of 488
PROJECT NUMBERS
(Phase and Task Numbers)
Phases and Tasks (Engineering Division)
Phase Title
ct Construction
ds Design
pl Preliminary
sa Site Acquisition & Prep
st Study
ro Right-of-Way
Task Title
196 Traffic Engineering & Studies
197 MAIT
198 CTR
199 Engineering Plans & Services
950 Engineering Staff Time
970 Construction Management
981 Contract
990 Miscellaneous
991 Retainage
stm Engineering Staff Time-Storm
str Engineering Staff Time-Street
swr Engineering Staff Time-Sewer
wtr Engineering Staff Time-Water
prk Engineering Staff Time-Park
Packet Page 85 of 488
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 555 - 08/16/2012 to 08/31/2012
Bank: front - Union Bank
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
51670 09/05/2012 acsi ACSI 450.00 0.00
51671 09/05/2012 mebt AST TTEE 77,724.56 0.00
51672 09/05/2012 epoa EPOA-1 POLICE 1,219.00 0.00
51673 09/05/2012 epoa4 EPOA-4 POLICE SUPPORT 117.00 0.00
51674 09/05/2012 flex FLEX-PLAN SERVICES, INC 464.17 0.00
51675 09/05/2012 jhan JOHN HANCOCK 1,641.00 0.00
51676 09/05/2012 pb NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 3,329.05 0.00
51677 09/05/2012 cope SEIU COPE 72.00 0.00
51678 09/05/2012 seiu SEIU LOCAL 925 3,284.31 0.00
51679 09/05/2012 sdu STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT 250.00 0.00
51680 09/05/2012 uw UNITED WAY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 264.00 0.00
51681 09/05/2012 icma VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884 1,433.33 0.00
51682 09/05/2012 wadc WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER 14,386.00 0.00
104,634.42 0.00
Bank: wire - FRONTIER BANK
Direct DepositCheck AmtNamePayee #DateCheck #
1954 09/05/2012 aflac AFLAC 4,294.92 0.00
1957 09/05/2012 front FRONTIER BANK 91,411.10 0.00
1958 09/05/2012 oe OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 208.50 0.00
95,914.52 0.00
200,548.94 0.00Grand Totals:
Page 1 of 19/4/2012
Packet Page 86 of 488
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 555 (08/16/2012 to 08/31/2012)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
-det 0.00 -82.46Salary Correction for DetREGULAR HOURS
121 530.25 18,059.88SICK LEAVESICK
122 2,221.87 69,891.08VACATIONVACATION
123 39.75 1,330.07HOLIDAY HOURSHOLIDAY
124 43.00 1,274.78FLOATER HOLIDAYHOLIDAY
125 222.38 6,915.93COMPENSATORY TIMECOMP HOURS
129 172.00 5,530.87Police Sick Leave L & ISICK
130 31.00 886.05Holiday Compensation UsedCOMP HOURS
150 192.00 6,940.92Kelly Day UsedREGULAR HOURS
155 32.13 1,377.47COMPTIME AUTO PAYCOMP HOURS
170 0.00 4,200.00COUNCIL BASE PAYREGULAR HOURS
171 120.00 1,500.00COUNCIL MEETING PAYREGULAR HOURS
172 36.00 450.00COUNCIL OTHER MEETINGREGULAR HOURS
173 0.00 100.00COUNCIL AGENDA PAYREGULAR HOURS
174 0.00 100.00COUNCIL PRESIDENTS PAYREGULAR HOURS
190 17,432.00 495,884.26REGULAR HOURSREGULAR HOURS
191 4.00 3,542.87FIRE PENSION PAYMENTSREGULAR HOURS
195 96.00 3,087.00ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVEREGULAR HOURS
196 68.00 2,186.63LIGHT DUTYREGULAR HOURS
210 5.00 144.78OVERTIME-STRAIGHTOVERTIME HOURS
215 36.00 1,431.39WATER WATCH STANDBYOVERTIME HOURS
216 16.00 1,419.92STANDBY TREATMENT PLANTMISCELLANEOUS
220 236.00 13,083.23OVERTIME 1.5OVERTIME HOURS
225 15.00 970.47OVERTIME-DOUBLEOVERTIME HOURS
405 0.00 188.85OUT OF CLASS - POLICEACTING PAY
411 125.72 930.50SHIFT DIFFERENTIALSHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
602 49.00 0.00ACCRUED COMPCOMP HOURS
604 86.00 0.00ACCRUED COMP TIMECOMP HOURS
acc 0.00 22.76ACCREDITATION PAYMISCELLANEOUS
acs 0.00 152.29ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORTMISCELLANEOUS
boc 0.00 78.48BOC II CertificationMISCELLANEOUS
cpl 0.00 132.76TRAINING CORPORALMISCELLANEOUS
crt 0.00 667.88CERTIFICATION III PAYMISCELLANEOUS
09/04/2012 Page 1 of 2
Packet Page 87 of 488
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 555 (08/16/2012 to 08/31/2012)
Hours AmountHour Type Hour Class Description
det 0.00 92.61DETECTIVE PAYMISCELLANEOUS
det4 0.00 768.66Detective 4%MISCELLANEOUS
ed1 0.00 753.49EDUCATION PAY 2%EDUCATION PAY
ed2 0.00 805.66EDUCATION PAY 4%EDUCATION PAY
ed3 0.00 5,140.56EDUCATION PAY 6%EDUCATION PAY
fmlc 2.00 67.80Family Medical Leave-Comp UsedCOMP HOURS
fmls 304.50 10,465.27FAMILY MEDICAL/SICKSICK
k9 0.00 199.14K-9 PAYMISCELLANEOUS
lg1 0.00 1,931.74LONGEVITY PAY 2%LONGEVITY PAY
lg2 0.00 1,336.38LONGEVITY PAY 4%LONGEVITY PAY
lg3 0.00 4,908.09LONGEVITY 6%LONGEVITY PAY
lg4 0.00 555.56Longevity 1%LONGEVITY
lg5 0.00 64.70Longevity 3%LONGEVITY
lg6 0.00 223.94Longevity .5%LONGEVITY
lg7 0.00 320.83Longevity 1.5%LONGEVITY
lgh 0.00 0.00Longevity HourlyLONGEVITY
mtc 0.00 185.22MOTORCYCLE PAYMISCELLANEOUS
ooc 0.00 236.795% OUT OF CLASSMISCELLANEOUS
pds 0.00 43.13Public Disclosure SpecialistMISCELLANEOUS
phy 0.00 1,694.13PHYSICAL FITNESS PAYMISCELLANEOUS
prof 0.00 141.98PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS SERGEANMISCELLANEOUS
sdp 0.00 262.00SPECIAL DUTY PAY 5%MISCELLANEOUS
sgt 0.00 141.98ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANTMISCELLANEOUS
slw 172.00 0.00SICK LEAVE ADD BACKSICK
str 0.00 388.94Street CrimesMISCELLANEOUS
traf 0.00 291.71TRAFFICMISCELLANEOUS
Total Net Pay:$467,725.21
$673,418.97 22,287.60
09/04/2012 Page 2 of 2
Packet Page 88 of 488
AM-5094 8. A.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted By:Frances Chapin
Department:Parks and Recreation
Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Acceptance of a gift of artwork from the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation
Recommendation
Schedule a public hearing and recommend acceptance of the gift by full Council at the October 2, 2012 City Council Meeting.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation has donated significant works of art and funding for major artworks to the City of
Edmonds over the past 25 years. EAFF has proposed another donation to the City consisting of glass artwork by Dale Chihuly
and the custom cases which house the two installations. The pieces are currently on loan to the Edmonds Center for the Arts
where they are exhibited in the stairwells going up to the balcony level of the auditorium.
The City process for accepting a donation of artwork is defined in the City Administrative Policy #7 for Gift and
Deaccessioning (1998, rev. 2007). Following this policy, staff arranged with EAFF to have the artwork
professionally inspected and photographed, discussed the proposed donation with the Finance Director, contacted WCIA
regarding insurance requirements, and obtained at their recommendation an estimated current value for the pieces from Traver
Gallery in Seattle. Staff also contacted the ECA to confirm their willingness to have the pieces remain on public display at the
ECA. The Edmonds Arts Commission reviewed the proposed donation and passed a motion at their regular meeting on
August 6, 2012 recommending that the City accept the donation of the two Chihuly glass pieces and their cases to the Public
Art Collection.
Gifts of artwork valued at more than $5,000 are submitted to City Council for approval in conjunction with a public hearing.
The current estimated value of the two signed Chihuly pieces is $77,000. The custom cases cost $37,000 to construct in
2006. The total donation has a value of approximately $114,000.
The Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation has been a vital partner is supporting the City of Edmonds Public Art Collection and
through it enhancing the reputation of the City as an arts community. This proposed donation further supports that goal.
Attachments
Gift letter from EAFF
EAC motion
Artwork Gift Policy
Chihuly artwork
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/06/2012 09:35 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/06/2012 03:14 PM
Packet Page 89 of 488
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/06/2012 03:27 PM
Form Started By: Frances Chapin Started On: 09/05/2012 08:55 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/06/2012
Packet Page 90 of 488
Packet Page 91 of 488
Packet Page 92 of 488
Packet Page 93 of 488
Packet Page 94 of 488
Packet Page 95 of 488
Packet Page 96 of 488
Packet Page 97 of 488
Packet Page 98 of 488
Dale Chihuly “Lineus Blue Sea Form with Chinese Red Lip Wrap”
Dale Chihuly “Cadmium Orange Soft Cylinder with Aqua Green Lip Wrap”
Packet Page 99 of 488
AM-5107 8. B.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Phil Williams Submitted By:Phil Williams
Department:Public Works
Committee: Finance Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for Mayor to sign agreements with Blue Star Gas Seattle Co. and Carburetor Connection Inc. re: vehicle fleet
propane conversion.
Recommendation
Recommended the Finance Committee refer the agreement to the full City Council for consideration at its September 18th,
2012 regular meeting.
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The Fleet Division of the Department of Public Works & Utilities seeks to enter into a five (5) year agreement with Blue Star
Gas Seattle Co. for the installation of the Prins Bi-Fuel Vapor Sequential Injective alternative fuel system in no less than
seventeen (17) vehicles, including sixteen (16) Ford Crown Victoria police interceptors and one (1) Ford F-350 truck. The
Prins Vapor Sequential Injective alternative fuel system is a proven technology imported from the Netherlands that provides
lower long-term fuel costs, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and less frequent need for routine maintenance. Also, the Prins
Bi-Fuel Vapor Sequential Injective alternative fuel system offers a three (3) year, 36,000 mile warranty which will not void
OEM vehicle warranties.
The scope of service to be provided to the City by Blue Star Gas Seattle Co. shall include: arranging and coordinating vehicle
fuel conversions with its conversion center partner Carburetor Connection Inc.; managing at its own expense the installation of
the necessary fueling infrastructure consisting of a 1,000 gallon propane tank, a pump and motor, a 50 PIN cabinet containing
an ultra-low emission nozzle, and various other related fueling equipment; providing the propane Autogas vehicle fuel per a
supply contract; and overseeing training of City personnel. The new fueling facility shall comply with all NFPA 58 regulations
as well as all applicable local fire marshal rules and regulations. Total approximate initial investment for conversion and
construction is $105,915 plus tax.
After conversion fuel cost savings for these seventeen (17) vehicles is estimated to be between $57,000 to $64,000 annually.
Payback for this project is estimated at twenty-one (21) months with a five (5) year internal rate of return (IRR) of 70.7%. For
the first two years of the contract Blue Star Gas Seattle Co. agrees to provide propane fuel at a fuel price of at least $1.25 per
gallon less than the weekly Seattle Regular Unleaded street price, exclusive of excise taxes, and at a price of at least $1.00 less
than the weekly Seattle Regular Unleaded street price for the remaining term of the contract. The supply agreement will renew
annually until cancelled by either party.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2012 Revenue:Expenditure:$111,699
Fiscal Impact:
The total cost includes $111,699 ($101,915 plus tax) to convert 16 Police patrol vehicles and one Ford F-350 truck to
Packet Page 100 of 488
The total cost includes $111,699 ($101,915 plus tax) to convert 16 Police patrol vehicles and one Ford F-350 truck to
propane. The additional $4,000 covers the City's cost to hook up the new propane tank and software (supplied by the
vendor) to our network. The cost of converting the Police vehicles is anticipated to come from the General Fund during 2012
and is currently unbudgeted. This will require a budget amendment be executed by YE 2012. The cost to convert the F-350
will be paid for by the Street Fund.
Attachments
Conversion proposal
Vehicle Conversion Contract
Fuel supply Contract
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 08:18 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/07/2012 09:31 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 09:32 AM
Form Started By: Phil Williams Started On: 09/06/2012 04:51 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/07/2012
Packet Page 101 of 488
Packet Page 102 of 488
Packet Page 103 of 488
Packet Page 104 of 488
Packet Page 105 of 488
Packet Page 106 of 488
Packet Page 107 of 488
Packet Page 108 of 488
Page 1 of 5
AUTOGAS VEHICLE CONVERSION
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This Agreement is entered into as of_______________, 2012 (“Agreement Date”) by and
between Carburetor Connection, Inc., a Washington corporation with principal place of business
at 13611 126th Street NE Place #240, Kirkland, WA 98034 (“CarbConn”) and City of Edmonds
Public Works whose address is 7110 210th Street, South West Edmonds, Washington 98026
(“Customer”).
WHEREAS, CarbConn is a company that is in the business of installing alternative fuel
system to convert vehicles from gasoline to Autogas;
WHEREAS, Customer desires to convert its fleet vehicles from gasoline to Autogas;
The parties mutually agree as follows:
1. Alternative Fuel System Installations
a. CarbConn shall install (“Installation Services”), and Customer agrees to have
installed on its fleet vehicles, the Prins-manufactured Vapor Sequential Injection
(VSI) LPG alternative fuel system (“the Products”). The Products shall include
the following specification and components:
i. All hardware, software, and nozzles associated with converting a vehicle
to run on Autogas;
ii. Autogas fuel tank, mounts, and fuel filling access;
iii. Bi-fuel capability to allow the vehicle to run on Autogas or gasoline;
All specification and components are of a type and quality that conform to
applicable Federal specifications and standards.
b. All installations shall be done during business hours Monday – Friday 8 a.m.-5
p.m. Provided CarbConn has seventeen (17) days notice from Customer,
CarbConn will provide services to support weekend/holiday installation schedule.
2. Ordering & Payment
a. Upon execution of this Agreement, Customer and CarbConn mutually agree to
convert sixteen (16) Ford Crown Victoria vehicles and one (1) E-350 van with
model years that comport to EPA certificates existing as of the Agreement Date.
The vehicles to be converted are listed in Addendum A to this Agreement.
b. The cost to convert one vehicle for this order is $5,995.00 (Five Thousand Nine
Hundred Ninety Five Dollars) for a total of $101,915.00 (One Hundred One
Thousand Nine Hundred Fifteen Dollars) (“Initial Order”). All prices indicated
above are inclusive of shipping and labor costs. Customer shall submit a purchase
Packet Page 109 of 488
Page 2 of 5
order to CarbConn for the Initial Order and CarbConn shall provide Customer an
invoice. Full payment is due on each converted vehicle upon Customer pick up.
c. Upon execution of this Agreement, CarbConn and Customer shall mutually agree
upon a schedule for the completion of converting the vehicles as described in this
Section.
d. Future Customer orders to convert vehicles shall be based upon Customer’s
business needs and the pricing for any future conversions shall be determined at
that time. Customer shall provide CarbConn a purchase order for any future
orders with full payment being due on each converted vehicle upon Customer
pick up.
e. All prices indicated in this Section 2 do not include Federal, State, or local
government sales, use, excise taxes, (or similar taxes or fees), or insurance
charges. All invoices shall state on a separate line any government –related taxes
or fees.
f. Until the moment of full payment, the Products shall remain the property of
CarbConn and, if the Customer should obtain the actual possession thereof before
that time, it is mutually agreed that the Products were sent on consignment to
Customer with CarbConn being entitled at all times to claim immediate surrender
of the Products. In addition, CarbConn may seek additional remedies including
without limitation a mechanic’s lien on Customer’s vehicles to secure payment
for installation services.
3. Terms and Conditions of Sale. CarbConn shall use its commercially reasonable efforts
to complete orders according to the mutually agreed upon schedule. CarbConn shall not
be liable to Customer or to any other person or entity, for any reason, for failure to
deliver, delay in delivery or otherwise fill any orders if caused by fire, embargo, strike,
failure to receive materials, governmental actions or restrictions, delays or failures of
suppliers or subcontractors or other circumstances beyond CarbConn’s control.
4. Quality Control Program. CarbConn shall institute and maintain a complete quality-
control program to ensure that the requirements of this agreement are provided, as
specified. The quality control program shall include an inspection process covering all
the services required with a comprehensive checklist to be used for each Customer order;
a process to identify and correct deficiencies in the quality or quantity of service.
5. Warranty and Disclaimer. CarbConn shall honor all warranty terms and conditions in
the American Alternative Fuel System Warranty Terms and Conditions, and such terms
and conditions are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement. Other than the
warranty explicitly provided for in this Agreement, CarbConn makes no other warranty,
including without limitation any warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, warranty of
merchantability, or warranty for workmanlike quality with respect to the Products and
Packet Page 110 of 488
Page 3 of 5
installation services and none shall be implied. CarbConn makes no other or different
representations or warranties, or whatever nature, express or implied.
6. Limitation of Liability. CarbConn and its officers, directors, agents, representatives, or
its partners shall not be liable to the Customer and not to any other party for any liability
including without limitation strict liability or products liability including liability for loss
or damages, whether economic, consequential, direct or indirect, incidental, exemplary,
or punitive damages, whether in contract, tort, or otherwise, or any other claims or
expenses whatsoever, including without limitation liability, losses or damages either
directly or indirectly connected with claims for installation services, losses or liabilities
incurred by Customer, its employees (including agents or representatives), by virtue of,
or in connection with this Agreement, or from the discovery or elimination of, or the
failure to discover any and all hazards, or by reason of any act, omission, negligence,
gross negligence or any error or omission in the services provided or any use or
application thereof, misrepresentation, imprudence, lack of skill or error in judgment on
the part of CarbConn or its officers directors, agents and representatives, or any one or
more of them, excepting only claims and demands arising out and in connection with a
breach of warranty by CarbConn or a manufacturer of Products.
7. Waiver. Failure of CarbConn to insist upon the strict performance of any or all of the
terms and conditions herein shall not constitute, and shall not be construed as, a waiver of
its rights to thereafter enforce any such terms or conditions, but the same shall continue in
full force and effect.
8. Counterparts . For purposes of this Agreement, a facsimile signature of the parties shall
serve as an original. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, all of
which shall constitute but one original.
9. Law Governing. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with laws of the State of Washington.
10. Dispute Resolution. ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
AGREEMENT, SHALL BE RESOLVED ONLY BY BINDING ARBITRATION, CONDUCTED BY
THE JUDICIAL ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION SERVICE (JAMS) (OR THEIR SUCCESSOR
AND IF NO SUCCESSOR, THEN BY THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION), IN
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION SHALL
BE SERVED ON THE OTHER PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT AND FILED WITH THE
ARBITRATION SERVICE. THE DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION SHALL BE MADE WITHIN A
REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE DISPUTE HAS ARISEN, AND IN NO EVENT SHALL IT BE
MADE AFTER THE DATE UPON WHICH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BARRED BY THE TERMS OF
THIS AGREEMENT OR APPLICABLE LAW. EACH ARBITRATOR MUST BE EXPERIENCED IN
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION. ARBITRATION SHALL BE COMPLETED NOT
LATER THAN 180 DAYS FOLLOWING ITS INITIATION. IN REACHING THEIR AWARD, THE
ARBITRATORS SHALL FOLLOW AND BE BOUND BY SUBSTANTIVE WASHINGTON LAW.
Packet Page 111 of 488
Page 4 of 5
HOWEVER, ARBITRATORS SHALL IN NO MANNER AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES (OR
DAMAGES CALCULATED BY APPLYING A MULTIPLIER) OR DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS. THE AWARD SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL CONTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSION OF LAW AND SHALL SET FORTH THE NATURE, AMOUNT AND MANNER
OF CALCULATION OF ALL DAMAGES. THE AWARD SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING, AND
JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED UPON IT IN ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION. THIS
PROVISION HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY AGREED TO BY THE PARTIES WITH FULL
UNDERSTANDING THAT IT ACTS TO WAIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
TO A TRIAL BY JUDGE OR JURY AND THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO PUNITIVE OR
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES.
11. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with the invoice for each order made by
Customer, or any written modifications or amendments hereto, hereinafter entered into,
shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties relative to the subject matter
hereof and shall supersede any prior agreement or understandings, whether written or
oral, which the parties may have had relating to the subject matter hereof.
12. Attorneys' Fees. In the event any action is brought by either Customer or CarbConn
against the other to enforce or for the breach of any of the terms, covenants or conditions
contained in this Sublease, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable
attorneys' fees to be fixed by the court, together with costs of suit therein incurred.
WITNESS OUR SIGNATURES, this ______day of July, 2012.
Carburetor Connection, Inc.
By: _________________________________
Alex Racz, President
Customer: City of Edmonds Public Works
By: __________________________________
____________________________________
[Print Name and Title]
Packet Page 112 of 488
Page 5 of 5
Addendum A
List of Vehicles to Be Converted by the City of Edmonds
1. Two (2) Ford Crown Victoria, Model Year 2006
2. One (1) Ford Crown Victoria, Model Year 2007
3. Seven (7) Ford Crown Victoria, Model Year 2008
4. Three (3) Ford Crown Victoria, Model Year 2009
5. Three (3) Ford Crown Victoria, Model Year 2011
6. One (1) Ford E-350 van, Model Year 2002
Packet Page 113 of 488
Page 1 of 8
AUTOGAS SUPPLY AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into on __________, 2012 by and between Blue Star Gas – Seattle
Co., a Washington corporation whose address is 10802 E. Marginal Way, Tukwila, WA 98168
(Blue Star Gas) and City of Edmonds Public Works whose address is 7110 210th Street, South
West Edmonds, Washington 98026 (Customer).
WHEREAS, Customer desires to convert its fleet vehicles from gasoline to Autogas;
WHEREAS, Blue Star Gas shall supply Autogas to Customer and shall provide for a
fueling facility for the duration of this Agreement as dictated by the terms and conditions set
forth herein;
The parties mutually agree as follows:
1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be five (5) years from date the Agreement is
executed. After the initial five (5) year term, the Agreement shall continue on a year-to-
year basis until such time when either party gives the other at least ninety (90) days
written notice to terminate this Agreement.
2. Conversions. Customer agrees to have installed in all or an agreed part of its fleet of
motor vehicles based at Customer’s location, the Prins Bi-Fuel Vapor Sequential
Injection alternative fuel system. Blue Star Gas’ scope of service shall include:
arranging and coordinating such conversions with its conversion center partner;
supplying the Customer with the Autogas, as well as providing the necessary fueling
infrastructure; and arranging for Customer personnel training to fuel Customer vehicles.
The terms and conditions for the conversion systems and all vehicle-related provisions
shall be set forth in a separate agreement between the conversion center and Customer.
3. Autogas Supply Exclusivity. Customer agrees that Blue Star Gas will be its exclusive
supplier of propane for Autogas or other potential uses for the duration of this
Agreement. Customer agrees that its failure to do so constitutes a material breach to this
Agreement.
4. Price and Payment Terms
a. Customer agrees to pay Blue Star Gas a price per gallon for propane Autogas
equal to the Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices for Regular Unleaded
Gasoline for the Seattle metropolitan area as reported by the United States
Energy Information Administration (EIA) at the www.eia.gov website MINUS
the following adjustments:
(1) a fixed discount of $1.25 per gallon of propane Autogas purchased for the
first two (2) years of this Agreement, and a fixed discount of $1.00 per
Packet Page 114 of 488
Page 2 of 8
gallon of propane Autogas for the remaining three (3) years of the
Agreement
(2) any state and federal motor fuel taxes included in the reported Seattle
Metropolitan Market price (presently the included gasoline motor fuel
excise taxes in the EIA quoted price is $.184 Federal motor fuel excise tax,
and $.375 State motor fuel excise tax).
Blue Star Gas will also bill and collect from Customer the appropriate Federal
motor fuel excise taxes for propane Autogas of $.183. Customer is aware that,
assuming it does not qualify for a tax exemption, Customer must register each
vehicle with the Department of Licensing and pay an annual special fuel
licensing registration fee in lieu of the State special fuel excise tax. Addendum
A of this Agreement contains an example of these calculations. Customer shall
provide documentation to Blue Star Gas evidencing that either they have re-
registered its vehicles as described herein or provide documentation evidencing
that it is exempt from paying the $.375 excise tax or corresponding licensing
registration.
b. Customer shall pay Blue Star Gas for supplied Autogas within 10 days of
invoicing. Invoicing will occur once per week. Payment will be made by check
payable to Blue Star Gas –Seattle Co.
c. Blue Star Gas will communicate to Customer changes in the alternative fuel
markets that offer credits, rebates or other incentives. Where appropriate, Blue
Star Gas will incorporate tax changes into the pricing structure to Customer.
Blue Star Gas assumes no liability whatsoever for either doing so or failing to do
so timely.
5. Fueling Facility
a. Blue Star Gas will provide for a fueling facility at Customer’s principal place of
business to supply Customer with Autogas at its own expense. The fueling
facility shall consist of a 1,000 gallon propane tank, a pump and motor, a 50 PIN
cabinet containing an ultra-low emission nozzle, as well as other related fueling
equipment. The fueling facility shall comply with all NFPA 58 regulations, as
well as the local fire marshal rules and regulations. Customer is committing to
convert seventeen (17) vehicles as a condition precedent to Blue Star Gas’
obligation to install a fueling facility.
b. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Customer shall pay for and supply the
required electricity, electrical work, and crash posts for the fueling facility.
c. All related equipment at the fueling facility shall be and will remain the property
of Blue Star Gas, which agrees to maintain same for the period of this
Agreement. Blue Star Gas will perform maintenance on any of the fueling
Packet Page 115 of 488
Page 3 of 8
facility equipment upon notification by Customer of required maintenance, or
repair items needed upon routine inspections performed by Blue Star Gas
personnel. In the event Blue Star Gas suspects Customer personnel of
negligence, Blue Star will communicate that and reserves the right to charge
Customer for repair to the damaged fueling facility equipment.
d. Blue Star Gas agrees to provide initial operating instructions, training, and
training materials (“Safety Training”) for Customer’s personnel for the safe
handling of Autogas and operation of fueling equipment. Times will be
scheduled to train all Customer personnel initially by Blue Star Gas, and a
designated Customer representative will be taken through a “train the trainer”
curriculum to provide ongoing training of Customer personnel. After the initial
Safety Training, Blue Star Gas will conduct regular annual training for all
Customer personnel. Customer shall ensure that all its employees abide by the
Safety Training and that its employees shall safely handle Autogas and safely
operate the fueling facility. Blue Star Gas shall not be liable for any cause of
action or for any injury arising from or relating to a Customer’s employee’s
failure to follow or abide by the Safety Training or, for any cause of action or
injury arising from or relating to a Customer’s employee’s otherwise negligent
handling of Autogas or the operation of the fueling facility.
e. Customer shall not use the fueling facility for its consumption, storage, or
distribution of propane from any source other than Blue Star Gas during or after
this Agreement.
6. Default
a. Each of the following events shall be a default hereunder by Customer and a
breach of this Agreement:
(1) If Customer shall file a petition in bankruptcy.
(2) If voluntary proceedings under any such bankruptcy law or insolvency
act shall be instituted against Customer.
(3) If Customer fails to pay Blue Star Gas any payment as and when the
same shall become due and payable and shall not make such payment
within ten (10) days after written notice from Blue Star Gas that
payment was not received when due.
(4) If Customer otherwise fails to perform any of its material obligations
under this Agreement, and such non-performance shall continue for a
period of twenty (20) days after written notice by Blue Star Gas.
b. Upon default by Customer, Blue Star Gas may immediately terminate this
Agreement and, in addition, be entitled to recover:
(1) Autogas tank, dispensing equipment, and other equipment related to the
fueling facility that Blue Star Gas will install as provided in Section 5 of
this Agreement; and
Packet Page 116 of 488
Page 4 of 8
(2) Autogas in fueling facility tank and Blue Star Gas shall refund Customer
for any gallons Customer already paid Blue Star Gas.
The remedies provided in this Section 6 shall not limit Blue Star Gas
from seeking additional remedies under this Agreement or in law or in
equity due to Customer’s default.
7. Confidentiality. Blue Star Gas and Customer each agree that they will not disclose the
terms of this Agreement to any third party without the written consent of the other party
or if compelled by a court of law.
8. Notice. Any notices provided for herein shall be in writing and delivered to the other
party certified mail, return receipt requested, at the following address:
Customer
City of Edmonds Public Works
7110 210th Street
South West Edmonds
Washington 98026
Att:
Blue Star Gas – Seattle Co.
880 N. Wright Rd.
Santa Rosa, CA 95407
9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties
hereto, and any modifications to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the
party to be charged therewith.
10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws
of the state of Washington.
11. Counterparts. For purposes of this Agreement, a facsimile signature of the parties shall
serve as an original. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, all of
which shall constitute but one original.
12. Severability. If one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall, for any reason,
be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or
unenforceability will not effect any other provision hereof and this Agreement will be
construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained
herein.
13. Insurance. Blue Star Gas shall maintain general liability insurance coverage on its
operations. Said insurance shall be in the amount of $2,000,000.00 (Two Million
Dollars) for each accident or occurrence. At the inception of this Agreement, Blue Star
Packet Page 117 of 488
Page 5 of 8
Gas shall furnish Customer, upon request, a certificate of insurance evidencing that such
insurance coverage is in force.
14. Indemnification. Customer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Blue Star Gas
harmless from any and all loss, property damage, personal injury or death, and any
expenses, including, reasonable attorneys fees and expert expenses, associated with any
claim, action, or proceeding, including, a claim, action, or proceeding brought by an
employee of Customer, arising from or relating to: 1) any failure of the storage tank(s)
and/or Autogas delivery system (i.e., the fueling facility) occasioned through no fault or
negligence of Blue Star Gas; 2) any failure of a Customer’s employee in handling
Autogas or the fueling facility in a safe manner; or 3) any other negligence or fault of
any kind on the part of Customer or its employees.
15. Dispute Resolution. ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS
AGREEMENT, SHALL BE RESOLVED ONLY BY BINDING ARBITRATION, CONDUCTED BY THE
JUDICIAL ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION SERVICE (JAMS) (OR THEIR SUCCESSOR AND IF NO
SUCCESSOR, THEN BY THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION), IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON.
WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION SHALL BE SERVED ON THE OTHER PARTY
TO THIS AGREEMENT AND FILED WITH THE ARBITRATION SERVICE. THE DEMAND FOR
ARBITRATION SHALL BE MADE WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE DISPUTE HAS ARISEN,
AND IN NO EVENT SHALL IT BE MADE AFTER THE DATE UPON WHICH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
BARRED BY THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT OR APPLICABLE LAW. EACH ARBITRATOR MUST BE
EXPERIENCED IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION. ARBITRATION SHALL BE
COMPLETED NOT LATER THAN 180 DAYS FOLLOWING ITS INITIATION. IN REACHING THEIR
AWARD, THE ARBITRATORS SHALL FOLLOW AND BE BOUND BY SUBSTANTIVE WASHINGTON
LAW. HOWEVER, ARBITRATORS SHALL IN NO MANNER AWARD PUNITIVE DAMAGES (OR
DAMAGES CALCULATED BY APPLYING A MULTIPLIER) OR DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS.
THE AWARD SHALL BE IN WRITING AND SHALL CONTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF
LAW AND SHALL SET FORTH THE NATURE, AMOUNT AND MANNER OF CALCULATION OF ALL
DAMAGES. THE AWARD SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING, AND JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED UPON
IT IN ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION. THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY AGREED TO BY
THE PARTIES WITH FULL UNDERSTANDING THAT IT ACTS TO WAIVE THEIR RESPECTIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A TRIAL BY JUDGE OR JURY AND THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS TO
PUNITIVE OR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS DAMAGES.
16. Attorneys' Fees. In the event any action is brought by either Customer or Blue Star Gas
against the other to enforce or for the breach of any of the terms, covenants or
conditions contained in this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover
reasonable attorneys' fees to be fixed by the court, together with costs of suit therein
incurred.
[Signature page to follow]
Packet Page 118 of 488
Page 6 of 8
WITNESS OUR SIGNATURES, this ______day of _____________, 2012.
Blue Star Gas: Blue Star Gas – Seattle Co.
By: _________________________________
Jeff Stewart, President
Customer: City of Edmonds Public Works
By: ________________________________
Packet Page 119 of 488
Page 7 of 8
ADDENDUM A
Seattle Market posting as of 7/23/12
(includes MVF taxes) $ 3.667
Less Federal gasoline MVF tax $ (0.184)
Less OR State gasoline MVF tax $ (0.375)
Seattle Market RBOB BEFORE MVF tax $ 3.108
Less discount $(1.250)
Cost of propane Before Taxes $ 1.858
Add Federal propane MVF tax $ 0.1830
Add WA State propane MVF tax
Deduct WA propane MVF tax once
Customer registers vehicles with DOL
$ 0.375
$(0.375)
$ 2.041
Packet Page 120 of 488
Page 8 of 8
Packet Page 121 of 488
AM-5090 8. C.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Shawn Hunstock
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Stormwater Exemptions
Recommendation
N/A For discussion purposes only.
Previous Council Action
City Council approval of a specific exemption at the 10/6/2006 meeting.
Narrative
The City Council approved an exemption from stormwater fees on 10/6/2006 for a specific utility customer that was required
as part of the permitting process to retain onsite any runoff of water associated with new structures on that property. This
exemption granted by Council was noted during the 2010 audit exit conference because there is no associated policy or code
provision allowing for an exemption of this type. Finance Committee members will discuss options for possibly creating
exemptions under certain circumstances or discontinuance of the one exemption granted in 2006.
Attachments
09/26/2006 Finance Committee Minutes
10/03/2006 City Council Minutes
10/03/2006 City Council Agenda Item
Excerpt from 2010 Audit Exit Conference
EMC 7.50.060
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/05/2012 02:17 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2012 02:27 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/05/2012 02:48 PM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 08/30/2012 11:13 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2012
Packet Page 122 of 488
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
September 26, 2006
3:00 PM
V:\COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS\FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES 09262006.DOC
Present: Peggy Pritchard Olson, Chair
Councilmember Ron Wambolt
Staff: Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Kathleen Junglov, Assistant Administrative Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
The Finance Committee meeting was called to order at 3:00 PM.
Item A: Non-Represented Compensation Policy
As a follow-up to the non-represented compensation plan, staff asked to withhold final
action until budget numbers were verified. A 3% merit pool was placed in both the
preliminary 2007 and 2008 budgets. Committee members requested that the following
recommendations be forwarded to Council as a consent item.
1. The L-5 compensation plan be retained until a new plan is in place.
2. All non-represented employees will be entitled to a cost of living increase.
3. Staff will recommend a merit increase to be included in the 2007-08 budget. A 3%
figure was discussed, but staff will verify fiscal impacts prior to a final decision.
4. Funding for a comprehensive compensation and classification study should be
included in the 2007-08 budget. Committee members are looking to link
compensation with a performance based management reporting system.
Item B: Utility Rate Study
Staff reviewed the first draft of the 2006 utility rate study with the Committee. There is a
recommended water rate increase for 2007 and 2008, and staff are verifying capital
projects.
Item C: Storm Water Payment Exemption
It was the Committee’s consensus to forward the Pierce request for a storm water
exemption to the full Council as a consent item.
Item D: Interfund Loans
Staff reviewed interfund loans from the Cemetery, Park Construction, and Utility funds
with the Committee.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 PM.
Packet Page 123 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
October 3, 2006
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Deanna Dawson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Dan Clements, Administrative Services Director
Kathleen Junglov, Asst. Admin. Services Dir.
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Don Sims, Traffic Engineer
Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Haakenson requested the addition of a 10-minute Executive Session regarding potential litigation
as Agenda Item 13 and relayed Councilmember Marin’s request to add a Proclamation in honor of Live
Theater Week, October 16 – 22, 2006, as Agenda Item 4b.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Wambolt requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2006.
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #91034 THROUGH #91182 FOR SEPTEMBER 28,
2006 IN THE AMOUNT OF $183,812.56.
(D) APPROVAL OF TAXI OPERATOR'S LICENSE FOR LOW FARE AIRPORT AND
LOCAL FOR HIRE VEHICLES.
(E) RESOLUTION NO. 1131 - OPPOSE INITIATIVE 933 ENTITLED "AN ACT RELATING
TO PROVIDING FAIRNESS IN GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF PROPERTY."
(G) PIERCE STORM WATER BILLING ADJUSTMENT
Change to
Agenda
Approve
9/26/06
Minutes
Approve Claim
Checks
Taxi License
Res #1131 –
Oppose I-933
Storm Water
Billing
Adjustment
Packet Page 124 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 2
Item F: Non-Represented 2007-2008 Compensation Plan
Councilmember Wambolt explained he pulled this item from the Consent Agenda in order to provide
further clarification and explanation. As a member of the Council Finance Committee, he voted to
recommend that the Council approve budgets for 2007 and 2008 that provide for cost of living increases
and merit increases for non-represented employees, a total of approximately 42 employees. Budgeting a
6-7% pay increase when most industries plan increases of only approximately 4% in 2007 was not
pleasing to him. Staff proposed a new policy to replace the current L5 policy but the policy was not
accepted by the Council.
Staff and the Council Finance Committee propose a compensation consultant be retained in 2007 to assist
with developing a new policy. A variety of goals will be established for the new policy including the
development of a policy that focuses on job performance for merit pay rather than inflation as the
dominant factor that determines pay increases. Until a new policy can be developed and adopted, the
non-represented employees need to be treated fairly; several have not had a pay increase in 2006 because
their pay was at the top of the pay range. The reason was because the salary ranges were too narrow, with
only a 25% spread from the top to the bottom. As a result the pay ranges do not extend either high
enough or low enough.
He explained the interim remedy was as proposed in Item F. He requested recommendation #3 be
amended to read “a 3% merit pool for employees not at the top of their salary range be established in the
2007 and 2008 budgets” which would allow employees at the top of their salary range to receive cost of
living increases in 2007 but not a merit increase.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF ITEM F.
Mayor Haakenson clarified the recommended action did not include setting aside $100,000 in the budget
for the study. Councilmember Wambolt agreed it did not.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF CHANGE A LIGHT DAY IN EDMONDS, OCTOBER 4, 2006.
Mayor Haakenson explained global warming would not be stopped overnight. It is a very complicated
problem that will take many solutions by many people. A good way to start is to take small steps. As
part of the City’s energy reduction and climate protection efforts, he proclaimed Wednesday, October 4 as
“Change a Light Day” in Edmonds to encourage citizens to take a simple but important step toward
reducing energy usage.
He explained the energy used in an average home contributes more than twice the greenhouse gas
emissions of the average car. This is because the electricity is typically generated by burning fossil fuels,
and this burning releases greenhouse gases into our air. By switching the light bulbs used the most to
Energy Star bulbs, would do a little bit to help.
Mayor Haakenson noted that 20% of the nation’s electricity usage is from lighting homes. Last year over
70,000 people nationwide signed a pledge to change one light bulb in their homes to an Energy Star-
qualified light bulb. That action avoided using 23 million kWh’s of energy and in turn prevented more
than 33 million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions. That also saved over $2 million on America’s
utility bills. If we changed one light bulb for every child in America, we would save enough energy to
light more than 15 million homes for an entire year and prevent more than 30 billion pounds of
greenhouse gas emissions.
Non-
Represented
Compensation
Plan
Proclamation -
Change a Light
Day in
Edmonds
Packet Page 125 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 3
One light bulb changed to an Energy Star bulb will save more than $30 in electricity cost over the life of
the bulb and will prevent the release of 450 pounds of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. The goal of
the Change a Light, Change the World campaign is for 500,000 people nationwide to take the online
pledge, which can be found on the Energy Star website at www.energystar.gov/changealight.
Mayor Haakenson then read a proclamation declaring October 4, 2006 as Change a Light Day in
Edmonds and encouraged citizens to join him in making this pledge to change one light bulb in their
homes. He pointed out if everyone changed the five most used bulbs in their homes to florescent bulbs,
the amount saved would be equivalent to taking 8 million cars off the road.
4A. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH, OCTOBER
2006.
Mayor Haakenson read a proclamation declaring October 2006 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month
and urging all residents to support the work of the Snohomish County Task Force in serving the needs of
families impacted by domestic violence and work toward the elimination of domestic violence in our
community.
4B. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF LIVE THEATRE WEEK, OCTOBER 16 – 22, 2006.
Councilmember Marin read a proclamation declaring the week of October 16 – 22, 2006 Live Theatre
Week in Edmonds and urged everyone to celebrate the performing arts by attending a performance in a
local theater or by taking part in the many activities offered in Seattle and around the region. The
proclamation announced a free performance by the Driftwood Players of “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow”
on October 19 at 8:00 p.m. at the Wade James Theater and Councilmember Marin encouraged the public
to call the theater to obtain free tickets. Two actresses were present who thanked the Council for
recognizing Live Theatre Week.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REGARDING A
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE MCCORMICK MEDICAL BUILDING, 635
PARADISE LANE.
City Engineer Dave Gebert explained the owner of the property at 635 Paradise Lane was in the process
of constructing a private development project known as the McCormick Medical Building. He clarified
this was not a medical clinic but a business that was involved in medical equipment. He displayed a
vicinity map, identifying the property, Edmonds Way/SR 104 and Paradise Lane. He advised the map
included in the agenda memo incorrectly identified the locale of the dental clinic, and displayed a map of
the correct location.
Mr. Gebert stated the current configuration of the intersection posed unique traffic circulation and safety
issues. He identified the slip lane to Paradise Lane from SR 104, the two entrances/exits onto Edmonds
Way, the bus stop, the right turn pocket and the area where ferry traffic conflicted with movements at the
intersection. During permit review for the McCormick Medical Building, staff recognized the
opportunity to cooperate on a project with the developer to improve the configuration of the intersection.
Mr. Gebert displayed a drawing of the project concept, explaining it was intended to create a safer and
more attractive intersection. Since the public hearing was announced, several concerns were expressed by
citizens regarding the intersection, primarily regarding traffic movement, the bus stop and conflicts with
ferry traffic at the intersection, issues this project would address. The concept was to eliminate the slip
lane, build a small island park, create a more standard right-angle entrance/exit from SR 104, lengthen the
Proclamation –
Domestic
Violence
Awareness
Proclamation –
Live Theatre
Week
McCormick
Medical
Building, 635
Paradise Lane
Packet Page 126 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 4
right turn pocket and combine it with the bus stop and improve signage and control of the ferry traffic to
reduce conflicts at the intersection. He explained the details of the design still need to be worked out.
Mr. Gebert explained the RCW allowed the City to enter into development agreements with developers.
The improvements inside the right-of-way would be done by the City; improvements on private property
would be done by the developer. A portion of the cost of development would increase as a result of the
development agreement and others would be reduced. The developer has incurred additional costs to
redesign his parking lot as a result of the proposal, but his responsibilities for right-of-way restoration,
traffic control, sidewalks, etc. will be reduced. The developer has agreed via the development agreement
to contribute $2,400 toward the project. He advised there were sufficient funds in Fund 125 to cover the
remainder of the cost of the project. Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to sign the
development agreement.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Gebert explained in the proposed concept the slip lane would be
eliminated and the right-hand turn would be made via the right turn lane at the intersection.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how drivers would enter the right turn lane if it were blocked by ferry
traffic. Mr. Gebert explained signage would be installed to identify the right turn lane and prevent
blockage by ferry traffic. Traffic Engineer Don Sims displayed an updated conceptual plan based on
survey data, explaining there would be a dedicated right turn lane that would operate similarly to other
right turn lanes when there was no ferry queue. The transit stop would be moved back, away from the
intersection to improve sight lines for egress from Paradise Lane. He advised this intersection was
identified by WSDOT as a high accident location in 2004; accidents are in the 2-way left turn lane
involving vehicles attempting to access Paradise Lane.
Councilmember Plunkett envisioned the presence of a bus would hinder a driver’s sight lines when
attempting to exit from Paradise Lane to the left. Mr. Sims noted that issue existed today; the proposed
project would improve the sight distance by moving the bus stop back. Staff is working with the Police
Department and WSDOT to develop improved pavement markings and signage at the intersection.
Councilmember Plunkett envisioned ferry traffic would block the entrance to the right turn lane. Mr.
Sims acknowledged that was an issue currently for right turns and driveway entrances along the corridor
when ferry traffic was backed up. He envisioned when ferry traffic was backed up, a vehicle that wanted
to enter Paradise Lane would travel in the left lane and turn right in front of the queued-up vehicles the
same way they would enter a driveway in this corridor. He explained the right turn lane was not designed
for times when ferry traffic was backed up but intended as a deceleration pocket for vehicles leaving SR
104 and turning right onto Paradise Lane. In the current configuration, vehicles use the slip lane and enter
Paradise Lane at a higher rate of speed; the proposed configuration provides a traffic calming element for
the neighborhood as it requires vehicles to make the right turn at a slower speed. He acknowledged it was
not possible to totally eliminate conflicts with ferry traffic.
Councilmember Wambolt asked the cost of the project. Mr. Sims answered it was estimated at $20,000 -
$25,000; the developer would contribute $2,400. Funding would be provided via Parks Fund 125 as it
would provide a gateway treatment with landscaping.
Councilmember Moore asked how buses would reach the bus stop when ferry traffic was backed up. Mr.
Sims answered the same way it did today; he was uncertain whether buses currently traveled in the left
lane and moved into the right lane to reach the bus stop or if they waited in the ferry queue.
Councilmember Moore suggested staff talk to Community Transit to ensure the design was acceptable to
them. Mr. Sims pointed out similar conflicts existed with bus stops along the corridor. He agreed staff
would confer with Community Transit on the proposed design.
Packet Page 127 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 5
Councilmember Moore pointed out the exit from Paradise Lane on the conceptual drawing was much
wider, providing greater flexibility for ingress/egress at Paradise Lane to SR 104. Mr. Sims agreed the
single entrance/exit would be wider to allow the design vehicle for a residential neighborhood, a single
axle truck such as a garbage truck, UPS truck, etc., to easily negotiate the turn.
Councilmember Moore inquired whether the ferry queuing would be eliminated by the Edmonds Crossing
project. Mr. Sims answered the significant additional holding lanes at Edmonds Crossing would
eliminate ferry queuing into this area for many years.
Councilmember Orvis commented it appeared to be easier for pedestrians to reach the bus stop. He asked
how many pedestrians used the crosswalk. Mr. Sims answered this transit stop was not heavily used; the
intent was to enhance the transit stop. He agreed the proposed intersection improved pedestrian safety as
crossing the existing slip lane was more dangerous.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing, advising the Council
received a letter dated October 3, 2006 from Diane and Takashi Nasa, Edmonds, who explained the
main safety issue at the intersection was ferry traffic, not the two entrances onto Paradise Lane.
Ardell Morgan, Edmonds, opposed the elimination of the sidewalk, currently along the slip lane,
pointing out the proposed location of the sidewalk would require pedestrians to cross the street and walk
along the outside of the park area facing traffic on SR 104. She commented this configuration was less
safe for children. She suggested installing a walkway through the park area and that park area not contain
vegetation that blocked sight distances when exiting Paradise Lane. She suggested consideration be given
to an alternate access in case of emergency such as at the other end of Paradise Lane. She also suggested
signage identifying the entrance to Paradise Lane.
Melissa Weakland, Edmonds, pointed out most of the residences were located to the north of Paradise
Lane. She agreed with Ms. Morgan’s objection to the location of the sidewalk that would require
residents to cross the street to reach the sidewalk. She pointed out this would only add to safety concerns.
She supported renovating the sidewalks as the existing sidewalks were so overgrown that two people
could not walk side-by-side. She requested the configuration of the proposed sidewalk be reevaluated.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, commented on his experience with traffic flows at this intersection with and
without ferry traffic. His primary concern was the bus stop in the right turn lane. He noted the difficulty
turning right if a bus were at the stop, possibly requiring drivers in the right turn lane to go around the bus
into traffic to make a right during peak hour traffic flows. He pointed out the proposed location of the
right turn lane was approximately where drivers realized they needed to be in the right lane to reach the
ferry. He preferred to retain the current configuration, summarizing the proposed configuration increased
rather than decreased safety hazards.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS MATTER FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Peter Evich, Edmonds, expressed concern that the proposed park area would affect visibility of drivers
exiting Paradise Lane. He stated that signage would not eliminate ferry traffic from blocking the
intersection. The only solution would be to have police patrols such as was done in Mukilteo. He
suggested speeds in the slip lane could be solved via speed bumps. If the City had not maintained the
sidewalk in the past, he questioned why it would be done for a private developer who would increase the
traffic to the neighborhood.
Packet Page 128 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 6
Del Skinner, Edmonds, expressed concern that any hesitation by a driver to make a right-hand turn
would cause an accident. The existing configuration facilitated an even flow of traffic. He pointed out
the number of large trucks in their neighborhood and questioned their ability to make a right turn without
entering the oncoming lane.
John Heighway, Edmonds, questioned whether sidewalks had ADA access. He referred to the $20,000 -
$25,000 estimated cost of the project, expressing a preference to use those funds for the purchase of park
property. He commented a right turn lane similar to the right turn lane at Pine Street would be safer than
a combined right turn lane/bus stop. He agreed with the need to confer with Community Transit on bus
stop configuration. He suggested the City seek WSDOT’s input regarding the proposed configuration.
Rather than reconfiguring one exit, he recommended the City master plan the north side of SR 104 from
Westgate to downtown. He questioned the benefit to the City from the proposed configuration. He also
questioned who would maintain the proposed park and the cost of maintenance.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gebert responded to questions raised by the public, explaining all the comments would be considered
in the final design. He identified the location of the proposed sidewalk, explaining it would have ADA
facilities. He advised consideration could be given to providing a walkway or trail through the park area.
With regard to trees/vegetation blocking sight distances, he assured there were specific criteria for
vegetation within sight distances. With regard to signage identifying Paradise Lane, he assured signage
would be included in the design. With regard to safety for children, the sidewalks would meet the city’s
standards and include gutters and elevated curbs. With regard to the location of the bus stop, he explained
the bus stop would be moved back.
Mayor Haakenson asked staff to identify the location of the bus stop and the right turn lane and explain
how they would not conflict. Mr. Gebert identified the location of the turn lane and the current and
proposed bus stop location, explaining the bus stop would be moved back so that there would be room for
the turn lane in front of the bus stop.
With regard to the comment about why do this project for a private developer, Mr. Gebert explained this
concept was developed by staff when reviewing the private development and was not proposed by the
developer. City Attorney Scott Snyder explained the City could only require a developer to mitigate off-
site impacts they created. Staff’s proposal would reroute mitigation funds to a project they viewed as an
improvement.
In response to the comment about the turn accommodating large vehicles, Mr. Gebert explained the radius
was designed to accommodate large trucks such as garbage trucks, etc. With regard to the use of Fund
125 to purchase park property, he advised Fund 125 was designated for park improvements and was not
available for park acquisition; Fund 126 was used for park acquisition. The Parks & Recreation Director
participated in the development of this concept, would be involved in the design and approved the use of
Fund 125 for development of this island park. The Parks Department would maintain the vegetation.
Mr. Sims assured the primary reason for this project was to improve pedestrian and vehicular safety; the
secondary reason was the park area. He explained eliminating high speed slip lanes was a common
practice in the industry to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. He acknowledged there was the
potential for conflict between a bus at the bus stop and a vehicle turning right that did not exist today,
however, the other benefits of the project outweigh that potential conflict. Their research indicated 35
right turns during the peak hour, thus the potential for conflict was minimal. Moving the bus stop back
would allow vehicles to make right turn in front of the bus similar to how right turns occurred on Hwy. 99
currently. He assured WSDOT had been contacted regarding the project and was supportive.
Packet Page 129 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 7
Councilmember Orvis asked how the mitigation funds would be used if this project were not constructed.
Mr. Gebert answered there would be no mitigation funds provided; the developer would be required to
install frontage improvements.
Councilmember Marin agreed with the importance of a sidewalk wide enough to accommodate two
pedestrians walking side-by-side on a street with higher speeds. He recommended coordinating this
project with Community Transit in the event they would prefer to move the bus stop to the south away
from the right turn lane. Mr. Gebert agreed, reminding this was in the conceptual stage; Community
Transit would be involved in the final design concept.
For Councilmember Plunkett, Mr. Gebert clarified the Council was being asked to approve a development
agreement between the City and the developer that attaches the concept. Mr. Snyder read from the
development agreement, Paragraph 6.3 Obligations of the City, “The City agrees to develop and construct
the walkway and right-of-way improvements. The final design of the parkway improvements, sidewalk
and intersection shall be at the sole discretion of the City and the design shown may be altered in whole or
in part in accordance with a conditioned approval by the State, so long as the intersection redesign and
pocket park are developed which substantially comply with the purposes of this Agreement.”
Mr. Gebert then identified the current location of the bus stop. Councilmember Plunkett observed the
concept would create a conflict between a bus and a vehicle making a right turn where no conflict
currently existed. Mr. Sims explained the existing transit pull out would be lengthened and the bus stop
relocated further south to create a shared transit pullout and right turn lane. He commented 20,000
vehicles per day used SR 104, there were approximately 35 vehicles utilizing the right turn lane during
the peak hours, thus the conflict was only a potential for those 35 vehicles. Councilmember Plunkett
acknowledged it was a small number and may be a commonly occurring situation in other areas but it was
not common at this intersection. Mr. Sims agreed that situation did not exist at that intersection today.
Councilmember Plunkett observed if a bus was at the bus stop, a vehicle intending to enter the right turn
lane to access Paradise Lane would instead make their right turn from SR 104. Mr. Sims answered that
would be one solution. If the bus was signaling to leave, the driver could pull in behind the bus and
utilize the right turn lane. Councilmember Plunkett pointed out making a right turn from SR104 if the bus
was at the stop would require a driver to slow considerably. Mr. Sims responded the intent was to locate
the bus stop as close to the beginning of the turn lane as possible.
Councilmember Plunkett asked whether the developer had agreed to this concept. Mr. Sims answered
yes, the $2,400 he would provide would be in lieu of frontage improvements. Councilmember Plunkett
asked if the developer preferred this concept to the existing situation. Mr. Gebert answered the developer
was present and could be asked that question; he believed he viewed it as beneficial as it created an
attractive entrance. He reiterated the primary purpose of the proposal was to improve safety and create a
pocket park. The developer had been very cooperative in redesigning his parking lot.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, TO
EXTEND DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM FOR TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Olson referred to the comment that this was a high accident area and asked what type of
accidents had occurred. Mr. Sims explained it was classified as a high accident location by WSDOT; the
accidents occurred in the 2-way left turn lane. This project would potentially improve sight lines by
moving the bus stop back and improving egress from Paradise Lane. He advised there were no accidents
associated with the slip lane. The high accident location was not the primary reason for the project.
Packet Page 130 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 8
Councilmember Moore stated it appeared the City was trying to fix a WSDOT problem. Mr. Sims stated
this concept was developed before this was identified by WSDOT as a high accident location.
Councilmember Moore asked if any accidents had occurred at the Paradise Lane intersection. Mr. Sims
explained the accidents occurred on SR 104 but involved vehicles ingressing/egressing Paradise Lane,
and estimated there were 3-4 accidents in the past 5 years.
Councilmember Moore asked if there had been a study of what problem needed to be solved. Mr. Sims
reiterated this was not a high accident mitigation project, it was intended to address potential accidents
and conflicts with the slip lane. Slip lanes are an old highway design style with high speeds into a
residential neighborhood. Councilmember Moore noted testimony indicated the current situation worked
adequately and she questioned why the City would spend money to create a pocket park on a highway
that one developer found attractive. Mr. Gebert explained it was not intended to make it attractive for the
developer; it was intended to create an entrance/gateway to the City.
Councilmember Moore questioned if the Council’s vision was to create a gateway in this location. She
agreed with one of the speakers’ suggestions to master plan that side of the street. She questioned why
this project needed to proceed now. Mr. Gebert explained the developer redesigned his parking lot to
coordinate with this City project. If the City’s project did not proceed, the developer would redesign his
parking lot to coordinate with the slip lane, limiting opportunities to install the island park in the future.
Councilmember Moore asked whether this pocket park existed in the Parks Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Gebert was not certain, commenting there was landscaping and a signage in this area currently.
Councilmember Moore commented the development of streetscapes as gateways was an issue the Council
needed to discuss holistically.
Councilmember Moore asked if there were grant funds available for intersection safety improvements.
Mr. Gebert answered he was not aware of any grants and staff had not applied for a grant for this project.
Councilmember Moore pointed out the drawing appeared to eliminate the existing curb cut at 639
Paradise Lane. Mr. Gebert answered the location of the access road was incorrectly depicted on the map.
Councilmember Moore referred to the development agreement, which indicated by agreeing to the
development agreement, the City agreed to develop and construct the walkway and right-of-way
improvements shown on Attachment A. Mr. Snyder reiterated the subsequent language stated the design
was at the City’s sole discretion. The purpose of the development agreement was to transfer funds that
the developer would otherwise spend on frontage improvements. He pointed out if the Council chose to
make this improvement in the future, they would not have the developer’s contribution and would likely
need to redo his frontage improvements as well as fund a new egress for him.
Councilmember Moore questioned how the shared right turn lane/bus stop was safer than the existing
situation. Mr. Sims acknowledged that conflict was the one negative of the proposed project; he felt the
other benefits such as eliminating the high speed slip lane entrance into Paradise Lane and providing a
safer pedestrian crossing outweighed potential conflicts between a bus and a vehicle making a right turn.
He noted if there were higher traffic volumes turning right, this would not be a recommended solution.
Councilmember Moore asked whether there were any accidents related to the slip lane into Paradise Lane.
Mr. Sims answered there had been no accidents. Staff viewed this as an opportunity to design this
intersection to current traffic design standards. If the intersection was designed today, it would not have
the high speed slip lane and would be designed as the concept proposed.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSEN, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
Packet Page 131 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 9
Councilmember Wambolt advised he would oppose the motion, commenting the amount of improvement
was illusive. He also objected to spending $20,000 - $25,000 to develop this small park area, remarking
this was not his concept of a park.
Councilmember Orvis advised he would not support the motion. Although he would favor the proposal if
he lived on Paradise Lane, he would defer to the residents of that area who did not support the proposal.
Councilmember Plunkett recognized Mr. Sims’ and Mr. Gebert’s efforts to maximize an opportunity. He
disagreed the benefits outweighed the potential conflicts, preferring the straight entrance to Paradise Lane
from SR 104 to a 90-degree turn. He preferred the existing intersection that did not have a conflict with
the bus stop. He noted vehicles using the slip lane avoided what was identified as a high accident
location. For those reasons, he did not support the proposed concept, although he was willing to consider
other options with fewer conflicts.
Council President Dawson advised she would not support the proposed project until Community Transit
had been consulted.
Councilmember Marin advised he supported the proposal as it would address safety concerns. He was
persuaded by the fact that this intersection would not be designed this way today but would be designed
as staff proposed.
Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Marin’s comment about how the intersection would
be designed today. Further, the project would slow vehicles on Paradise Lane. She noted without this
project, the sidewalks were not likely to be improved. She suggested staff return the proposal to the
Council after conferring with Community Transit.
Councilmember Moore commented sidewalks could be improved without this project. Her primary
concern was with the bus/auto conflict in a location where there was currently no conflict. She did not
review the proposal as an improvement to the intersection and it did not fit her concept for a park. She
preferred the Council establish a plan for gateways/entrances to the City rather than doing it piecemeal.
MOTION FAILED (2-5), COUNCILMEMBERS MARIN AND OLSON IN FAVOR; COUNCIL
PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS, PLUNKETT, MOORE, AND
WAMBOLT OPPOSED.
Mayor Haakenson asked staff to comment on the time considerations if the Council was willing to
consider an alternate design. Mr. Gebert advised the project was under construction; he would speak with
the developer but envisioned the likely outcome would be the developer would proceed with the frontage
improvements.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS CITY CODE CHAPTER
8.64.030, SECTION 13, PROHIBITING PARKING AT ALL TIMES ON BOTH SIDES OF 220TH
STREET SW FROM 100TH AVENUE W TO 84TH AVENUE W, AND UPDATING REFERENCE
TO A CERTAIN STREET TO REFLECT CORRECTION IN NAME.
City Engineer Dave Gebert advised construction of the 220th Street project was substantially complete.
The project included construction of sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides as well as two 11-foot wide
vehicle travel lanes and left turn pockets at select intersections. He displayed a photograph illustrating a
vehicle parked adjacent to the travel lane in the bike lane.
He explained the planning of the 220th Street project included numerous public workshops and
consideration of several alternatives. It was recognized at that time that the bike lanes would eliminate
No Parking on
220th St. SW
Between 100th
Ave W & 84th
Ave W
Packet Page 132 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 10
on-street parking where it previously existed. He explained bike lanes and sidewalks were an important
component of the City’s non-motorized transportation infrastructure. The 220th Street project received $4
million in State and federal grants and Public Works Trust Fund loans; installation of sidewalks and bike
lanes on both sides was a requirement of the grant funding. Widening 220th to accommodate parking in
addition to bike lanes and sidewalks would have made the project prohibitively expensive.
Mr. Gebert referred to concerns submitted by Dan Lida to the Council Public Safety Committee whose
primary concern was the loss of parking and requested the Council consider allowing parking in certain
situations such as on one side of the street, at certain times and/or by special permit and issuance of traffic
cones. Mr. Gebert reiterated, as the photograph illustrated, there was no space for a vehicle to safely park
on 220th at any time. The City’s parking code currently prohibited parking on 220th in certain locations
but not in the area of this project. He advised the proposed ordinance would amend the code to prohibit
parking on 220th between 84th Avenue West and 100th Avenue West. Staff recommends approval of the
proposed ordinance.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Don Lamey, Edmonds, commented the elimination of on-street parking had reduced property values in
this area and turned 220th into a speedway. He suggested on-street parking would slow traffic speeds. He
commented the light at the corner of 84th and 100th for pedestrian crossing was four seconds long. He
doubted anyone rode a bicycle on this street; children riding their bikes rode on the sidewalks. He
recommended something be done to slow the traffic and allowing on-street parking was one method.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, expressed support for the recommended action. An avid cyclist, prior to this
project he never rode on 220th as he found it too dangerous. It was now a very safe place to ride a bicycle.
Robert Bretz, Edmonds, expressed his support for the proposed ordinance, advising he often rode his
bicycle in the bike lane with his dog on a leash on the sidewalk. He opined property values on 220th had
likely increased due to the improvements.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3605.
Councilmember Marin commented on the potential for a vehicle parked on the street to be hit by another
vehicle in the travel lane. He pointed out the grant funding for this project required the City install
sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides.
Councilmember Moore expressed support for the ordinance, commenting this was a great start to
providing bike lanes in the City. She commented if there were concerns with speed on 220th that was a
separate issue.
Council President Dawson expressed support for the ordinance, advising the Council had already
approved the project that included sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides and there was not enough space
for on-street parking.
Councilmember Wambolt also supported the ordinance, although he had empathy for residents along
220th who wanted to park in front of their home. He pointed out there were many areas of the City where
it may not be appropriate to park in front of one’s home such as on an arterial street.
Packet Page 133 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 11
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance approved reads as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF ECC 8.64.030 SECTION 13; PROHIBITING PARKING AT ALL TIMES ON
BOTH SIDES OF 220TH STREET SW FROM 100TH AVENUE W TO 84TH AVENUE W;
UPDATING REFERENCE TO A CERTAIN STREET TO REFLECT CORRECTION IN NAME;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
At Mayor Haakenson’s request, Mr. Gebert explained the design as constructed did not include a left turn
lane for traffic traveling south on 9th and turning left onto 220th. Modifications will be necessary to
include a left turn lane which unfortunately will require widening the street and reconfiguring the
sidewalks. He acknowledged this was an unfortunate situation but the best approach was to fix it.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why a left turn lane was not included in the original design and what the
cost would be to construct it now. Mr. Gebert answered that was a topic of discussion with the designer.
Staff feels it is a design error and the designer should bear the cost; the cost sharing is being negotiated.
7. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTING THE PORT OF EDMONDS STRATEGIC PLAN AND
MASTER PLAN.
Chris Keuss, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, advised the Strategic Plan was reviewed and
adopted by the Port Commission in April 2005 and the Master Plan was reviewed and approved by the
Port Commission in June 2005. The Planning Board reviewed both plans earlier this year. The Strategic
Plan includes the Port’s mission statement, strategic actions, budget and financial information, history and
current operations, and the Port’s current capital program. The Master Plan includes the Port’s vision,
guiding principles, features and programs, and elements of the Master Plan.
He displayed a vicinity map of the Port property, identifying the marina, the boundaries of the Port, the
Harbor Square complex, Admiral Way, Dayton Street, railroad right-of-way, former US West parcel the
Port purchased, and a parcel behind the Richards building jointly owned by the City and Port for fishing
pier parking. He identified facilities on Port property including the Landing building that houses Arnie’s
Restaurant, the Port Administration building, Anthony’s Restaurant, dry stack facility, docks and marina.
He advised the Port had approximately 730 boats in wet moorage and 300 boats in dry storage.
He reviewed the Port’s mission – to operate the Port on behalf of the residents of the Port District; be a
responsible financial steward; be a responsible environmental steward; provide and foster quality services
and facilities for tenants and the boating community; play a leadership role in ensuring that the waterfront
is a vibrant, active centerpiece for the Edmonds and Woodway communities; provide opportunities in
economic development; and communicate openly, frequently and consistently with Port District residents
and tenants.
Mr. Keuss reviewed the seven elements of the Port’s Master Plan:
• North boardwalk improvements –improvements made in the past several years including view
cutouts, benches, tables, planters. Consideration is being given to widening the boardwalk in the
future, installing a landscape buffer and relocating the refuse containers into enclosures.
• Mixed use area – currently used for parking and the Port Administration building. The Edmonds
Yacht Club has proposed a new building on this site; the Port is working on a lease agreement with
the Yacht Club. The timeline for construction would be 2009. Review and possible approval is
scheduled on the Port Commission’s October 9 agenda.
Ord# 3605 –
No Parking on
220th SW
Port of
Edmonds
Strategic Plan
and Master Plan
Packet Page 134 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 12
• Mixed Use area – currently the northeast gravel parking lot/open storage area. If the Yacht Club
facility is constructed, this area would be developed for parking, as a community use facility or for
Port programs.
• Mixed Use area (south) – currently used for parking for Anthony’s and for dry storage. Possible
future uses include parking, marine retail/marine services, or Port programs.
• Dry Storage expansion – currently no immediate need for expansion but with a marketing program,
the Port Commission felt could be a need for expansion. Currently used for parking.
• Restroom complex – new facility to house restrooms, laundry facility, and storage lockers with
possible funding in 1-2 years via IAC grants.
• Public Plaza – permit process completed last year. Converts 12-13 parking spaces behind the
Edmonds Yacht Club and Anthony’s into a landscaped public use area. Project delayed last year due
to funding and a legal dispute. Discussion is scheduled on the Port Commission’s October 9 agenda.
One element of the project, the weather center, has been completed.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, posed several questions: were there any plans to expand the Port’s
boundaries by acquiring additional property, the Port’s plans for the old ferry dock if the ferry moved, the
status of moving Admiral Way onto the Port property, and whether there were any plans for a small boat
ramp. He recommended the Master Plan designate an emergency access route and suggested an
emergency access route be a priority for the Fire Chief.
John Heighway, Edmonds, recommended in order to improve the view of the skyline from the ferry,
buildings not have flat roofs regardless of the height.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
In response to questions raised by the public Mr. Keuss advised the Port had no plans to expand their
current boundaries. With regard to the old ferry dock, he recalled in the Downtown Waterfront Plan
when the ferry terminal was moved, a portion of the existing dock was removed. He noted some
consideration has been given to day moorage in that location. With regard to relocating Admiral Way, he
advised research indicated the expense outweighed the benefit. In response to the question about a small
boat ramp, Mr. Keuss explained the Port partnered with the State in the 1980s to build the existing sling
launch. A ramp was not feasible at this time as it required a considerable amount of land as well as an
increase in parking to accommodate vehicles and trailers.
Mr. Keuss advised emergency access across the railroad tracks was an important issue to the Port
Commission and City staff and it was anticipated it would be addressed via the Edmonds Crossing which
may include a pedestrian crossing and a railroad crossing further south. With regard to the skyline, he
advised buildings would be constructed in accordance with the City’s codes. Mayor Haakenson advised
the new fire boat, moored at the Port, had the same equipment as an aid unit and the firefighters could
cross a stalled train to reach the Port to provide aid as well as fight fires. Mr. Keuss advised the Port had
an Interlocal Agreement with the City to provide personnel and a vehicle when the train was stopped to
assist with getting personnel and equipment across the tracks.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND DIRECT STAFF TO INCLUDE THEM IN
THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2006 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY’S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Haakenson declared a brief recess.
Packet Page 135 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 13
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTING AMENDED GOALS AND POLICIES FOR
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICTS, INCORPORATING SPECIFIC PROPOSALS FOR
THE FIRDALE AND FIVE CORNERS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS
Council President Dawson advised the Council was emailed additional information but may not have had
time to review it in detail. She suggested staff make their presentation and the Council take public
comment but no action be taken until the Council had an opportunity to review all the materials.
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this effort was initiated by the City’s Economic Development
Director Jennifer Gerend last year. She held several public workshops in January 2006 to assess uses in
the Firdale Village and Five Corners commercial centers and initiate discussion regarding future
development. She followed up with workshops in April 2006 that focused on draft Comprehensive Plan
policies that were reviewed at a Planning Board public hearing in June 2006. Her intent was a
neighborhood planning process to develop a vision for the commercial centers.
Mr. Chave explained what prompted this issue was many of the neighborhood centers in Edmonds and
throughout the region were established as strip malls; however, more recent developments reflect a
significant change in what neighborhood centers provide. Property owners have also expressed interest in
considering what could be developed in the neighborhood centers. He advised the Comprehensive Plan
amendments recommended by the Planning Board were intended to provide a way to include
neighborhood-based plans in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and provide a framework for follow-up
zoning and land use. The next phase would include more detailed discussions with the neighborhood
about design, uses, arrangement of buildings, setbacks, heights, etc. That process would begin next year
if the Comprehensive Plan amendments are approved.
Mr. Chave provided questions posed at the workshops:
Q2: Many new developments in the region provide a mix of uses…assuming that traffic and parking
improvements were made, do you believe that a mix of uses should be encouraged?
Q3: What should be the range of building stories above ground level retail/service uses?
Q4: Some cities offer a height incentive, such as an extra story, if a builder provides a special benefit
in the project such as a percentage set aside for public art, environmentally friendly design, public
gathering spaces, or affordable/middle income housing. Should this concept be incorporated?
Mr. Chave displayed and reviewed the survey results:
Five Corners
Q2: Mix of Uses? Q3: Max # Stories Q4: Height Incentive?
Responses 66 Responses 70 Responses 65
Yes 56 Median 3.0 Yes 44
No 10 Average 2.9 No 21
Firdale Village
Q2: Mix of Uses? Q3: Max # Stories Q4: Height Incentive?
Responses 33 Responses 38 Responses 30
Yes 21 Median 4.0 Yes 18
No 12 Average 3.5 No 12
Next Mr. Chave compared the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to the survey results:
Plan vs. Survey Firdale Village Five Corners
Mix of Uses? Plan: Yes Plan: Yes
Neighborhood
Business
Districts
Packet Page 136 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 14
Survey: Yes Survey: Yes
Building Heights? Plan: 4
Survey 3.5-4
Plan: 4
Survey: 3
Incentive for added floor? Plan: Yes
Survey: Yes
Plan: Yes
Survey: Yes
Councilmember Orvis pointed out the question regarding building heights offered a range of building
stories above the ground floor: 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 and 7-8. Mr. Chave explained in tabulating the data, staff
used the highest number in the range, assuming the response meant up to the higher number.
Councilmember Moore asked what would happen if the Comprehensive Plan amendments were
approved, noting zoning would follow as well as design guidelines, ADB review of any proposals, etc.
Mr. Chave agreed, explaining the intent of the draft language was to provide a policy framework for the
next steps to prevent rehashing the same issues again. He acknowledged the difficult part would be the
zoning and design issues as there were a variety of opinions. Although it was clear that residents wanted
the neighborhood centers improved, the specifics would be more difficult.
Councilmember Moore referred to Planning Board Member Henderson’s comment that the Zoning Code
could identify height limitations and the Comprehensive Plan should describe the neighborhood centers as
a village-style development and should define village-style. Mr. Chave stated the Board felt the concept
of a village was workable but that the specifics could be addressed in the zoning and design standards.
For Council President Dawson, Mr. Chave displayed and reviewed the survey form. He offered to
provide Councilmembers the raw survey data.
For Councilmember Orvis, Mr. Chave explained the draft language for building heights for Five Corners
and Firdale Village was up to four stories with incentives for one additional story. Councilmember Orvis
noted both were zoned BN currently and asked whether the BN zone had setback and open space
requirements. Mr. Chave answered BN had only setback requirements. Councilmember Orvis asked
whether residential use was allowed in the BN zone. Mr. Chave responded the residential use allowed in
the BN zone was one unit above the commercial development per lot.
Councilmember Plunkett asked how much weight Ms. Gerend gave to the survey results in drafting the
language. Mr. Chave advised he was unable to answer that question. Councilmember Plunkett asked
how much weight the Planning Board gave to the survey results. Mr. Chave was uncertain whether the
Planning Board saw the detailed survey data; they reviewed the staff reports, etc. He emphasized this was
not a scientific survey, only a survey of those who attended the workshop.
Council President Dawson asked how much of the language was written prior to the neighborhood
meetings. Mr. Chave advised Ms. Gerend used the surveys provided at the first workshops to draft the
language. The language was then presented at the second set of workshops. He referred to the
comparison of the Comprehensive Plan language and the survey results, commenting they tracked fairly
well. He clarified that the first set of meetings was where surveys were completed; the language was then
drafted; the language was presented at the second set of meetings; and followed by Planning Board
review.
Councilmember Moore commented the Council was being asked to approve language for development of
zoning by the Planning Board working with property owners and neighborhoods. She agreed the
language was guidance for improving the neighborhood centers; the actual heights could be worked out
later although the language did establish an upper limit to heights. She referred to a statement in the
proposed amendment regarding Five Corners – development should be oriented to the street and respond
Packet Page 137 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 15
to the unique character of the intersection, including a planned intersection improvement, asking whether
“unique” referred to the intersection or the neighborhood. Mr. Chave answered it referred to the
intersection. Although there was agreement at the workshops that the intersection needed to be improved,
there was disagreement regarding exactly what should be done.
Council President Dawson asked why the term “stories” was used when the Council was told when
discussing the downtown zoning that language was unworkable. Mr. Chave agreed “stories” was difficult
in code language but was appropriate at the conceptual level in the Comprehensive Plan. Council
President Dawson questioned how it was presented to residents at the workshops, noting four stories
above a grocery was different than above some other uses. Mr. Chave recalled Ms. Gerend’s indication
that to encourage a grocery store to locate in a neighborhood center there may need to be some flexibility
in the building heights. Mr. Bowman advised he attended the workshops and recalled Ms. Gerend
displayed several photographs of mixed used development to provide a visual of the concept. He felt
residents understood the concept of stories.
Council President Dawson questioned if the residents’ vision translated to the draft language. Mr.
Bowman stated the draft language was not inconsistent with the residents’ vision, pointing out the draft
language was presented at the second workshop. The details would be resolved in the code language.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. He advised the Council
received three letters, one from Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, in support of the amendments, a letter from
Ron Knowles in support of the amendments which would provide affordable multi family dwellings and
business space outside the bowl area, and a letter submitted by Joe Gnagey who saw no need for multi-
story commercial/residential space in the Five Corners or Firdale Village areas.
Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, commented the vote on this item was an indicator of whether Edmonds was an
open, welcoming community or self-centered and inward looking with people more concerned about the
past than the future. He pointed out change was a fact of life. He asserted the Council had closed the
bowl to new construction; there were areas outside the bowl such as Five Corners and Firdale Village that
needed to be redeveloped. Although most people think of Edmonds as downtown, the majority of people
who pass through Edmonds see areas outside the bowl where there were dilapidated houses, vacant or
rundown commercial areas, etc. He pointed out development occurring around the region such as Mill
Creek Town Center where there were multi-story buildings with multi family development abutting the
commercial zone. He disagreed taller buildings could not coexist adjacent to residential, pointing out
Whistler Village and New Orleans Square in Disneyland as examples. Another factor to consider is
residents’ children cannot afford to live in downtown Edmonds; enabling land outside the bowl to be
developed with 3-4 story buildings would reduce the proportionate cost of land to a more affordable level.
Warren Schweppe, Edmonds, advised he missed the last Planning Board meeting but understood
heights as high as 50 feet were discussed. He preferred buildings be no higher than 2-3 stories or that the
30-33 foot guideline in downtown be used. He did not want another building like the Gregory. He
remarked a good example of appropriate development was the Montclair condominiums which were
limited to 2-3 stories. He summarized he was in favor of progress but it needed to be done the right way.
Robert Bretz, Edmonds, was opposed to 45-50 foot heights in the Five Corners neighborhood, advising
the infrastructure was currently overburdened and the proposed zoning changes would increase the
burden and bring gridlock at rush hour. Parking was already an issue on 84th, Main, 212th and Bowdoin
and density in the Five Corners area had increased dramatically in the past five years with the
development of the Montclair condominiums, the Madrona Cove PRD, and the condominium on the
former fire station property. He noted there is currently no zoning that would provide transition between
the proposed high-rise commercial/residential and single family residential although City plans mandate
Packet Page 138 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 16
transitional zoning to alleviate conflicts. The Five Corners area is very flat with no natural barriers to
provide relief from the sight pollution a 45-foot building would impose on single family residences.
Diane Hill, Edmonds, found the survey on height confusing and was certain the average citizen also
found it confusing. She objected to the use of the term ground story and floors above and was not certain
the survey respondents understood the question. She objected to the use of a range in the survey and
staff’s decision to use the higher number when tabulating the results. She volunteered to hand-deliver a
new survey to every house in the Five Corner’s neighborhood. She commented the Five Corners
neighborhood was home to two schools and she was concerned with the street becoming a raceway. She
recommended if the City wanted to change height limits, it be done citywide, not in just a few
neighborhoods. She viewed Montclair as a tastefully done development and would support something
like that. She did not support heights above 33 feet including the first floor.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, pointed out a BN zone meant it was located within a residential
neighborhood; the intent was to protect the neighborhood. He suggested a property owner in a BN zone,
who was restricted by the current regulations to one residential unit above commercial would be satisfied
with mixed use without a height increase. He envisioned a property owner would be ecstatic if they could
have two stories of residential above commercial and according to downtown studies, the economics
would allow for redevelopment. He disagreed that 4-5 stories were necessary and objected to allowing an
additional story for an amenity, commenting the amenities were usually not enough. He disagreed with
requiring buildings in the BN zone to be located close to the street with parking behind, suggesting
instead to buffer the noise for residences, locating the parking in front and buildings in back. He
disagreed with providing an incentive for redevelopment, remarking most people who completed the
survey did not realize the building height was number of stories above the ground floor.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, recalled several Councilmembers and Planning Board Members attended the
workshops in Firdale Village. Firdale Village was an underutilized facility where numerous businesses
have failed due to the poor design. He referred to a nearby ravine where trees were removed to make way
for 14 houses on small lots, questioning the amount of tax revenue the City received from that
development as well as from an underutilized neighborhood center. He summarized Firdale Village
needed to be redeveloped. The surveys revealed what the residents of these neighborhoods wanted.
Ted Kim, Edmonds, did not support any additional buildings or increased building height in the Five
Corner commercial area as the uncontrolled intersection could not handle any additional traffic. He
remarked on the cars that back up at the intersection during rush hour. He concluded additional
development would destroy the ambiance of the neighborhood. The reason they moved to Montclair was
the ability to walk to nearby stores and services; that ability would be eliminated by increased traffic.
John Heighway, Edmonds, advised he attended the Firdale Village meeting and felt Ms. Gerend did a
good job. He recalled the people who attended the meeting were local residents and were enthusiastic
about redevelopment of Firdale Village. He supported moving forward but with more accurate
information. He recalled one of the uses residents attending the Firdale Village meeting were most
interested in was a beer pub. He preferred to delay adoption of the amendments if necessary.
Kevin Grossman, Shoreline resident and Edmonds property owner, pointed out the difference between a
Comprehensive Plan amendment and zoning. The Council was being asked to embrace a big picture
concept, not develop the details. The subsequent process would include more specifics about design
issues, building appearance, heights, etc. If the Council liked rundown, one story retail centers, he
suggested the Council not adopt the proposed amendments. Conversely, he encouraged the Council to
support the amendments if they wanted developers to reinvest in these areas so that residents had better
retail, better designed structures, etc. He pointed out the proposed amendments would also provide a
Packet Page 139 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 17
variety of housing options, allowing residents’ children and the elderly to continue to live in this
community. He referred to the City’s obligation under GMA to accommodate increased density, pointing
out concentrating density where land use and transportation dovetailed provided synergy for retail and
minimized traffic impacts as well as decreased the density in neighborhoods.
Brad Butterfield, Edmonds, explained the proposed amendment was the culmination of over 12 months
of work by Ms. Gerend, planning staff and the Planning Board. He commented the current BN zoning
did not work for many of the large properties at Firdale Village, Westgate, Five Corners and Perrinville.
He recalled unanimity among the residents attending the Firdale Village neighborhood meetings that
something needed to be done with the buildings in Firdale Village that were constructed in the 1940s. He
pointed out the amendments laid the groundwork for sensitive zoning and more neighborhood and
Planning Board meetings to discuss how development should occur. He encouraged the Council to adopt
the draft amendments to allow the discussion to move forward.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY OLSEN, TO EXTEND THE MEETING
FOR 1½ HOURS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Eric Anderson, Edmonds, owner of the Five Corners Shopping Plaza, commented he was the only
property owner at the Five Corner’s meeting. The proposed amendments were the result of two
neighborhood meetings and a year of discussions. He viewed the amendments as a basic proposal that did
not obligate the City but would move the issue ahead. If the amendments were adopted, the Planning
Board would begin working with property owners and the neighborhood to develop zoning to implement
the plan. As a property owner, he assured the current configuration – a strip mall built in the 1960s – was
all there would be under the current zoning. The strip mall has had many cosmetic remodels but has
reached the end of its economic life. He pointed out every city in the greater Seattle area was developing
retail mixed use/urban villages that included housing. If the Council approved the draft amendments,
redevelopment could bring that same energy to Five Corners.
Cheryl Ahlen, Edmonds, commented she moved to Edmonds because it is quiet and she wanted it to
stay that way. If she wanted activity, she could drive to a place nearby where there was activity. She was
opposed to a lot of development in Five Corners.
Kelly Picasso, Edmonds, commented her neighborhood at 84th & 210th received notice of tonight’s
public hearing but neither she nor her neighbors were aware of the neighborhood meetings. Although she
understood progress was to be expected, she found 4-5 story buildings at Five Corners incompatible with
the neighborhood. She stated because this neighborhood was not in the bowl did not mean it was less
worthy of the same small town feel of Edmonds. She was aware mixed use could be done successfully
but prefer it respect the residential areas via heights that were sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood.
She also pointed out the need for transition, and looked forward to more discussion on this issue.
Douglas Alfi, Edmonds, asked how the City planned to accommodate increased heights in Five Corners,
commenting additional stories or buildings would increase traffic. He pointed out cars already backed up
to the high school on 212th in the late afternoon.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Mr. Chave commented the survey was not scientific, it was only a questionnaire used by Ms. Gerend in
drafting the proposed language. He agreed many residents and property owners wanted to move forward
with something more positive than currently exists.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to comments such as “move forward, this was not locked in stone,
future planning could be done down the road, this is just a concept, forward it, more discussion.” If that
Packet Page 140 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 18
was an acceptable premise, he suggested replacing the statement that development should not be more
than four stories with mixed use multi floors. Mr. Chave stated leaving the specifics in the language
provided additional guidance. Without reference to a number of stories, that issue be rehashed in the
future. He noted although the Council heard negative comments tonight, the problem with this process
was that the people who were satisfied tended not to continue participating whereas the people with
concerns tended to continue with the process to ensure their concerns were addressed.
Mr. Chave observed there appeared to be a fair amount of comfort in the survey with the 3-4 story range
although there may have been some misunderstanding regarding whether that was on top of the ground
floor. He suggested leaving the language regarding a maximum of four stories and incentives for
additional height and allow the next step to determine how that should be arranged.
Councilmember Marin suggested establishing three stories as a starting point and a fourth story with
incentives.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OLSON, TO
APPROVE THE PLAN AMENDMENT LANGUAGE AND DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN
ORDINANCE FOR FORMAL ADOPTION AS PART OF THE 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
UPDATE.
Councilmember Moore explained this concept was a launching pad; it was clear everyone wanted
something done in the neighborhoods. The preponderance of evidence in the packet points to the wording
the Planning Board forwarded. She acknowledged traffic was bad everywhere, particularly during rush
hour. The intent was to develop neighborhoods and villages so that people could walk to local stores and
services and not use their cars as much. She acknowledged traffic amelioration would be necessary at
Five Corners but that would be discussed as zoning changes were made. To the comments that this was
against the concept of Edmonds, she pointed out the concept of Edmonds was ever-changing. She agreed
more affordable housing was important, commenting the reason many bought at Montclair was because it
was affordable. The proposed neighborhood concept may facilitate more affordable housing that would
allow residents’ children to remain in the community. She pointed out the housing provided by Montclair
was similar to what projections indicate cities needed to provide – housing for the four Ss – singles, single
parents, seniors and starter homes.
Councilmember Olson advised she attended both the Five Corners meetings and recalled the people were
less concerned about heights and more concerned with traffic and were excited about having something
done. She agreed traffic as well as other issues would be addressed in the upcoming process. She
concluded if Edmonds did not begin making some progress, other cities would pass Edmonds by.
Council President Dawson commented the language in the draft amendment and in the survey was
confusing. She preferred to have an opportunity to review the survey data. She doubted anyone at the
Five Corners meeting was comfortable with a five story building and she was not comfortable with five
story buildings at Five Corners, particularly if the plan was to move the buildings toward the street. She
was comfortable with moving forward for further discussion if the specific language were removed.
Councilmember Orvis opposed the language as written or a range of 4-5 stories. He agreed with the need
for further review. He recognized even a three floor option would create a sizable economic driver. He
preferred to take the time necessary to develop specific enough language so that the process could move
forward without needing to rehash the number of stories in the future.
Councilmember Wambolt advised he attended all the neighborhood meetings and felt perhaps too much
weight was being given to the surveys. He recalled leaving the meetings feeling there was no consensus;
as many people were in favor of a concept as were against it. He did not believe further review of the
Packet Page 141 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 19
surveys would be productive. His impression was four total floors, not four floors above the ground level
and he did not support allowing a fifth floor with incentives.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO
AMEND THE MOTON TO SPECIFY A FOUR FLOOR MAXIMUM AND REMOVE THE
INCENTIVE FOR ADDITONAL FLOORS. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (4-3),
COUNCILMEMBERS WAMBOLT, MARIN, MOORE, AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND PLUNKETT
OPPOSED.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3),
COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, MARIN, WAMBOLT, AND OLSON IN FAVOR; AND
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS PLUNKETT AND ORVIS
OPPOSED.
9. CONTINUED COUNCIL DELIBERATION AND ACTION ON THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD
ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 ON THE DRAFT "BD - DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ZONES"
INTENDED TO BE APPLIED TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO IMPLEMENT THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Council President Dawson relayed Councilmember Marin’s suggestion that due to the late hour and
anticipated need for a lengthy discussion, this item be rescheduled. She suggested rescheduling it to the
October 24 work session.
Councilmember Wambolt agreed. Councilmember Orvis requested Councilmember Plunkett’s and his
amendments be included in the packet.
Councilmember Moore requested this item be scheduled at the beginning of the agenda. Council
President Dawson agreed, pointing out it was later on the agenda tonight due to the public hearing that
preceded it. She preferred to schedule it on the October 24 week session due to the public hearings on the
October 17 agenda.
The Council discussed the number of items on upcoming agendas and the possibility of scheduling a
special meeting. Mayor Haakenson requested the annual reports from the Public Defender and the
Prosecutor be scheduled before this item on October 24.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE OCTOBER 24, 2006 WORK SESSION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Council President Dawson apologized to the audience, advising the Council did not expect the preceding
items to be this lengthy.
10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, relayed the next chapter of the “Ferry Terminal Farce” ferry tale entitled
“Where Did the Pilings Go?” She recalled when the Council asked its consultant about the depth of the
water at the Edmonds Crossing project, they were warned that the water at Edmonds Crossing would be
the deepest of the 20 ferry terminals in the State and would push technology to construct landing
structures. The water depth was 150-160 feet deep, the wing walls would be in water 60-120 feet deep,
concrete steel buffers along the east side of the third slip would be in water 120-200 feet deep, and a total
of 306 steel pilings pounded into a steep slope of unknown stability. She summarized the problems with
the Edmonds Crossing – an exposed site, a distance between the terminal and the landing that exceeded
all pedestrian standards, water depth that pushes technology, and holding lanes on a hillside in a landslide
Draft “BD –
Downtown
Business
Zones”
Ferry Terminal/
Edmonds
Crossing
Packet Page 142 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 20
hazard zone. She advised the next chapter, “A Belt and Suspenders” would address fix-it schemes to
address the problems. She asked if the City had hired a consultant for the next phase. Mayor Haakenson
answered no. She asked if the City planned to hire a consultant and the Mayor responded possibly. She
asked when and the Mayor answered he did not know.
Don Kreiman, Edmonds, posed a series of questions to Councilmembers. To Councilmember Moore
whom he recalled had defended trees, woods, and an underground creek, he asked if she planned to do
anything about the trees being cut to develop PRDs. Councilmember Moore responded she would look
into it. To Councilmember Olson, he asked how she would feel if the trees in the ravine near her home
were cut to build a neighborhood with houses too small and lots too close together. To Councilmember
Marin, he asked if mixed use residential development on arterials was preferable to everyone driving. To
Councilmember Wambolt, he asked if the City received more taxes from mixed use development with
retail and condominiums or from individual residential houses. Councilmember Wambolt answered the
City received more taxes from mixed use development. To Councilmember Plunkett, who ran a recent
PUD campaign that stressed the environment, he asked whether mixed use development supported the
environment by not cutting trees as well as getting people out of their cars. Councilmember Plunkett
replied he supported the environment. To Councilmember Orvis, he asked if he was aware how many
more houses were being constructed in his neighborhood and whether cutting trees increased the value of
Edmonds to families. To Council President Dawson, he admired her stand on domestic violence and the
need to defend the defenseless. He commented people were spending 40-50% of their income on housing
which may contribute to stress that leads to domestic violence. More affordable housing was needed to
reduce this stress. To Mayor Haakenson, who attended eight neighborhood meetings, he invited him to
inform the Council if the cutting of trees was an issue in the City. Mayor Haakenson answered the
Council received a report of every neighborhood meeting he attended and the issues raised.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the Paradise Lane proposal, and cautioned the Council to
carefully examine any proposal presented on a rush basis. He invited the Council to tour a downtown
development, beginning at 5th & Dayton. As he began describing the building and inviting the Council to
look at each section of the building, Mayor Haakenson cautioned the Council would be involved in a
closed record review of the building in two weeks; therefore, he should not be talking to the Council
about it. Mr. Snyder agreed.
11. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson had no report.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Marin commented that in preparation for tonight’s proclamation in honor of Change a
Light Day in Edmonds, he replaced 750 watts of bulbs in his home with 128 watts. His house currently
used 40% of the average home’s consumption of electricity which would be reduced to 38% with the
replacement of these bulbs. His house was now completely converted to florescent bulbs. He invited the
public to obtain coupons from the PUD, noting two of the places listed on the reverse where bulbs could
be purchased were on Hwy. 99. He reported at last week’s Snohomish County Tomorrow meeting there
was unanimous support of five principles of annexation. He explained the intent of the principles was to
encourage Snohomish County to use adjoining cities’ development guidelines so that an area that might
eventually be annexed to a city would be developed according to that city’s standards. He advised this
was an advisory vote that asked Snohomish County to consider the principles.
Councilmember Moore directed the public’s attention to the three proclamations the Council passed
tonight, regarding domestic violence, live theater and changing light bulbs. She planned to begin
Planned
Residential
Developments
Change a Light
Day in
Edmonds
Snohomish
County
Tomorrow
Packet Page 143 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
October 3, 2006
Page 21
changing light bulbs in her home and suggested Councilmembers report at the next meeting on the
number of light bulbs they converted. Mayor Haakenson advised he changed five.
Councilmember Orvis advised he had several Energy Star light bulbs in his home, not only because they
were good for the environment but because he disliked changing light bulbs and they lasted a long time.
Councilmember Orvis reported the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee allocated funds for the Bird
Festival and the Snohomish County Visitors Bureau. The Committee requested information regarding
why the Visitors Bureau’s numbers were declining. The Committee declined a proposal for additional
ads for the Waterfront Festival for budget reasons and reduced funding to the Economic Development
Director to market the City. He reported Cindi Cruz was leading an effort to redo the rack cards and she
was directed to utilize a trifold card that had more pictures of Edmonds.
Councilmember Wambolt expressed concern with the number of items on agendas and suggested
scheduling additional meetings such as a special meeting on October 30. He pointed out the October 17
and October 24 agendas had items scheduled for at least three hours. Councilmember Moore agreed.
Mayor Haakenson suggested scheduling discussion items on some Committee nights.
Council President Dawson was uncomfortable with scheduling continued deliberation on the draft
Downtown Business Zones for a special meeting. Councilmembers Olson and Moore indicated they
would be out of town on October 10. Council President Dawson advised she would take scheduling a
special meeting under consideration.
13. EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 11:00 p.m., Mayor Haakenson recessed the Council to a 10-minute Executive Session regarding
potential litigation. He advised the Council would adjourn immediately following the Executive Session
without taking any action.
Lodging Tax
Advisory
Committee
Executive
Session
Packet Page 144 of 488
Packet Page 145 of 488
Packet Page 146 of 488
Packet Page 147 of 488
Page | 6
We recommend the City develop internal controls over public works projects to ensure that bid
requirements are met and projects are adequately monitored to further ensure appropriate use
of public funds.
Park Department – cash receipting
The Parks Department receipted $974,321 in 2010. During our review of cash receipting at the
Parks and Recreation Department, we found:
Multiple cashiers at the Frances Anderson Center work out of the same drawer. This
prevents the department from fixing responsibility in the event of a loss at the Center.
Keys to the cash drawers are attached to a bulletin board behind the counter at the
Frances Anderson Center. Therefore, everyone in the office has access to the keys and
cash drawers.
Yost Park Pool cashiers process credit card payments through the credit card terminal
but do not always enter them into the cash register.
We recommend the City establish controls to ensure that public resources are properly
safeguarded and that employees receive adequate training over cash receipting procedures.
Utility adjustments
A former Finance Director exempted a citizen from paying storm water charges. City Municipal
Code 7.50.060 states the public works director is authorized to make adjustments to storm
water management utility fees, but not provided for exemptions to be granted by finance
directors. The City has not billed this customer for five years, for a total amount of $592.75.
We recommend the City ensure that all exemptions and adjustment to utility fees are approved
in compliance with City Code.
Status of Prior Audit Recommendations
Prior Management Letter Items Resolved Unresolved
Municipal Court X
Prior Exit Items Resolved Unresolved
Police Department Citations X
Payroll contract with SNOCOM X
Davis Bacon monitoring *
Donations policy X
REET expenditures X
Cost allocations X
Packet Page 148 of 488
Edmonds Municipal Code
Chapter 7.50
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY
7.50.060 Administrative rate adjustment.
The city’s public works director is hereby authorized to make adjustments to the city’s stormwater utility
rates as provided in this chapter in an amount up to 50 percent of the rate set in the preceding section in
accordance with the following provisions:
A. Upon written application to the public works director, a customer may request review of the city’s
stormwater management utility fee as applied to the specific developed property to which the fee has
been charged. The applicant shall state the specific conditions and/or facilities on the site which the
applicant feels warrants adjustment of the rate as applied to the property.
B. On his own motion, the public works director may initiate review of a stormwater utility charge to any
parcel.
C. The public works director shall have the authority to increase or decrease rates up to 50 percent of the
level set by the city council. The sole criteria for adjusting the rate shall be a determination that the
physical characteristics of the site and in particular the stormwater detention, retention and/or treatment
facilities as installed thereon by the owners, or lack thereof, have significantly increased the burden which
the property places upon the city’s stormwater utility (in the event of an increase) or significantly
decreased the burden (in the event of a decrease) by providing additional benefits over and above those
which the average property places upon the utility through on-site improvements including but not limited
to on-site pollution control mechanisms or technologies which relate to water quality and the property’s
impact upon the city’s stormwater management system. Factors personal to the property owner, such as
ability to pay, shall not be considered.
D. The decision of the public works director shall be in writing. It may be appealed to the Edmonds city
council for review. In that review process the determination of the director shall be given substantial
weight and an applicant for decrease shall have the burden of proof. In the event the director has
recommended an increase, the city staff shall have the burden of proof in the process. The decision of the
Edmonds city council shall be final and shall not be appealable. The city council may either increase or
decrease the rates within 50 percent of that set or may elect, in its sole discretion, to apply the rate as
established by ordinance if the city council determined that such property does not differ substantially
from other similarly situated ratepayers and their properties. [Ord. 3264 § 1, 1999].
Packet Page 149 of 488
AM-5095 8. D.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Shawn Hunstock
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
REET Fund Discussion
Recommendation
N.A. For discussion only.
Previous Council Action
The City Council adopted the current policy at their June 6, 2006 meeting.
Narrative
The City Council on June 6, 2006 adopted a policy allocating the first $750,000 per year in REET 2 (Real Estate Excise
Tax) revenue to the Park Improvement Fund 125 and the remainder to the Street Construction Improvement Fund 112. This
policy was adopted at a time when the level of REET 2 revenue was higher than what it is currently. The Finance Committee
requested a discussion about possible changes to the policy adopted in 2006.
Attachments
06/06/2006 City Council Agenda Item
06/06/2006 City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/05/2012 02:17 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/05/2012 02:26 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/05/2012 02:48 PM
Form Started By: Shawn Hunstock Started On: 09/05/2012 12:17 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/05/2012
Packet Page 150 of 488
AM-452 4.
Edmonds City Council Meeting
Meeting
Date:06/06/2006
Time: 60 Minutes
Department: Engineering
Review
Committee:
Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing on the potential use of Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue to fund
transportation projects.
Previous Council Action
On May 16, 2006, Council discussed the potential use of Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) revenue to
fund transportation projects and scheduled a public hearing for June 6, 2006.
Narrative
The City receives Real Estate Excise Tax in two parts. The first ¼% is referred to as REET 1, and
the second ¼% is referred to as REET 2. Current State law (RCW) allows both REET 1 and REET
2 to be used for a variety of capital projects, including construction, reconstruction, repair,
replacement, rehabilitation, or improvement of streets, sidewalks, traffic signals, parks, etc. Current
State law also allows REET 1 to be used for parks acquisition, but does not allow REET 2 to be
used for parks acquisition. Edmonds City Council policy to date has dedicated REET 1 to the parks
acquisition Fund 126 and REET 2 to the parks capital improvement Fund 125. Per Council direction
on May 16, 2006, this public hearing regarding the potential use of REET revenue for transportation
projects is intended to apply only to REET 2, parks capital improvements Fund 125, and not REET
1, parks acquisition Fund 126. REET revenues have exceeded budgeted amounts in recent years due
largely to the strong real estate market in Edmonds. REET 2 revenues from 1999 to 2003 averaged
about $725,000 per year, with a significant increase to about $1.02 million in 2004 and about $1.41
million in 2005. 2006 REET 2 revenue to date as of April 30, 2006 is approximately $420,000, and
it is expected that REET 2 revenue will exceed $1,000,000 again in 2006. With these significant
REET revenues, the cash balance in Fund 125 has grown from about $1.4 million in 1999 to over
$4.5 million as of April 30, 2006. Capital project expenditures in Fund 125 have averaged about
$518,000 per year over the period from 1999 to 2005, with a high of $1.83 million in 2003 (the year
the major waterfront bulkhead project was constructed) to a low of about $171,000 in 2004. Based
upon all foreseeable project requirements over the next 6 year capital improvement program, the
Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services Director recommends that annual REET 2 revenue into
Fund 125 of $750,000 per year is a comfortable amount to accomplish all known parks capital
project requirements, plus maintain sufficient cash balance for significant unforeseen opportunities.
Attachment 1 provides additional background information for review and consideration.
Page 1 of 2Print Agenda Memo
9/5/2012http://agenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=452&rev=0&mode=External&rel...
Packet Page 151 of 488
Recommendation
Beginning with 2006 REET revenues: 1. Council dedicate $750,000 per year of REET 2 revenues to
the Parks Improvement Fund 125. 2. Council dedicate annual REET 2 revenues in excess of
$750,000 per year to the Street Construction/Improvement Fund 112 for transportation projects to
be identified and approved by Council through the City’s 6 year Capital Improvement Program and
Capital Budget process.
Attachments
REET Memorandum
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Public Works miller 05/22/2006 04:04 PM
Parks and Recreation mcintosh 05/23/2006 08:38 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 05/30/2006 08:39 AM
Mayor haakenson 05/30/2006 08:59 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 05/30/2006 09:02 AM
Form Started By: gebert Started On: 05/18/2006 05:13 PM
Final Approval Date: 05/30/2006
Page 2 of 2Print Agenda Memo
9/5/2012http://agenda.ci.edmonds.wa.us/print_ag_memo.cfm?seq=452&rev=0&mode=External&rel...
Packet Page 152 of 488
Packet Page 153 of 488
Packet Page 154 of 488
Packet Page 155 of 488
Packet Page 156 of 488
Packet Page 157 of 488
Packet Page 158 of 488
Packet Page 159 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
June 6, 2006
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Haakenson in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Deanna Dawson, Council President
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Richard Marin, Councilmember
Mauri Moore, Councilmember
Peggy Pritchard Olson, Councilmember
Dave Orvis, Councilmember
Ron Wambolt, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
David Stern, Chief of Police
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Community Services Director
Brian McIntosh, Parks & Recreation Director
Jennifer Gerend, Economic Development Dir.
Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager
Dave Gebert, City Engineer
Debi Humann, Human Resources Manager
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, FOR
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Moore requested Item F be removed from the Consent Agenda.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
APPROVE THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. The agenda items approved are as follows:
(A) ROLL CALL
(B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 30, 2006.
(C) APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #88365 THROUGH #88513 FOR JUNE 1, 2006 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $303,048.30. APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS AND
CHECKS #43055 THROUGH #43147 IN THE AMOUNT OF $815,031.88 FOR THE
PERIOD OF MAY 16 THROUGH MAY 31, 2006.
Approve
5/30/06
Minutes
Approve Claim
Checks
Packet Page 160 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 2
(D) REAPPOINTMENT OF EDMONDS PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD
MEMBER.
(E) APPROVAL OF A CALL FOR ARTISTS RFQ FOR THE HIGHWAY 99
INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT PUBLIC ART ELEMENT.
(G) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BROWN & CALDWELL FOR THE
ELECTRICAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AT THE TREATMENT PLANT.
(H) RESOLUTION NO. 1127 DECLARING THE NEED FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY TO OPERATE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF
EDMONDS.
ITEM F: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH SHANNON & WILSON INC. FOR THE SOUTH SENIOR
CENTER GEOTECHNICAL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING STUDY ($33,935).
Councilmember Moore expressed her support for this item and urged Councilmembers to approve this
important study. She explained the study would be paid half with City funds via Fund 116 and half by
Snohomish County. The senior center building has a history of floor settlement; from borings that have
been done, it appears the underlying material is organic such as sawdust, soft wood debris, etc. The study
will consider alternatives for leveling the floors and reducing settlement. Shannon & Wilson listed three
possibilities: 1) continue performing maintenance to level the floors, 2) construct measures to level the
floors and prevent or substantially reduce future settlement or 3) replace the buildings with a new senior
center although the contractor acknowledged this possibly was unlikely given current funding sources.
She urged the Council to be open to alternatives when the results of the study were provided. She
suggested the Council discuss, possibly at a future retreat, rebuilding the senior center in an alternate
location and using the property for a waterfront park.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, FOR
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The item
approved is as follows:
(F) AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH SHANNON & WILSON INC. FOR THE SOUTH COUNTY
SENIOR CENTER GEOTECHNICAL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING STUDY
($33,935).
3. PROCLAMATION IN HONOR OF GEORGE AND RAYCEILLE MCCULLUM DAY, JUNE 9,
2006.
Mayor Haakenson read a proclamation declaring June 9 as George and Rayceille Day in Edmonds and
urging all citizens to remember those who have lost so much in the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and
consider making a contribution to the residents of Bay St. Louis and the rebuilding of the McCullum’s
home. The proclamation advised of a benefit concert on Friday, June 9 at Holy Rosary church at 7:00
p.m. to honor special guests George and Rayceille McCullum and Ben and Elaina Hines (a volunteer who
assisted with the reconstruction of the McCullum's home).
4. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE POTENTIAL USE OF REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX (REET)
REVENUE PROJECTS TO FUND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS.
City Engineer Dave Gebert explained the City receives Real Estate Excise Tax in two parts, the first ¼%
is REET 1 and the second ¼% is REET 2. Current State law allows both REET 1 and 2 to be used for a
Reappoint PFD
Board Member
Highway 99
International
District
Electrical
Improvements
at WWTP
Res# 1127
Housing
Authority
Senior Center
Geotechnical
and Structural
Engineering
Study
George and
Rayceille
McCullum Day
Use of REET to
Fund Transpor-
tation Projects
Packet Page 161 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 3
variety of capital projects including construction, reconstruction, repair and improvement/rehabilitation of
streets, sidewalks, traffic signals, roadways, parks, etc. Current State law also allows REET 1 to be used
for park acquisition but does not allow REET 2 to be used for park acquisition. Historically, the
Edmonds City Council’s policy has been to dedicate REET 1 to Parks Acquisition Fund 126 and REET 2
to Parks Capital Improvements Fund 125. The proposal to use REET for transportation projects was
intended to be limited to REET 2, Fund 125 and not REET 1 or Fund 126.
Mr. Gebert reviewed the budget versus actual REET 2 revenues, noting the average for 1999 – 2003 was
$725,000/year. In the last few years due to the strong real estate market in Edmonds, REET revenues
have significantly exceeded projections; $1.02 million in 2004 and $1.4 million in 2005. As of April 30,
2006, REET 2 revenues total $425,000 and projections for the year are that it will exceed $1 million. As
a result of the strong REET revenues, the cash balance in Fund 125 has grown significantly over the past
few years, from $1.4 million in 1999 to over $4.5 million as of April 2006.
Mr. Gebert explained capital project expenditures in Fund 125 have averaged $517,000 per year from
1999 to 2005 with a high year in 2003 of over $1.8 million when the waterfront bulkhead project was
constructed, and a low of $171,000 in 2004. He relayed Parks & Recreation Director Brian McIntosh’s
indication that REET revenue into Fund 125 of $750,000 per year would be sufficient to enable him to
execute the foreseeable project requirements in the next six years as well as maintain a significant cash
balance to cover any unforeseen projects. Mr. Gebert displayed a summary CIP for 2006-2011
illustrating an average of $350,000 per year for small projects; expenditures for known large projects such
as the interurban trail, old Woodway Elementary and old Edmonds-Woodway High School; annual REET
revenues of $750,000; and ending cash balance of over $3.7 million in 2011.
Mr. Gebert recalled staff had previously briefed the Council on the need for an additional $750,000 -
$835,000 in Fund 112 to execute the recommended program – approximately a 30-year overlay cycle, a
reasonable program of sidewalks, roadway capacity, sidewalks, traffic signals, roadway stabilization,
bikeway, traffic calming, ADA and other related transportation projects. These funds could be provided
via dedicating excess REET over $750,000. Mr. Gebert acknowledged these funds would not totally
solve transportation funding but would assist greatly.
Staff’s recommends that beginning in 2006, REET 2 revenues in the amount of $750,000 be dedicated to
the Parks Capital Improvement Fund 125 and annual REET 2 revenues in excess of $750,000 be
dedicated to the Street Improvement Capital Fund 112 for transportation projects.
Councilmember Moore referred to Mr. Gebert’s comment that this would not solve transportation funding
and asked what would be an adequate funding level for Fund 112. Mr. Gebert advised the most recent
CIP recommends $835,000 in additional revenues. She referred to scenarios developed by staff, in
Scenario 1, REET 2 revenues average $1 million per year; $750,000 was dedicated to Fund 125, leaving
$250,000 which could be used to reduce the overlay cycle to 45 years. In Scenario 2, if REET 2 revenues
averaged $1.25 million per year, the amount in excess of $750,000 would allow the completion of
walkway projects and reduce the overlay cycle to 45 years. Another option in Scenario 2 would be to
dedicate the entire amount in excess of $750,000 to street overlays which would reduce the cycle to 30
years. She asked what a normal road overlay cycle would be. Mr. Gebert answered staff would be
comfortable with a 30 year cycle; industry standards recommend a 20-30 year cycle.
Councilmember Moore asked for examples of previously unforeseen park expenses. Mr. McIntosh
recalled the 8th and Walnut walkway at a cost of $10,000 and the Marina Beach improvement done at the
time of the outfall at a cost of $125,000. Councilmember Moore asked whether the $750,000 would be
sufficient to cover unforeseen park expenses. Mr. McIntosh answered yes, barring any major,
catastrophic events.
Packet Page 162 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 4
Councilmember Orvis referred to the ending cash balance in the summary CIP of $3.7 million in 2011
and asking whether those funds were dedicated to a future project. Mr. Gebert answered the $3.7 million
cash balance in 2011 was the result of the current cash balance, plus REET revenues of $750,000 per
year, less projected expenditures. He commented it was reasonable to assume the cash balance would
continue to grow at a similar rate in future years. Mr. McIntosh commented major projects have arisen in
the past; for example he anticipated the City would control the Civic Playfields at some point in the
future.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether the addition of a sidewalk project would reduce the cash balance.
Mr. Gebert agreed it would.
Councilmember Wambolt asked whether REET 2 revenues were collected linearly over the year. Neither
Mr. Gebert nor Mr. McIntosh were aware of the regularity with which the funds were received.
Council President Dawson commented the amount of REET revenue the City collected each year was
unknown as it depended on real estate sales; it could exceed $1.25 million per year. She noted it was
unlikely anyone could have predicted REET revenues of this magnitude. She acknowledged REET
revenues could also decrease; however, the $750,000 minimum would ensure funding of Fund 125 was
adequate. She advised consideration was also being given to other transportation funding sources in
addition to the excess REET revenue. Mr. Gebert agreed, commenting there were other significant
transportation needs such as ADA improvements, traffic calming, etc.
Council President Dawson commented the issue before the Council tonight was whether to dedicate
REET 2 revenues in excess of $750,000 to transportation projects; it was not necessary that the Council
identify what transportation projects would be funded. Mr. Gebert answered that would be determined
via the CIP. Council President Dawson observed the Council could give direction to begin with the high
priority walkway projects and shift to funding the overlay program in future years.
Mr. McIntosh acknowledged the use of REET for transportation projects had been a controversial issue
and had come up in 2000 and in 2005. He explained the situation had changed immensely in the past two
years; the revenue in 2005 was 88% higher than the previous year. He noted it appeared many of the
projects funded via the excess REET revenues would be walkway projects which promote health and
safety and correspond with the Parks & Recreation philosophy. He read from the conclusions of the State
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Planning Guide regarding growing evidence of declining public
health related to inactivity and the need to address the role of outdoor recreation to reverse this decline.
The City’s Comprehensive Plan also welcomes all activities that encourage health lifestyles. A second
conclusion in the Planning Guide was that linear activities were the most popular which he noted was
supported by recreation surveys conducted by the City. A third finding was that a significant portion of
all linear activities, especially walking and bicycling, take place close to home on sidewalks, streets and
roads. The City’s Comprehensive Plan contains a great deal of language referring to sidewalks and
walkways including that the City should strive to develop more off-street networks that link parks,
schools and other significant features; that sidewalks within the public rights-of-way should be developed
where they serve as a linkage between a neighborhood, park and major trail system; and wherever
feasible, recreation pathways and trails should be located off street, however, streets should be used in
order to complete connections to wherever they are needed.
Mayor Haakenson advised that Mr. McIntosh, engineering staff and he had met over the past several
months and agreed this was an appropriate action. Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation
portion of the public hearing.
Packet Page 163 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 5
Stacy Gardia, Co-Chair, Citizen Advisory Transportation Committee, expressed the Committee’s
support for the use of REET funds for certain types of transportation projects, anticipating it could be
accomplished in the spirit of the Council’s prior policy and without negative impacts. The Committee
recommended the Council consider using REET 2 revenues for non-motorized transportation projects by
funding trails, walkway and bikeway projects beyond park boundaries and by broadening the definition of
park capital projects to include projects that functioned as linear recreation facilities. The Committee
supported staff’s creative proposal for the use of surplus REET 2 funds during times of high real estate
sales, finding the dedication of this funding to be a painless method that would not impact the City’s
General Fund. The Committee supported the use of surplus REET 2 funds for non-motorized
transportation projects as well as safety and maintenance of the City’s transportation facilities.
John Quast, Edmonds, expressed his support for the proposal, suggesting the excess REET 2 funds be
used for sidewalks and walking paths that improved safety for pedestrians such as a sidewalk between
Meadowdale Beach Park and Meadowdale Beach Road. He commented on accidents that have occurred
and pedestrian hazards in the area. He described attributes of Meadowdale Beach Park including access
to the beach, noting there was no safe access for pedestrians to the park or beach from the south. He
commented children in the area are required to walk on narrow roads with blind curves to reach
Meadowdale Elementary and Middle School and Meadowdale Playfields. He urged the Council to
provide funding for the 75th/76th pathway project and make it eligible for REET 2 funds.
Mike Cooper, President, Transportation Choices Coalition, a group comprised of labor unions,
environmental organizations, businesses, public agencies, and individual citizens, whose mission was to
bring citizens of Washington more and better transportation choices. He relayed the support of the staff
and board of Transportation Coalition for the proposed action to dedicate a portion of REET 2 to
transportation projects and urged the Council to dedicate the majority of the excess to sidewalk and
bikeway projects. He commented the Mayor and Council would be receiving a letter from the Coalition
expressing their support for the 75th/76th Street project. Although the Coalition recognized the backlog of
road projects was a priority of the City, the Coalition felt the use of REET 2 funds for walkways and
sidewalks was appropriate as it would connect parks and neighborhoods with healthy transportation
corridors. He pointed out declining physical activity of Washington residents, concluding that the
creation of neighborhood connections would promote physical activity among all age groups, increase
property values, provide better transportation corridors and create a better community and additional
revenue for the City.
Betty Scott, Edmonds, referred to the description of the safety hazards on 164th Street SW that she
provided at the May 16 Council meeting. She reminded the Council that 164th was the only ingress/egress
for residents and maintenance and delivery vehicles in that area. Acknowledging that 164th was one of
many transportation projects in the City, she pointed out the safety issues posed by children walking
to/from school and the Meadowdale Playfields amid traffic on a narrow road with no shoulders or
sidewalks warranted the City’s immediate attention. She submitted a petition with 55 signatures
including one of the neighborhood’s newest residents, Senator Paull Shin. She acknowledged the petition
did not contain signatures of all residents near 164th; however, all residents who were contacted signed the
petition. On behalf of the residents who use 164th, she requested the Council specifically fund the 164th
Street walkway project with REET funds this year and direct the engineering department to begin
construction using the plans and design completed and approved in 2003.
Hearing no further public comment, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Orvis asked whether expending ending cash on walkway projects would accelerate the
rate at which those projects were completed. Mr. Gebert answered yes.
Packet Page 164 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 6
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO
DEDICATE THE FIRST $750,000 PER YEAR FROM REET 2 REVENUES TO PARK
IMPROVEMENT FUND 125 AND DEDICATE THE EXCESS TO THE STREET
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT FUND 112.
Councilmember Olson referred to a letter the Council received from the Snohomish County Association
of Realtors expressing their support for this proposal.
Council President Dawson expressed her support, recalling she had been one of the Councilmembers in
past years who wanted these funds to remain dedicated to parks improvements. However, given the
current revenue situation, she found the proposal to be an appropriate action. She relayed the support of
past Councilmembers who explained when the Council policy to dedicate REET 2 to park projects was
adopted, it was not envisioned the revenue would reach this level. She referred to a comment in the letter
from the Snohomish County Association of Realtors that this was a good example of growth paying for
growth. She acknowledged these funds would not solve all the City’s transportation needs; however, it
was a method in the interim to complete some projects without seeking additional funds from the voters.
Once the City had a better idea of whether the increased REET 2 revenue would continue, perhaps some
projects could be accelerated.
Councilmember Wambolt commented on the citizens’ unanimous support for this proposal.
Councilmember Orvis suggested dedicating funds from the ending cash balance to the first two walkway
projects, 75th Place W/76th Avenue W and 164th Street SW whose project costs totaled $1.2 million. He
commented this would allow those projects to be completed sooner and allow the excess revenues to
accumulate for other projects. He pointed out both projects would qualify for Fund 125 under the
Council’s existing policy as they directly affected park access.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO ADD
$1.2 MILLION FROM FUND 125 ENDING CASH BALANCE FOR THE FIRST TWO
WALKWAY PROJECTS.
Council President Dawson suggested the Council vote on the first motion and discuss Councilmember
Orvis’ suggestion separately.
Councilmember Orvis withdrew his amendment with the agreement of the second.
Councilmember Moore agreed with Councilmember Orvis’ suggestion and Council President Dawson’s
comment regarding growth paying for growth. She thanked the Citizen Transportation Advisory
Committee for their work and the Transportation Choices Coalition for their suggestion to devote the
majority of the excess to sidewalks and walkway projects.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO USE
$1.22 MILLION FROM THE ENDING CASH BALANCE OF FUND 125 FOR THE 75TH/76TH AND
164TH WALKWAY PROJECTS.
Mr. McIntosh referred to the summary CIP, commenting Councilmember Orvis’ proposal would draw
down the ending cash over the next 5-6 years. He noted staff had not had an opportunity to analyze this
proposal and it may be appropriate to analyze other sidewalk/walkway projects for priority funding.
Packet Page 165 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 7
Mr. Gebert expressed his support for Councilmember Orvis’ proposal, commenting staff intended to
apply for a $200,000 grant for the 164th walkway; if successful, the $1.22 million could be reduced to
$1.02 million. He agreed 75th/76th and 164th walkway projects were at the top of the priority list in the
Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Council President Dawson was hesitant to take this action without a public hearing on that issue in view
of the previous Council policy to dedicate the funds in the ending cash balance to parks projects. She
suggested another possibility may be to borrow against the ending cash balance to complete the projects
now which may result in savings as it would avoid cost escalation in future years. She acknowledged she
may be in favor of this action following additional staff analysis and public input.
Councilmember Wambolt commented he would likely support this action but wanted further information
for review.
Councilmember Moore commented her intent was to support funding for walkways before road overlays,
however, she agreed with Council President Dawson that it was important to have further staff review and
public input. She requested this issue be presented to the Council again in the near future.
Councilmember Olson agreed, suggesting the proposal be returned to the Council as soon as possible.
Councilmember Orvis withdrew his motion with the agreement of the second. It was the consensus of the
Council to direct staff to return with a proposal to use Fund 125 ending cash balance for additional
sidewalk projects.
5. PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) CHAPTER 20.45.020 CREATING A
STREAMLINED PROCESS FOR LISTING IN THE EDMONDS REGISTER OF HISTORIC
PLACES PROPERTIES ALREADY LISTED IN THE NATIONAL OR STATE REGISTER (FILE
NO. CDC-06-29).
Planning Manager Rob Chave explained this amendment was initiated by the Historical Preservation
Commission who found when they approached property owners regarding registering on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places, many of them were already on a State or National Register and it was difficult
to explain the need for an extended process when their property was already recognized as an historic
structure. The intent of the amendment would be to streamline the process for listing properties on the
Edmonds Registry that were already on the State or National Registry. He explained the process would
still require Council approval of eligibility and voluntary registration by the property owner.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. There were no members
of the audience who wished to provide testimony and Mayor Haakenson closed the public hearing.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS, FOR
APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 3598. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. REPORT ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POSITION
Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend expressed her thanks for the opportunity to serve as the
City’s first Economic Development Director. She also expressed her thanks to Council President Dawson
and Councilmember Olson for their assistance on the Council Economic Development Committee. She
also expressed her thanks to Mayor Haakenson, remarking what a great staff leader he is and how much
the staff admired him.
Edmonds
Register of
Historic Places
Economic
Development
Report
Packet Page 166 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 8
Ms. Gerend provided examples of unsustainable lifestyle choices as well as unsustainable economic
development strategies, explaining a sustainable economic development strategy would be to adjust land
use regulations to encourage development that will meet multiple needs (housing, retail, gathering space)
for future generations. She provided and expanded on the following observations:
1) Other cities are making bold moves – Renton (numerous projects), Kent Station, Woodinville
Wine Village, Redmond Town Center, Mill Creek Town Center, downtown Mercer Island. She
commented these projects required significant planning including the creation of subarea plans.
2) SR 99 is not enough – Highway 99 has potential, it also has small lots, limited access and limited
options as far as signal improvements. Redevelopment can be encouraged and there is interest in
more dense development (i.e. Funtasia site). However Highway 99 alone will never be the City’s
“cash cow.” Moreover every other city is pursuing an “auto row.” This is not sustainable
behavior.
3) Edmonds Crossing has been the City’s #1 priority in terms of fundraising – Is the City
working commensurately to prepare the land use regulations to encourage timely transit-oriented
development (TOD) opportunities around this major investment? This would include developing
solutions for the former Safeway property and Harbor Square property that would spur
development. She recommended a public, community planning process similar to the planning
process undertaken for Five Corners and Firdale Village.
4) The Edmonds City Council and Planning Board need more 2-way communication on
priorities – attention to detail early on could be of assistance. She suggested a Council liaison to
the Planning Board.
5) Edmonds does not adequately appreciate its local business community – business retention
actually matters more than recruitment. She suggested Councilmembers drop in to talk with
business owners or attend downtown Merchant’s meetings or Chamber meetings.
Ms. Gerend provided the following recommendations:
1) There is good, inexpensive training for elected officials and staff in economic development. She
suggested Councilmembers attend the ACW economic development training or CTED workshop.
2) Aggressively pursue high quality redevelopment in the neighborhood business districts; focus on
design and provide flexibility with height. Allow these to become positive showcases. She
advised a public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan changes for Five Corners and
Firdale Village was scheduled at the Planning Board on June 28. She envisioned this as an
opportunity for the Council to champion a significant economic development project outside the
downtown area. She encouraged the Council to resist the urge to lessen the proposed changes as
a compromised approach may not produce the desired incentive for redevelopment. She cited the
importance of considering not only what seemed appropriate for today but also what might be
needed in 30-40 years, noting if the area redeveloped soon, there would not be an opportunity for
change for several decades.
3) Enact the CG and BR zoning changes recommended by the Highway 99 Task Force.
4) There is no need to vilify economic development. Economic development actually takes the fear
out of development by planning for sustainability. A strong commitment to economic
development can reposition the City’s tax base for the future.
Packet Page 167 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 9
5) Pay attention to streamlining processes. Use the development, parking and traffic regulations in
the downtown to encourage tenant improvements. Use Design Guidelines to provide guidance
for more staff decisions. For example is ADB review and approval needed on Hwy. 99? She
suggested when staff suggested changes, either in the code rewrite or design review process, the
Council asking staff what a more streamlined approach for applicants would be. She noted many
of the City’s current regulations addressed new construction rather than tenant improvements.
6) Continue the district branding strategy; the International District and Arts Corridor are examples
of this strategy. The International District has reduced vacancies, revitalized the area and in some
instances, replaced undesirable uses.
7) Explore the expansion of small business district boundaries where there are still opportunities to
do so. An example is Five Corners, one of the recommendations she made to the Planning Board
was to consider an area on 112th on the east side of Five Corners as an opportunity to expand the
business district and create a larger, more developable site for the future. She noted there were
other similar opportunities along Hwy. 99.
8) Consider some small new neighborhood convenience commercial areas. Consider some busy
intersections for small scale, low impact convenience retail.
9) Help the downtown create a Business Improvement Area/District (BIA/BID). Downtown
Edmonds is ideally suited for a BIA/BID (a special assessment area that generates an annual
budget for promotion, events, and beautification). This model of downtown revitalization has
been provided around the world. She commented requests for ongoing services such as
marketing could be more predictably funded via a BIA/BID.
Ms. Gerend listed major ongoing projects she had been involved in that included neighborhood
commercial area planning (Five Corners, Firdale Village, and other future areas such as Westgate),
Edmonds International District $316,000 grant, Economic Development Comprehensive Plan element,
Hwy. 99 reconsideration of the CG and proposed BR zones, and City newsletter “Update on Edmonds.”
Major ongoing services she has provided include planning assistance related to business districts,
community marketing (LTAC, Council funds, County grant), ombudsman-type role on commercial
projects with the permitting process, business retention (including active “defensive” work) and
recruitment, tracking and notification of commercial vacancies, public relations related to
business/tourism community, attend local and regional meetings related to economic development
(Prosperity Partnership, SnoGold 2010, etc.).
With regard to planning assistance, Ms. Gerend explained for Five Corners and Firdale Village, it was
useful to have a separate department sponsor changes to the Comprehensive Plan as the Planning
Department’s role is to remain neutral and support the Planning Board and Council. It was more
appropriate for specific, proactive actions to be suggested by the Economic Development Department.
Ms. Gerend reviewed the reporting structure of the existing position, explaining the position reports to the
Mayor with quarterly reports to the Council and more frequent work with Council Economic
Development Committee. The position has no staff. Special commitments include the availability to
work most evenings in addition to regular hours, on average two evenings per week (Council, Planning
Board and other committees). She explained more cities have added the position recently, including
Bothell and Kirkland in the last year. In some cities such as Renton and Kent, other related staff report to
the economic development position and tourism promotion and communications staff are commonly
found under economic development. Most positions, regardless of the size of the city, report directly to
the Mayor or the City Manager.
Packet Page 168 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 10
Ms. Gerend posed several thoughts for consideration:
• While the position reports to the Mayor, the Council’s support of the economic development
program helps to determine the scope of services and background needed.
• The Council’s ability to work as a team with staff and the Planning Board on economic
development determines largely whether the City “gets its money’s worth” out of the position.
With the above thoughts in mind, Ms. Gerend suggested the Council to consider:
• What is the Council’s commitment to a long-term economic development program in the City?
• Is this position simply for marketing to tourists and a little bit of recruitment/retention work, or is
it about repositioning the City’s tax base for the future…looking at land use and other issues that
impact economic development? What is the Council ready to support?
• If the Council isn’t prepared to pursue an aggressive economic development program, what other
strategies will be used to substantially diversify the City’s tax base and secure the City’s revenue
outlook?
Ms. Gerend concluded these were difficult questions but it may be helpful to gain a consensus on these
issues in order to move forward. She wished the Council and the City all the best.
Councilmember Moore wished Ms. Gerend the best in her new endeavor and upcoming wedding. She
commented the questions Ms. Gerend posed were not difficult but essential and assured the Council could
answer those questions. She noted several Councilmembers did spend time with downtown merchants
and had attended economic development training. Councilmember Moore expressed support for the
liaison to the Planning Board. She agreed with Ms. Gerend’s observation that the City may not have laid
enough groundwork with regard to land uses near the Edmonds Crossing project and suggested the
Council make that a priority in the next year.
Councilmember Moore asked Ms. Gerend to expand on her comment regarding not compromising on
proposed changes in the Neighborhood Business Districts. Ms. Gerend commented there may be a
tendency to identify a middle ground between no change and the proposal. She recommended
aggressively increasing the development standards in Five Corners and Firdale Village to encourage
strong design improvements, public gathering places, etc. She pointed out if a compromised approach
was followed, there would not be another opportunity to redevelop the area for decades. For example,
there was currently a 25’ foot height limit in the Neighborhood Business Districts and a limited scope of
retail uses; she envisioned increasing the height limit by one story and not significantly changing the uses
would have little affect on development.
Councilmember Moore asked Ms. Gerend to comment on her work with the Development Services
Department. Ms. Gerend explained builders and business owners tended to be hesitant to make
suggestions or complaints directly to Development Services because they needed to continue to work with
that department. They were more likely to provide input to a separate department such as economic
development. She assured there was no retribution by staff, but some people may have that fear, therefore
a separate department for liaison was helpful and it was easier for business owners to comment to her
with regard to processes. She commented it was also easier for an outside person to listen to both sides
and offer solutions.
Councilmember Moore asked whether the City’s processes hampered economic development. Ms.
Gerend answered many cities tried to have a single point of contact. For example, the Economic
Development Director could be a liaison between the new property owner of the 6.5 acre Funtasia site on
220th and appropriate staff.
Packet Page 169 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 11
Councilmember Moore asked for recommendations on streamlining the process for smaller businesses to
avoid discouraging development/redevelopment. Ms. Gerend answered her first recommendation would
be to retain the Economic Development Director position. She cited the assistance she was able to
provide to Quisno’s in Old Mill Town as an example.
Councilmember Moore referred to recommendation #4, pointing out the Council had not vilified her
personally or the position. Some of the Council’s frustration has been that they were hungry for
information about not just economic development philosophy but what was occurring in the City. Ms.
Gerend responded the Economic Development Committee was a good addition this year. She explained
there was a great deal of sensitive information that could not be announced in public as well as negative
comments that may be contrary to the image of Edmonds as a business friendly community.
Councilmember Moore asked whether Ms. Gerend felt Edmonds was a business friendly place and
whether her observations and recommendations represented everything the City could do to become
business friendly. Ms. Gerend responded Edmonds was business friendly but there was always room for
improvement. Items currently underway such as the code rewrite would assist the business community.
Councilmember Moore thanked Ms. Gerend for serving as the Economic Development Director for the
past two years, commenting a lot had been accomplished in two years and her work would assist the City
in moving forward.
Mayor Haakenson suggested the Council consider appointing a Councilmember each year to be a liaison
to the business community. He noted this would provide the Council opportunity to learn about issues
that arise.
Council President Dawson expressed her thanks to Ms. Gerend, agreeing the Economic Development
Committee had been helpful. She commented this Council expected more interaction with staff than
many Councils and expected Directors to be more responsive directly to the Council than may be required
in other cities. She suggested continuing the Economic Development Committee with the next Economic
Development Director to provide a bridge between the position and the Council. Ms. Gerend advised in
her former position, she reported to a Board of Directions, similar to a Council, but she had a staff. She
commented on the amount of time reporting requires for an Economic Development Department,
particularly with only one staff member.
Council President Dawson commented the information Ms. Gerend provided was what she had hoped
would be accomplished by this position. She suggested the Council address the issues raised by Ms.
Gerend at a mini-retreat this summer.
Councilmember Marin expressed his appreciation for the work Ms. Gerend had done over the past two
years, particularly her assistance with the Hwy. 99 Task Force.
Councilmember Olson suggested the person hired to fill the Economic Development Director position
have land use experience. Ms. Gerend agreed it was important to have a person with a planning and
economic development background as much of what the position was involved in was related to land use.
Councilmember Plunkett commented one of Ms. Gerend’s greatest strengths was working with individual
businesses. He recalled at least two new businesses who said the reason they were in the City was their
interaction with Ms. Gerend. He recognized many businesses located in Edmonds due to the charm and
character of the City and recognized Ms. Gerend’s assistance in attracting new as well as retaining
existing businesses. He expressed his thanks to Ms. Gerend for her efforts.
Packet Page 170 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 12
Mayor Haakenson advised Ms. Gerend’s last day would be mid-week next week; he intended to begin the
process to fill the position unless the Council provided other direction.
COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
PROCEED IMMEDIATELY WITH HIRING A REPLACEMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR.
Mayor Haakenson advised a motion was not necessary as the position already existed.
Councilmember Wambolt withdrew his motion with the agreement of the second.
Council President Dawson agreed with Councilmember Wambolt’s intent, commenting at different times
there may have been a perception that the Council was not supportive of this position and was unsure in
what direction to proceed with regard to the Economic Development Director position such as whether
the position should be a Director, whether the position should report to the Mayor, whether the structure
of the position should be different, etc. She expressed her support for Mayor Haakenson’s intent to
proceed with filling the position. She recommended the Economic Development Committee continue to
provide a liaison between the position and the Council. She suggested in addition to a planning
background, candidates have a background in communications in view of the responsibility for publishing
the City’s newsletter. Council President Dawson envisioned the position could become a quasi Public
Information Officer (PIO) for the City.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to a memorandum of April 18, 2006 which clearly identified the
Council’s policy with regard to its expectations of the Economic Development Director. He asked
whether Mayor Haakenson planned to present the Council with alternatives to hiring an Economic
Development Director. Mayor Haakenson responded that was not his intent.
Councilmember Moore recalled when Ms. Gerend was hired, her primary task was to recruit new
businesses but had been expanded to include numerous other task. She commented acting as the City’s
PIO, as suggested by Council President Dawson, was another full-time task. She suggested creating at
least one other position in the Economic Development Department, noting land use was another large
responsibility of this position.
Councilmember Wambolt recalled the salary range for this position when it was initially filled was
$91,000 - $114,000; however, shortly after the position was filled, the job was reappraised and a new
range established from $69,000 - $86,000, approximately $25,000 lower. He noted this could provide
some additional funding for the position Councilmember Moore was advocating. He supported retaining
the Director designation to avoid the perception that the City was placing less importance on economic
development. He also supported the position continuing to report to the Mayor for the same reason. He
commented with this salary information, he withdrew his suggestion that the person reside in the City.
Mayor Haakenson commented L5 salary ranges had a tendency to increase and decrease. Edmonds was
one of the first cities to establish an Economic Development Director position; as more cities have added
the position, he envisioned the L5 salary range would be higher for this position.
Councilmember Moore inquired about recruitment for this position. Mayor Haakenson answered a
nationwide search had been conducted; the job qualifications included a planning background. An
interview panel consisting of Councilmembers, business owners, etc. reviewed approximately 50
applications and interviewed several. Councilmember Moore asked whether the networks such as AWC
were used. Mayor Haakenson advised the position was advertised via those methods.
Packet Page 171 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 13
Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council may be interested in interviewing the final three
candidates. He suggested when the interview process reached that point, Mayor Haakenson inquire of the
Council’s interest.
Councilmember Marin recalled two years ago he participated on the interview team who interviewed at
least eight applicants.
Council President Dawson answered that was the process established by ordinance. The reason it was not
done two years ago was then-Council President Plunkett determined it was not appropriate for the
Council to interview the finalists. Councilmember Plunkett disagreed, commenting that decision was the
consensus of the Council.
Mayor Haakenson advised he planned to proceed with the hiring process.
7. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Kim Mustafa, Seattle, commented she recently started a business in Firdale Village, Kid Palooza, and
was having difficulty communicating with the City and obtaining her business license. She hired a
lawyer to decipher the City’s requirement for a change of use to Assembly A3, commenting there was no
explanation on the City’s website regarding the requirements for that use. She requested assistance with
obtaining her business license. Mayor Haakenson identified Development Services Director Duane
Bowman, commenting he would be happy to answer any questions regarding the change of use.
Jesse Scott, Edmonds, provided several facts relevant to the 75th/76th walkway project. In regard to
comments regarding the park, he clarified the park belonged to Snohomish County and was not in the
City of Edmonds. He displayed a photograph of the well-developed access on the east end of the park ,
explaining this access point included a 50-vehicle parking lot, restroom facilities, picnic benches and a
trail to the beach. In regard to references about access via 75th Street, he displayed a photograph taken at
the north end of 75th Street illustrating signs stating no public access and access for disabled only. He
displayed a photograph of the intersection of North Meadowdale Beach Road and 75th (at the south end)
and the no park access signs and lack of on-street parking. He pointed out if a sidewalk were constructed
and Snohomish County agreed to allow access, it would only be for adjacent residents due to the lack of
parking. He questioned the reference to safety hazards, pointing out 1/3 of the proposed project was a
dead-end street accessed only by residents. Further, the children in this area are bused and do not walk to
school. He commented last night while they were gathering the signatures his wife presented early,
Senator Paull Shin stopped by to add his signature to the petition.
Dorothy Kirk, Edmonds, referred to a letter she received regarding a proposed change in parking in
downtown Edmonds. She lives on 5th between Main and Dayton and parks in front. If the proposed
parking restrictions are approved, she will be required to park a block away and if there was no parking in
that location, she would have to park 2-3 blocks away. She commented this was a safety issue when
returning home after dark or if she needed to carry items from her car. She requested to be allowed to
park in front of her building after 6:00 p.m. Mayor Haakenson advised her comments would be referred
to the Parking Committee.
Sarah Johnson, Edmonds, also a resident on 5th Avenue, agreed with the safety issue described by Ms.
Kirk. She explained she had filed a police report in the past when she was followed after parking in the
back of the building. She commented the safety hazards were lessened if she parked in front of the
building. She suggested residents be allowed to park downtown after 6:00 p.m. as most businesses closed
at 6:00 p.m.
Difficulty
Obtaining a
Business
License
75th/76th
Walkway
Parking
Restrictions
Parking
Restrictions
Packet Page 172 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 14
Quentin Clark, Edmonds, resident, business owner, and Chair of the Chamber of Commerce Economic
Development Committee, reiterated the Chamber’s position in favor of sustaining the Economic
Development Director position at its current level. He presented a Certificate of Achievement and
Appreciation to Ms. Gerend in recognition of her high competence and enthusiasm as the City’s
Economic Development Director and expressed the Chamber’s appreciation for her service to the
community and their best wishes for her future. Mr. Clark added his personal congratulations to Ms.
Gerend and thanked her for her contributions and patience.
Joan Longstaff, Edmonds, expressed her thanks to Ms. Gerend for the tremendous job she did in the
community and commended the Council for hiring Ms. Gerend. She expressed her thanks to Ms. Gerend
for enhancing the City’s quality of life, inventorying the vacant spaces in downtown, holding open houses
with businesses and the community, working to attract new businesses to the community, attending
meetings with property owners and listening to their concerns, and coordinating meetings to bring
together the private sector, retailers, businesses and property owners.
Susie Schaefer, Edmonds, Philchuck Audubon Society, recognized Ms. Gerend for her assistance with
the Bird Festival, remarking Ms. Gerend would be missed. She hoped the City’s next Economic
Development Director would have Ms. Gerend’s youth and enthusiasm.
John Dewhirst, Planning Board Member, pointed out the Mayor, Planning Board Chair, Architectural
Design Board Chair and other Boards hold a monthly meeting. In the past, the Council President attended
that meeting which assisted with the communication between the Boards and the Council but that had
been discontinued in the past 2-3 years. Unfortunately during that time the Planning Board and Council
also considered several controversial issues and the lack of direction from the City Council led to a great
deal of frustration on the Planning Board.
Ray Martin, Edmonds, referred to his report regarding his daughter being stopped by a police officer on
Mother’s Day, explaining he wanted his daughter to share his opinion that the Edmonds Police
Department was as good as it gets. He clarified any criticism was aimed at the Mayor and perhaps the
Police Chief. He reported his daughter and he met with Corporal Parker on May 30 to discuss the
incident; the officer involved declined to attend. Mr. Martin provided answers to several questions
including probable cause (violation of posted local access signs), number of stops by the officer at that
location (seven – one arrest, four tickets and two verbal warnings), and reason for police presence (safety
– cars traveling too fast on the new, wider road). He cited several factors including the possibility that
tickets would be issued to visitors at several open houses in the area, the real estate agent had moved signs
to accommodate prospective open house customers, the contractor had changed the signs to mean
something less serious without informing the Edmonds Police Department, and there was no construction
occurring on the holiday. He suggested anyone who received a ticket issued in that location on Mother’s
Day seek to have it dismissed.
Tony Shapiro, Edmonds, suggested the subjective aspect of the ADB’s review continue to play a part in
the design review process due to the difficulty in codifying design that addressed all sites. He was
concerned with too much decision-making/subjective analysis done by staff. He agreed property owners
and developers were reluctant to raise issues because they needed to continue working with the
Development Services Department, agreeing it was helpful to have an Economic Development Director to
act as a liaison. He suggested parties be notified that they could forward their concerns to the Economic
Development Director. His impression regarding the Development Services Department in Edmonds and
in other cities was that time was of little concern. He objected to Edmonds’ big city syndrome, preferring
the City be sensitive, responsive and flexible. He suggested the City analyze their regulations, for
example building permits expire one year after submission regardless of the complexities of the building
Economic
Development
Director
Economic
Development
Director
Economic
Development
Director
Monthly
Meeting of
Board Chairs,
Mayor and
Council
President
Incident with
Police Officer
at 220th St.
Construction
Area
Design Review
Process
Packet Page 173 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 15
permit. Another questionable practice is the requirement that all new businesses submit a floor plan
stamped by an engineer or architect.
Natalie Shippen, Edmonds, advised in the November 2007 election, the Edmonds City Council would
ask the voters of Snohomish County to raise their taxes; if approved the money would be spent to build
half of a new ferry terminal in Edmonds. She relayed three questions that were raised by the ballot
measure, 1) how much money would voters be asked to approve for the terminal, 2) exactly what portion
of a terminal would that amount buy, and 3) what was the total cost of a complete terminal. She
explained these questions were posed to the Edmonds City Council because the project on the ballot was
the City’s project; the ferry system did not request a new ferry terminal in Edmonds, the City did and
RTID put the funding on the ballot at the City’s request. As the Council was asking the voters to fund
half a new terminal, it was their responsibility to explain the details to the voters. She also asked what
kind of taxes would voters be asked to approve and the rate of the tax. She commented RTID had three
forms of taxation – sales tax, vehicle license fee, MVET, tolls and local option fuel tax. She recalled in
2003 RTID selected sales tax, license fee and MVET with varying rates.
8. REPORT ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB) REVIEW PROCESS AND DESIGN
GUIDELINES.
Development Services Director Duane Bowman recalled in March the Council discussed design
guidelines. As a result of direction provided by Council, Planning Manager Rob Chave and City
Attorney Scott Snyder met with the ADB to discuss the review process and the design guidelines.
Mr. Chave advised Mr. Snyder and he met with the ADB, members of the community including Steve
Bernheim representing ACE, an architect and a developer. The result of the meeting was consensus to
move the ADB to the beginning of the process and using the ADB’s recommended guidelines in that
process. Mr. Snyder and Senior Planner Steve Bullock developed an outline of the process which was
confirmed by the ADB at a subsequent meeting. He noted the design guidelines developed by the ADB
would be used to influence the outcome early in the process before a developer was committed to a
design.
Mr. Chave explained in order to proceed the Council would need to refer the following items to the
Planning Board so that an ordinance could be developed for Council review and approval: 1) outline of
revised ADB review process, 2) design guidelines developed by the ADB, 3) guidance on any additional
design standards that should be considered for inclusion in the development code such as landscape
standards and/or massing.
Mr. Chave relayed the ADB preference to implement this process in a phased manner rather than
citywide, beginning with design guidelines and standards for downtown, followed by Hwy. 99. He noted
it may also be possible to develop guidelines and standards in the neighborhood business zones such as
Five Corners and Firdale Village. The ADB preferred to delay development of guidelines and standards
for other areas of the City until there had been an opportunity to meet with those areas and develop
specific guidelines.
Mr. Snyder commented he would draft an ordinance describing the process and criteria for a checklist.
He referred to Mr. Shapiro’s comments, agreeing generic, one-size-fits-all standards did not result in good
design. However, he disagreed with Mr. Shapiro’s comment regarding subjective decisions, pointing out
that subjective decision-making was contrary to State law and municipalities must develop objective
criteria. The proposed process would allow the ADB to use its expertise to work with developers
cooperatively early in the process to influence design.
New Ferry
Terminal
ADB Review
Process and
Design
Guidelines
Packet Page 174 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 16
Councilmember Moore asked what interpretations would be left for staff if the ADB was involved early
in the process. Mr. Chave answered it would minimize interpretations and in the proposed process, the
subjective portion would be at the beginning where the expertise of the ADB could be applied. At the end
of the process, the administrative code requirements would be applied. Mr. Snyder explained to take
subjectivity out of the process, it would be important for the ADB to render complete written decisions
adopting what they have approved. He cautioned if a project met the decisional criteria, the fact that it
may be objectionable to neighbors, the public, staff or the Council in some other regard would be beside
the point. Mr. Chave envisioned the only portion of the process that would be subjective would be the
early meetings when options and alternatives were being discussed which was an appropriate place for
subjectivity. When the project proceeded beyond options and alternatives, there would be limited
subjectivity and more predictability.
Mr. Snyder acknowledged the subjectivity would be the ADB offering their experience and guidance to
the developer. If a developer refused and the project met the decisional criteria, it would be approved.
He noted that was the dilemma of architectural design review; if the City had a distinctive design program
such as Leavenworth, mediocrity could be legislated, however, it was difficult to legislate outstanding
design. He commented on trends in design as an example. Mr. Chave recalled the Planning Board held a
public hearing on the downtown zoning regulations; one of their concerns was how the design guidelines
fit into the zoning regulations and were uncomfortable proceeding with the zoning absent the design
guidelines. One of the benefits of forwarding the design guidelines to the Planning Board was to allow
them to consider both.
Councilmember Moore recalled a suggestion that the ADB meet more than once a month. Mr. Chave
acknowledged that issue would arise and agreed the ADB would need to be more flexible such as
establish multiple meeting dates from which a developer could choose.
Councilmember Marin recalled one of the reasons for staff’s discussion with the ADB was to ensure the
ADB was comfortable with moving to the front of the process in an advisory role and no longer having a
quasi judicial role. Mr. Chave answered the ADB saw the benefits of moving their review to the front of
the process and were interested and excited about working with the new design guidelines.
Councilmember Marin asked whether any other issue arose in staff’s meeting with the ADB. Mr. Chave
responded there was discussion regarding the pros and cons and ultimately everyone agreed this role for
the ADB would be beneficial. Mr. Snyder noted the ADB realized that for a period of time they would be
creating one system and phasing out another and there would be applications reviewed under the old
system while the new system was designed and adopted.
Councilmember Marin inquired about the timetable for Planning Board review. Mr. Chave advised the
Planning Board held a public hearing on the downtown zoning and would be continuing their discussion
at next week’s meeting, likely followed by another public hearing. He anticipated the Planning Board
could begin discussion regarding the design guidelines next week and hold a public hearing on both in
July. He anticipated a 3-4 month review process, acknowledging it would depend on the comments
received during the legislative process. Mr. Snyder observed one of the drafting challenges would be to
ensure this was a streamlined process that did not add time to the process.
Council President Dawson thanked staff and Mr. Snyder for meeting with the Planning Board and
engaging in this process. She agreed with phasing the process neighborhood by neighborhood.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
REFER THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW AND
RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 175 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
June 6, 2006
Page 17
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson invited the public and Council to attend the benefit concert at Holy Rosary Church on
Friday, June 9 at 7:00 p.m. to honor George and Rayceille McCullum who would be visiting from Bay St.
Louis.
Mayor Haakenson added his accolades to Economic Development Director Jennifer Gerend for her
professionalism and hard work over the past two years. He extended the City’s best wishes in her
marriage and future endeavors and assured she would be considered for any future position in the City.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Dawson agreed with the suggestion that she meet with the Planning Board Chair and
the Mayor at least monthly. She also agreed with the suggestion for a Council liaison to the business
community or Chamber of Commerce and invited interested Councilmembers to contact her. She
recalled Councilmember Olson and she had discussed with Ms. Gerend how the Council could make
businesses feel welcome. She envisioned a liaison could attend grand openings, send a welcome letter to
new business, etc. Mayor Haakenson recalled when he was a Councilmember and had a business
downtown, he often spoke with prospective business owners. He agreed providing business owners a
contact person via the liaison would be helpful.
Councilmember Olson relayed comments in a letter from a resident on 220th that the contractor,
Marshbank Construction, and their crew had been friendly, courteous, helpful and professional during the
project and wanted the Council and the public to know they had done a fantastic job.
Councilmember Moore thanked Council President Dawson for following up on the suggestions made
tonight. She suggested the Council develop a process for responding to public comments made during the
Council meeting. She thanked Mr. Dewhirst for his suggestion regarding a liaison to the Planning Board.
With regard to the comment that the City’s codes/permits were not available on the City’s website, she
suggested consideration be given to making more information available online. She concluded it was not
enough to tell people that Edmonds was business friendly, the City needed to demonstrate they were
business friendly. She requested Community Services Director Stephen Clifton respond to Ms. Shippen
with regard to her questions about Edmonds Crossing. Mayor Haakenson commented the information
requested may not be available from RTID as the vote was over a year away. He assured that information
would be disseminated when it became available, likely closer to the time of the election.
Councilmember Marin advised the Council would be holding an informal barbeque sometime this
summer.
Councilmember Moore recognized June 6 as an important day in history, D-Day, advising both her
parents were veterans of WWII.
11. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Benefit Concert
Jennifer Gerend
Monthly
Meeting with
Board Chairs
Council Liaison
to Business
Community
Marshbank
Construction –
220th Project
Need for More
Information to
be Available
Online
Packet Page 176 of 488
AM-5091 8. E.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Sarah Mager
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
July 2012 Monthly Financial Report
Recommendation
N.A. For informational purposes only.
Previous Council Action
N.A.
Narrative
The July 2012 Monthly Financial Report reflects additional changes to those shown with the June 2012 report. Committee
feedback is being requested on the changes, as well as any other changes they would like to see.
Attachments
July 2012 Monthly Financial Report
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 08/31/2012 10:09 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/04/2012 08:50 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/04/2012 11:02 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/04/2012 11:16 AM
Form Started By: Sarah Mager Started On: 08/30/2012 02:13 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/04/2012
Packet Page 177 of 488
1
12/31/2011 3/31/2012 7/31/2012 Q2 YTD
001-General Fund 5,705,633$ 3,410,974$ 5,769,121$ 2,484,282$ 63,488$
004-Criminal Investigations Fund 2,500 2,500 2,500 - -
006-Emergency Financial Reserve Fund 1,927,600 1,927,600 1,927,600 - -
009-Leoff-Medical Ins. Reserve 320,656 165,244 271,819 157,262 (48,838)
010-Reserve Fund 1,338,178 1,338,576 1,339,367 392 1,189
011-Risk Management Fund - - 244,000 - 244,000
113-Multimodal Transportation FD 55,859 55,859 55,859 - -
116-Building Maintenance 212,212 212,275 232,448 27,363 20,235
Total General Fund 9,562,638$ 7,113,028$ 9,842,713$ 2,669,299$ 280,075$
GENERAL
FUND
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$9.56
$7.11
$9.84
-
2
4
6
8
10
Dec 2011 March 2012 July 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General
Fund
General FundGeneralFund
General Fund activity through July added an increase of $280,075 in fund balances
year-to-date. The second quarter brought an increase of $2.7 million in the general
fund, while at the end of the first quarter; there was a $2.4 million deficit in this fund.
Several specific revenue line items are tracking ahead of budget so far through July.
These include the Electric Utility Tax (68% of budget), Gas Utility Tax (67% of
budget), Telephone Utility Tax (66% of budget), Business Licenses (91% of budget),
Franchise Fees (average of 76% of budget), Pull Tabs Tax (66% of budget), Liquor
Excise Taxes (73% of budget), and Real Estate Excise Taxes (there has been a
larger number of sales transactions than were expected).
At the end July, 58% of the year had expired. Overall, General Fund expenditures
are on track with 56% of budget spent to date. Salaries and Wages for all
departments are at 55% of budget, and Overtime is at 51% of budget. Departments
that are significantly under budget include Human Resources (48% spent so far),
Economic Development (48%), and the City Clerk’s Office (48%).
Packet Page 178 of 488
2
12/31/2011 3/31/2012 7/31/2012 Q2 YTD
General Fund 9,562,638$ 7,113,028$ 9,842,713$ 2,669,299$ 280,075$
Special Revenue 3,610,619 4,341,494 4,205,312 (98,188) 594,694
Debt Service 242,765 242,806 94 1,216 (242,671)
Governmental Funds 13,416,022$ 11,697,328$ 14,048,119$ 2,572,327$ 632,097$
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCESGOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$9.56
$7.11
$9.84
$3.61
$4.34 $4.21
$0.24 $0.24 $0.00 -
2
4
6
8
10
12
Dec 2011 March 2012 July 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
General
Fund
Special
Revenue
Debt
Service
Governmental Fund Balances -By Fund GroupGovernmentalFund Balances -By Fund Group
$13.42
$11.70
$14.05
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Dec 2011 March
2012
July 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Governmental Fund Balances
-Combined
Combined governmental fund activity through July added an increase of $632,097 to fund balances. The General
Fund was responsible for $280,075 of this increase, the special revenue funds for $594,694, and the remaining
was due to a deficit of $242,671 in the debt service funds. The second quarter brought an increase of $2.6 million
in governmental funds, while at the end of the first quarter; there was a $1.7 million deficit in this fund. The deficit
of $242,671 in the debt service funds is due to a transfer for $244,000 from Fund 213 (LID Guaranty Fund) into
Fund 011 (Risk Management Reserve Fund).
Packet Page 179 of 488
3
12/31/2011 3/31/2012 7/31/2012 Q2 YTD
104 - Drug Enforcement Fund 124,661$ 165,623$ 151,622$ (9,487)$ 26,962$
111 - Street Fund 392,049 284,506 222,486 (51,178) (169,562)
112 - Combined Street Const/Improve 423,449 619,232 530,334 (79,919) 106,886
117 - Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund 401,698 402,043 402,543 8,031 845
118 - Memorial Street Tree 17,646 17,651 17,662 5 16
120 - Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund 93,895 108,523 100,236 (2,933) 6,341
121 - Employee Parking Permit Fund 77,577 82,964 71,742 (11,769) (5,835)
122 - Youth Scholarship Fund 16,534 15,858 14,927 (1,643) (1,607)
123 - Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts 60,250 58,255 56,479 (1,806) (3,770)
125 - Real Estate Tax 2 436,640 565,696 671,704 157,278 235,064
126 - Real Estate Excise Tax 1 225,937 371,840 530,289 92,417 304,351
127 - Gifts Catalog Fund 193,985 198,794 213,544 12,928 19,559
129 - Special Projects Fund 5,841 5,841 3,166 (1,833) (2,675)
130 - Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement 85,714 79,750 75,264 1,207 (10,449)
131 - Fire Donations - - - - -
132 - Parks Construction Fund 86,794 391,378 174,002 (205,375) 87,208
136 - Parks Trust Fund 156,611 156,655 149,812 (6,887) (6,798)
137 - Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund 801,079 804,922 810,363 4,364 9,284
138 - Sister City Commission 10,261 11,964 9,136 (1,589) (1,125)
Total Special Revenue 3,610,619$ 4,341,494$ 4,205,312$ (98,188)$ 594,694$
GOVERNMENTAL
Special Revenue
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$3.61
$4.34 $4.21
-
1
2
3
4
5
Dec 2011 March 2012 July 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Special
Revenue
Special Revenue Funds
Activity in all special revenue funds through July brought an increase of $594,694, a deficit of $98,188 during the
second quarter, and an increase of $730,875 in the first quarter. The graph below shows the total fund balances
for all nineteen special revenue funds as of December 2011, March 2012, and the current ending balance as of
July 2012.
Packet Page 180 of 488
4
48,998,030 50,368,197 51,344,118
18,605,638 17,700,923 16,889,080
65,558,827 66,013,239 66,108,857
-
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
Dec 2011 March 2012 July 2012
411 - Combined Utility Operation
412 - Combined Utility Const/Improve
Combined Enterprise Funds (411-414)
Enterprise Funds -Fund Balances
12/31/2011 3/31/2012 7/31/2012 Q2 YTD
411 - Combined Utility Operation 48,998,030$ 50,368,197$ 51,344,118$ 576,865$ 2,346,089$
412 - Combined Utility Const/Improve 18,605,638 17,700,923 16,889,080 (611,353) (1,716,558)
414 - Capital Improvements Reserve (2,044,841) (2,055,881) (2,124,342) (37,069) (79,501)
Enterprise Funds 65,558,827$ 66,013,239$ 66,108,857$ (71,557)$ 550,030$
ENTERPRISE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$51,344,118
$16,889,080
$(2,124,342) $(2,200,000)
$7,800,000
$17,800,000
$27,800,000
$37,800,000
$47,800,000
Combined Utility Operation Combined Utility Const/Improve Capital Improvements Reserve
Enterprise Fund Balances as of July 31, 2012
Utility Fund Activity through July brought an increase of $550,030 in the Enterprise Funds. The second quarter
brought a deficit of $71,557, while the first quarter brought an increase of $454,412. It is expected that regular
annual capital maintenance and improvements will not begin until later in the spring and summer.
Packet Page 181 of 488
5
12/31/2011 3/31/2012 7/31/2012 Q2 YTD
Governmental Funds 13,416,022$ 11,692,328$ 14,048,119$ 2,572,327$ 632,097$
Enterprise Funds 65,558,827 66,013,239 66,108,857 (71,557) 550,030
Internal Services Fund 6,662,893 6,718,782 6,472,682 (24,443) (190,211)
Pension Trust Fund 213,210 184,287 226,699 44,831 13,490
City-wide Total 85,850,951$ 84,608,636$ 86,856,357$ 2,521,158$ 1,005,406$
CITY-WIDE
FUND BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL ----
$9,842,713
$151,622
$222,486
$530,334
$402,543
$17,662
$100,236
$71,742
$14,927
$56,479
$671,704
$530,289
$213,544
$3,166
$75,264
$174,002
$149,812
$810,363
$9,136
$44
$50
$1 $2,000,000
General Fund
Drug Enforcement Fund
Street Fund
Combined Street Const/Improve
Municipal Arts Acquis. Fund
Memorial Street Fund
Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue Fund
Employee Parking Permit Fund
Youth Scholarship Fund
Tourism Promotional Fund/Arts
Real Estate Excise Tax 2
Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Parks Acq
Gifts Catalog Fund
Special Projects Fund
Cemetery Maintenance/Improvement
Parks Construction Fund
Parks Trust Fund
Cemetery Maintenance Trust Fund
Sister City Commission
L.I.D. Fund Control
L.I.D. Guaranty Fund
Limited Tax G.O. Bond Fund
Governmental Fund Balances as of July 31,2012
At the end of July, 58% of the year had expired. Activity through July added $1 million to the City-Wide fund
balance, bringing the total to $86.9 million. Of the year-to-date increases, $632,097 was generated by
governmental funds, $550,030 was generated by Enterprise (Utility) Funds, a deficit of $190,211 was generated
by Internal Service Funds, and an increase of $13,490 by the Pension Trust Fund. The second quarter brought
an increase of $2.5 million to City-Wide Funds, while the first quarter brought a deficit of $1.2 millio n.
Packet Page 182 of 488
6
12/31/2011 3/31/2012 7/31/2012 Q2 YTD
511 - Equipment Rental Fund 6,662,893$ 6,718,782$ 6,472,682$ (24,443)$ (190,211)$
Internal Service Funds 6,662,893$ 6,718,782$ 6,472,682$ (24,443)$ (190,211)$
INTERNAL SERVICE
FUNDS
FUND BALANCES CHANGE IN FUND
BALANCES
---- ACTUAL -------- ACTUAL ----
$6.66 $6.72 $6.47
-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Dec 2011 March 2012 July 2012
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
511 - Equipment Rental Fund
Internal Service Fund Balances
Internal Service Fund activity through July brought a deficit of $190,211. The second quarter brought a deficit of
$24,443, while the first quarter brought an increase of $55,889. The purchase of new Machinery in July resulted in
the deficit of $190,211. Overall, besides this purchase, we have not seen a significant change in the Equipment
Rental Fund. We began the year with a fund balance of $6.7 million and currently at the end of July, we see an
ending fund balance of $6.5 million.
Packet Page 183 of 488
7
Fund
No.Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
001 GENERAL FUND 33,017,174$ 18,775,883$ (14,241,291)$ 57%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 600,550 300,207 (300,343) 50%
010 RESERVE FUND 2,200 1,189 (1,011) 54%
011 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 244,000 244,000 - 100%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 28,200 44,430 16,230 158%
111 STREET FUND 1,313,650 773,516 (540,134) 59%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,006,864 812,462 (1,194,402) 40%
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.- - - 0%
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 56,860 28,496 (28,364) 50%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 58,325 16,991 (41,334) 29%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 28 16 (12) 56%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 51,950 37,737 (14,213) 73%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 20,140 6,708 (13,432) 33%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 2,525 1,336 (1,189) 53%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 93 (18,907) 0%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 770,850 444,927 (325,923) 58%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 590,800 384,628 (206,172) 65%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 10,759 21,002 10,243 195%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 482,004 - (482,004) 0%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 119,850 77,273 (42,577) 64%
131 FIRE DONATIONS - - - 0%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,289,414 418,282 (871,132) 32%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 177 132 (45) 74%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 14,600 9,284 (5,316) 64%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 5,230 1,710 (3,520) 33%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 46,700 1,175 (45,525) 3%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 151,725 106,154 (45,571) 70%
234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND,478,573 136,786 (341,787) 29%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 15,456,920 9,225,062 (6,231,858) 60%
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 7,888,400 22,544 (7,865,856) 0%
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,583,389 367,736 (1,215,653) 23%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,076,456 629,866 (446,590) 59%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 94,423 68,862 (25,561) 73%
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 600,000 385,169 (214,831) 64%
68,081,736$ 33,343,657$ 101,425,393$ 49%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Packet Page 184 of 488
8
Fund
No.Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Spent
001 GENERAL FUND 33,266,328$ 18,712,395$ (14,553,933)$ 56%
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 619,811 349,044 (270,767) 56%
010 RESERVE FUND - - - 0%
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 80,233 17,468 (62,765) 22%
111 STREET FUND 1,625,148 943,078 (682,070) 58%
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 2,107,428 705,577 (1,401,851) 33%
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.- - - 0%
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 245,000 8,261 (236,739) 3%
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 134,550 16,146 (118,404) 12%
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE - - - 0%
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 56,500 31,396 (25,104) 56%
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 26,086 12,543 (13,543) 48%
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 4,000 2,943 (1,057) 74%
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 19,000 3,863 (15,137) 20%
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 1,055,000 209,864 (845,136) 20%
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ FUND 697,717 80,277 (617,440) 12%
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 12,275 1,443 (10,832) 12%
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 483,500 2,675 (480,825) 1%
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 172,005 87,723 (84,282) 51%
131 FIRE DONATIONS - - - 0%
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 1,376,200 331,075 (1,045,125) 24%
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 6,930 6,930 - 100%
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD - - - 0%
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 4,600 2,834 (1,766) 62%
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 151,500 106,000 (45,500) 70%
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 244,000 244,000 - 100%
234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND,478,573 136,786 (341,787) 29%
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 15,370,401 6,878,973 (8,491,428) 45%
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 10,987,679 1,739,102 (9,248,577) 16%
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE 1,571,515 447,236 (1,124,279) 28%
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 1,321,334 820,078 (501,256) 62%
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 123,515 55,372 (68,143) 45%
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT 600,000 385,169 (214,831) 64%
72,840,828$ 32,338,251$ (40,502,577)$ 44%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - SUMMARY
Packet Page 185 of 488
9
Fund
No.Title
1/1/2012
Beg. Balance
2012
Revenues
2012
Expenditures Difference
7/31/2012
End. Balance
001 GENERAL FUND 5,705,633$ 18,775,883$ 18,712,395$ 63,488$ 5,769,121$
004 CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS FUND 2,500 - - - 2,500
006 EMERGENCY FINANCIAL RESERVE FUND 1,927,600 - - - 1,927,600
009 LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE 320,656 300,207 349,044 (48,838) 271,819
010 RESERVE FUND 1,338,178 1,189 - 1,189 1,339,367
011 RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND - 244,000 - 244,000 244,000
113 MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD.55,859 - - - 55,859
116 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 212,212 28,496 8,261 20,235 232,448
TOTAL GENERAL FUND PER CAFR 9,562,638 19,349,775 19,069,700 280,075 9,842,713
104 DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND 124,661 44,430 17,468 26,962 151,622
111 STREET FUND 392,049 773,516 943,078 (169,562) 222,486
112 COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE 423,449 812,462 705,577 106,886 530,334
117 MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND 401,698 16,991 16,146 845 402,543
118 MEMORIAL STREET TREE 17,646 16 - 16 17,662
120 HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND 93,895 37,737 31,396 6,341 100,236
121 EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND 77,577 6,708 12,543 (5,835) 71,742
122 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND 16,534 1,336 2,943 (1,607) 14,927
123 TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS 60,250 93 3,863 (3,770) 56,479
125 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2 436,640 444,927 209,864 235,064 671,704
126 REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ 225,937 384,628 80,277 304,351 530,289
127 GIFTS CATALOG FUND 193,985 21,002 1,443 19,559 213,544
129 SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND 5,841 - 2,675 (2,675) 3,166
130 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMT 85,714 77,273 87,723 (10,449) 75,264
131 FIRE DONATIONS - - - - -
132 PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND 86,794 418,282 331,075 87,208 174,002
136 PARKS TRUST FUND 156,611 132 6,930 (6,798) 149,812
137 CEMETERY MAINTENANCE TRUST FD 801,079 9,284 - 9,284 810,363
138 SISTER CITY COMMISSION 10,261 1,710 2,834 (1,125) 9,136
211 L.I.D. FUND CONTROL 104,869 1,175 106,000 (104,825) 44
213 L.I.D. GUARANTY FUND 137,896 106,154 244,000 (137,846) 50
234 LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND,1 136,786 136,786 (0) 0
411 COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION 48,998,030 9,225,062 6,878,973 2,346,089 51,344,118
412 COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE 18,605,638 22,544 1,739,102 (1,716,558) 16,889,080
414 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE (2,044,841) 367,736 447,236 (79,501) (2,124,342)
511 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND 6,662,893 629,866 820,078 (190,211) 6,472,682
617 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND 213,210 68,862 55,372 13,490 226,699
631 TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT - 385,169 385,169 - -
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 85,850,951$ 33,343,657$ 32,338,251$ 1,005,406$ 86,856,357$
CITY OF EDMONDS
CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE - SUMMARY
Packet Page 186 of 488
10
This page is intentionally left blank.
Packet Page 187 of 488
11
Page 1 of 3
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
TAXES:
REAL PERSONAL / PROPERTY TAX 9,629,986$ 5,054,121$ (4,575,865)$ 52%
EMS PROPERTY TAX 2,908,944 1,569,029 (1,339,915) 54%
VOTED PROPERTY TAX 895,640 496,907 (398,733) 55%
LOCAL RETAIL SALES/USE TAX 4,724,183 2,837,791 (1,886,392) 60%
NATURAL GAS USE TAX 13,244 5,250 (7,994) 40%
1/10 SALES TAX LOCAL CRIM JUST 514,898 301,301 (213,597) 59%
GAS UTILITY TAX 892,381 595,099 (297,282) 67%
T.V. CABLE UTILITY TAX 750,682 374,730 (375,952) 50%
TELEPHONE UTILITY TAX 1,390,242 918,807 (471,435) 66%
ELECTRIC UTILITY TAX 1,473,880 1,002,829 (471,051) 68%
SOLID WASTE UTILITY TAX 294,601 164,375 (130,226) 56%
WATER UTILITY TAX 824,935 467,026 (357,909) 57%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 276,020 (193,980) 59%
STORMWATER UTILITY TAX 254,061 151,809 (102,252) 60%
LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX 221,162 105,124 (116,038) 48%
PULLTABS TAX 60,257 39,915 (20,342) 66%
25,319,096 14,360,131 (10,958,965) 57%
LICENSES AND PERMITS:
FIRE PERMITS-SPECIAL USE 5,000 5,313 313 106%
PROF AND OCC LICENSE-TAXI 1,000 510 (490) 51%
AMUSEMENTS 6,000 5,475 (525) 91%
BUS. LICENCE PERMIT PENALTY 5,000 3,885 (1,115) 78%
GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 105,245 95,945 (9,301) 91%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-COMCAST 588,008 470,088 (117,920) 80%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-VERIZON/FRONTIER 106,930 44,459 (62,471) 42%
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT-BLACKROCK 6,901 7,332 431 106%
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT FRANCHISE 212,292 175,322 (36,970) 83%
DEV SERV PERMIT SURCHARGE 21,000 10,995 (10,005) 52%
NON-RESIDENT BUS LICENSE 38,885 22,550 (16,335) 58%
RIGHT OF WAY FRANCHISE FEE 10,000 9,308 (692) 93%
BUILDING STRUCTURE PERMITS 420,000 192,927 (227,073) 46%
ANIMAL LICENSES 11,000 6,843 (4,157) 62%
STREET AND CURB PERMIT 42,000 16,282 (25,718) 39%
OTR NON-BUS LIC/PERMITS 7,000 5,897 (1,104) 84%
DIVE PARK PERMIT FEE - - - 0%
1,586,261 1,073,129 (513,132) 68%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL:
DOJ 15-0404-0-1-754 - Bullet Proof Vest 3,969 - (3,969) 0%
EECBG Grant - - - 0%
WA ASSOC OF SHERIFFS TRAFFIC GRANT - - - 0%
TARGET ZERO TEAMS GRANT 10,000 2,084 (7,916) 21%
HIGH VISIBILITY ENFORCEMENT 6,000 406 (5,594) 7%
WA STATE TRAFFIC COMM GRANT - - - 0%
Puget Drive Walkway HLP-PB07(009)- - - 0%
SMART COMMUTER PROJECT GRANT - - - 0%
PUD PRIVILEDGE TAX 183,348 - (183,348) 0%
JUDICIAL SALARY CONTRIBUTION-STATE 13,000 6,224 (6,776) 48%
MVET/SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION 9,100 6,672 (2,428) 73%
CRIMINAL JUSTICE - SPECIAL PROGRAMS 33,827 25,116 (8,711) 74%
DUI - CITIES 9,500 5,628 (3,872) 59%
LIQUOR EXCISE TAX 200,666 146,591 (54,075) 73%
LIQUOR BOARD PROFITS 310,835 216,740 (94,095) 70%
SHARED COURT COSTS 6,300 1,500 (4,800) 24%
MUNICIPAL COURT AGREEMENT W/LYNNWOOD 1,050 750 (300) 71%
FIRE DISTRICT #1 STATION BILLINGS 55,080 43,622 (11,458) 79%
POLICE FBI CONTRACTS - - - 0%
DV COORDINATOR SERVICES 10,760 6,277 (4,483) 58%
OCDETF OVERTIME - 1,226 1,226 0%
CAMPUS SAFETY-EDM. SCH. DIST.11,500 4,041 (7,459) 35%
WOODWAY - LAW PROTECTION 10,000 11,723 1,723 117%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE-SSCCFH 69,300 34,650 (34,650) 50%
SNOCOM FIBER OPTIC SERVICE INTERLOCAL - 4,200 4,200 0%
SNO-ISLE 69,418 41,718 (27,700) 60%
1,013,653 559,168 (454,485) 55%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 188 of 488
12
Page 2 of 3
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
CHARGES FOR GOODS AND SERVICES:
RECORD/LEGAL INSTRUMTS 1,050 607 (444) 58%
COURT RECORD SERVICES 100 - (100) 0%
D/M COURT REC SER 950 82 (868) 9%
SALE MAPS & BOOKS - 41 41 0%
MUNIC.-DIST. COURT CURR EXPEN 150 92 (58) 62%
PHOTOCOPIES 4,000 1,994 (2,006) 50%
POLICE DISCLOSURE REQUESTS 5,000 2,570 (2,430) 51%
ASSESSMENT SEARCH - 5 5 0%
PASSPORTS AND NATURALIZATION FEES 10,500 6,925 (3,575) 66%
POLICE SERVICES SPECIAL EVENTS 26,000 11,974 (14,026) 46%
DUI EMERGENCY FIRE SERVICES - 318 318 0%
ADULT PROBATION SERVICE CHARGE 68,300 33,171 (35,129) 49%
ELECTRONIC MONITORING 150 - (150) 0%
ELECTRONIC MONITOR DUI 700 82 (618) 12%
BOOKING FEES 6,300 2,652 (3,648) 42%
FIRE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION FEES 6,060 2,910 (3,150) 48%
EMERGENCY SERVICE FEES 21,210 10,534 (10,676) 50%
DUI EMERGENCY AID 200 33 (167) 17%
EMS TRANSPORT USER FEE 848,500 325,997 (522,503) 38%
POLICE - FINGERPRINTING 300 281 (20) 94%
CRIM CNV FEE DUI 700 382 (318) 55%
CRIM CONV FEE CT 5,900 2,588 (3,312) 44%
CRIM CONV FEE CN 2,100 930 (1,170) 44%
POLICE TRAINING CLASSES - - - 0%
ENGINEERING FEES AND CHARGES 102,010 59,660 (42,350) 58%
FIBER SERVICES - 20,309 20,309 0%
ANIMAL CONTROL SHELTER 4,000 3,885 (115) 97%
FLEX FUEL PAYMENTS FROM STATIONS - 182 182 0%
ANNUAL VEHICLE FEE (TBD)- - - 0%
ZONING/SUBDIVISION FEE 55,000 22,972 (32,028) 42%
FIRE PLAN CHECK FEES 3,300 793 (2,508) 24%
PLAN CHECKING FEES 235,000 137,557 (97,443) 59%
PLANNING 1% INSPECTION FEE 4,500 326 (4,174) 7%
S.E.P.A. REVIEW 6,000 1,940 (4,060) 32%
CRITICAL AREA STUDY 15,000 8,060 (6,940) 54%
SWIM POOL ENTRANCE FEES 52,471 38,852 (13,619) 74%
LOCKER FEES 300 125 (175) 42%
SWIM CLASS FEES 45,520 20,924 (24,596) 46%
PROGRAM FEES 800,000 477,200 (322,800) 60%
TAXABLE RECREATION ACTIVITIES 120,000 90,765 (29,235) 76%
SWIM TEAM / DIVE TEAM 31,150 30,019 (1,132) 96%
BIRD FEST REGISTRATION FEES 620 140 (480) 23%
INTERFUND REIMBURSEMENT-CONTRACT SVCS 1,582,061 905,102 (676,959) 57%
MISCELLANEOUS POLICE SERVICES - - - 0%
4,065,102 2,222,977 (1,842,125) 55%
FINES AND FORFEITURES:
PROOF OF VEHICLE INS PENALTY 10,500 5,792 (4,708) 55%
TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES 51,472 17,150 (34,322) 33%
NC TRAFFIC INFRACTION 285,000 149,354 (135,646) 52%
CRT COST FEE CODE LEG ASSESSMENT (LGA)15,000 10,985 (4,015) 73%
SPEEDING DOUBLE - 38 38 0%
NON-TRAFFIC INFRACTION PENALTIES - 900 900 0%
OTHER INFRACTIONS '04 1,250 323 (927) 26%
PARKING INFRACTION PENALTIES 33,000 19,985 (13,015) 61%
PR - HANDICAPPED 800 - (800) 0%
PARKING INFRACTION LOC 600 40 (560) 7%
PARK / INDDISZONE 600 1,828 1,228 305%
DWI PENALTIES 9,500 3,405 (6,095) 36%
DUI - DP ACCT - 770 770 0%
OTHER CRIMINAL TRAF MISDEM PEN 50 189 139 379%
CRIMINAL TRAFFIC MISDEMEANOR 8/03 40,000 19,216 (20,784) 48%
OTHER NON-TRAF MISDEMEANOR PEN 600 241 (359) 40%
OTHER NON TRAFFIC MISD. 8/03 11,500 9,786 (1,714) 85%
COURT DV PENALTY ASSESSMENT 950 585 (365) 62%
CRIMINAL COSTS-RECOUPMENTS 120,000 61,352 (58,648) 51%
JURY DEMAND COST 100 - (100) 0%
PUBLIC DEFENSE RECOUPMENT 37,000 17,940 (19,060) 48%
COURT INTERPRETER COST 300 136 (164) 45%
MISC FINES AND PENALTIES 1,050 960 (90) 91%
619,272 320,973 (298,299) 52%
CITY OF EDMONDS
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
Packet Page 189 of 488
13
Page 3 of 3
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Revenues Variance % Received
MISCELLANEOUS:
INVESTMENT INTEREST - 4,492 4,492 0%
INVESTMENT SERVICE FEES 9,800 - (9,800) 0%
INTEREST ON COUNTY TAXES 2,000 1,154 (846) 58%
INTEREST - COURT COLLECTIONS 3,150 3,091 (59) 98%
PARKING 10,000 6,770 (3,230) 68%
SPACE/FACILITIES RENTALS 140,000 81,879 (58,121) 58%
GYM AND WEIGHTROOM FEES 7,800 3,194 (4,606) 41%
BRACKET ROOM RENTAL 1,000 2,545 1,545 255%
LEASES LONG-TERM 173,465 94,153 (79,312) 54%
VENDING MACHINE CONCESSION 4,700 2,560 (2,140) 54%
OTHER RENTS & USE CHARGES 10,078 3,745 (6,333) 37%
PARKS DONATIONS 8,456 7,742 (714) 92%
BIRD FEST CONTRIBUTIONS 1,500 900 (600) 60%
SALE OF JUNK/SALVAGE 200 1,080 880 540%
SALES OF UNCLAIM PROPERTY 4,000 920 (3,080) 23%
OTHER JUDGEMENT/SETTLEMENT 200 - (200) 0%
POLICE JUDGMENTS/RESTITUTION 100 150 50 150%
CASHIER'S OVERAGES/SHORTAGES (200) (3) 197 0%
OTHER MISC REVENUES 3,000 5,103 2,103 170%
SMALL OVERPAYMENT - 55 55 0%
NSF FEES - PARKS & REC - 120 120 0%
NSF FEES - MUNICIPAL COURT 525 383 (142) 73%
NSF FEES - DEVEL SERV DEPT - - - 0%
PLANNING SIGN REVENUE 2,000 - (2,000) 0%
381,774 220,032 (161,742) 58%
TRANSFERS-IN:
INSURANCE RECOVERIES - - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER-IN - - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - In (From 121)25,086 19,473 (5,613) 78%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (From 136)6,930 - (6,930) 0%
32,016 19,473 (12,543) 61%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE 33,017,174$ 18,775,883$ (14,241,291)$ 57%
REVENUES - GENERAL FUND
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 190 of 488
14
This page is intentionally left blank.
Packet Page 191 of 488
15
Page 1 of 5
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES:
SALARIES AND WAGES 12,400,240$ 6,843,572$ (5,556,668)$ 55%
OVERTIME 458,540 233,824 (224,716) 51%
HOLIDAY BUY BACK 179,687 2,526 (177,161) 1%
BENEFITS 4,244,174 2,405,103 (1,839,071) 57%
UNIFORMS 63,880 33,800 (30,080) 53%
SUPPLIES 435,011 203,447 (231,564) 47%
FUEL CONSUMED 700 - (700) 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 133,012 96,881 (36,131) 73%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,852,841 870,423 (982,418) 47%
COMMUNICATIONS 210,037 100,456 (109,581) 48%
TRAVEL 51,060 12,589 (38,471) 25%
ADVERTISING 71,667 21,213 (50,454) 30%
RENTAL/LEASE 139,281 77,704 (61,577) 56%
INSURANCE 444,962 420,109 (24,853) 94%
UTILITIES 454,500 252,069 (202,431) 55%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 331,397 154,285 (177,112) 47%
MISCELLANEOUS 327,242 168,140 (159,102) 51%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 8,218,704 5,846,073 (2,372,631) 71%
ECA CONTINGENCY RESERVE 250,000 80,635 (169,365) 32%
EXCISE TAXES 5,200 3,588 (1,612) 69%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 009,116,117,125,617)899,623 419,926 (479,697) 47%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 17,144 - (17,144) 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 1,084,062 - (1,084,062) 0%
CAPITAL LEASES AND INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 63,380 63,380 (0) 100%
OTHER DEBT - - - 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 296,838 149,706 (147,132) 50%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 5,000 1,125 (3,875) 23%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 197,900 - (197,900) 0%
INTERFUND FUEL - 55 55 0%
INTERFUND SUPPLIES - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 430,246 250,985 (179,261) 58%
INTERFUND REPAIRS - 780 780 0%
33,266,328$ 18,712,395$ (14,553,933)$ 56%
LEOFF-MEDICAL INS. RESERVE:
BENEFITS 462,886$ 256,756$ (206,130)$ 55%
In-Home LTC Claims 140,425 84,853 (55,572) 60%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 16,500 7,186 (9,315) 44%
MISCELLANEOUS - 250 250 0%
619,811$ 349,044$ (270,767)$ 56%
DRUG ENFORCEMENT FUND:
SUPPLIES 200$ -$ (200)$ 0%
FUEL CONSUMED 2,000 1,286 (714) 64%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,000 - (5,000) 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,233 1,254 (979) 56%
REPAIR/MAINT 800 - (800) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 20,000 5,000 (15,000) 25%
INTERGOVTL SVC 50,000 9,928 (40,072) 20%
80,233$ 17,468$ (62,765)$ 22%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 192 of 488
16
Page 2 of 5
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
STREET FUND:
SALARIES AND WAGES 474,924$ 308,009$ (166,915)$ 65%
OVERTIME 18,400 20,685 2,285 112%
BENEFITS 191,707 137,176 (54,531) 72%
UNIFORMS 7,000 4,450 (2,550) 64%
SUPPLIES 242,500 91,660 (150,840) 38%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 24,000 11,919 (12,081) 50%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 32,700 19,379 (13,321) 59%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 2,139 (861) 71%
TRAVEL 1,000 60 (940) 6%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 1,435 (65) 96%
INSURANCE 93,719 93,305 (414) 100%
UTILITIES 261,100 126,102 (134,998) 48%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 25,500 4,479 (21,021) 18%
MISCELLANEOUS 6,000 6,793 793 113%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 6,000 1,003 (4,997) 17%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 38,954 - (38,954) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 6,200 3,100 (3,100) 50%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 190,944 111,384 (79,560) 58%
1,625,148$ 943,078$ (682,070)$ 58%
COMBINED STREET CONST/IMPROVE:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 846,180$ 506,843$ (339,337)$ 60%
INTERFUND TRANSFER OUT (to 112, 132)53,497 41,694 (11,803) 78%
LAND 231,022 - (231,022) 0%
CONST SURFACE CONST PROJECTS 763,300 1,700 (761,600) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 72,202 72,201 (1) 100%
INTEREST ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 4,841 4,840 (1) 100%
INTERFUND SERVICES 136,386 78,298 (58,088) 57%
2,107,428$ 705,577$ (1,401,851)$ 33%
MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION FD:
PROFESSIONAL SVC -$ -$ -$ 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - - - 0%
-$ -$ -$ 0%
BUILDING MAINTENANCE:
SUPPLIES 10,000$ -$ (10,000)$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 40,000 4,825 (35,175) 12%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 195,000 3,436 (191,564) 2%
MISCELLANEOUS - - - 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER - - - 0%
245,000$ 8,261$ (236,739)$ 3%
MUNICIPAL ARTS ACQUIS. FUND:
SUPPLIES 4,200$ 165$ (4,035)$ 4%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 1,000 523 (477) 52%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 110,500 13,232 (97,268) 12%
TRAVEL 50 10 (40) 20%
ADVERTISING 4,000 - (4,000) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 300 - (300) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 10,500 2,216 (8,284) 21%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 117.300)3,000 - (3,000) 0%
134,550$ 16,146$ (118,404)$ 12%
HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUE FUND
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,000$ 5,459$ (4,542)$ 55%
ADVERTISING 35,000 23,554 (11,446) 67%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 384 (2,116) 15%
TRANSFER TO FUND 117 4,000 2,000 (2,000) 50%
TRANSFER TO FUND 132 5,000 - (5,000) 0%
56,500$ 31,396$ (25,104)$ 56%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 193 of 488
17
Page 3 of 5
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
EMPLOYEE PARKING PERMIT FUND:
SUPPLIES 1,000$ -$ (1,000)$ 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 001)25,086 12,543 (12,543) 50%
26,086$ 12,543$ (13,543)$ 48%
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP FUND:
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000$ 2,943$ (1,057)$ 74%
4,000$ 2,943$ (1,057)$ 74%
TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND/ARTS:
PROFESSIONAL SVC 10,500$ 33$ (10,467)$ 0%
ADVERTISING 4,500 3,830 (670) 85%
MISCELLANEOUS 4,000 - (4,000) 0%
19,000$ 3,863$ (15,137)$ 20%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 2:
SUPPLIES 36,000$ 39,495$ 3,495$ 110%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 617,000 68,621 (548,379) 11%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 100,000 1,544 (98,456) 2%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 117,132)199,000 - (199,000) 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 103,000 100,203 (2,797) 97%
INTERFUND SERVICES - - - 0%
1,055,000$ 209,864$ (845,136)$ 20%
REAL ESTATE EXCISE TAX 1, PARKS ACQ:
MISCELLANEOUS -$ -$ -$ 0%
TRANSFER TO FUND 234 68,080 16,540 (51,540) 24%
1998 REF BOND PRINCIPAL 502,163 - (502,163) 0%
2001 BONDS, B - INTEREST 127,474 63,737 (63,737) 50%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
697,717$ 80,277$ (617,440)$ 12%
GIFTS CATALOG FUND:
SUPPLIES 6,275$ 1,443$ (4,832)$ 23%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,000 - (4,000) 0%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 132)2,000 - (2,000) 0%
12,275$ 1,443$ (10,832)$ 12%
SPECIAL PROJECTS FUND:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 83,500$ 1,833$ (81,667)$ 2%
CONSTRUCTION 400,000 - (400,000) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - 841 841 0%
483,500$ 2,675$ (480,825)$ 1%
CEMETERY MAINTENANCE/IMPROVEMENT:
SALARIES AND WAGES 71,107$ 39,420$ (31,687)$ 55%
OVERTIME 3,500 1,690 (1,810) 48%
BENEFITS 32,926 18,690 (14,236) 57%
UNIFORMS 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
SUPPLIES 7,000 2,558 (4,442) 37%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 20,000 15,214 (4,786) 76%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 200 (800) 20%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,412 698 (714) 49%
TRAVEL 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
ADVERTISING 3,000 1,456 (1,544) 49%
UTILITIES 3,800 1,512 (2,288) 40%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 500 - (500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 2,049 1,049 205%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 17,500 - (17,500) 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 7,260 4,235 (3,025) 58%
172,005$ 87,723$ (84,282)$ 51%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
Packet Page 194 of 488
18
Page 4 of 5
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
PARKS CONSTRUCTION FUND:
SUPPLIES -$ 72,779$ 72,779$ 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 63,000 50,480 (12,520) 80%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,303,200 188,540 (1,114,660) 14%
INTERFUND SERVICES 10,000 19,276 9,276 193%
1,376,200$ 331,075$ (1,045,125)$ 24%
PARKS TRUST FUND:
INTERFUND TRANSFER 6,930$ 6,930$ -$ 100%
6,930$ 6,930$ -$ 100%
SISTER CITY COMMISSION:
SUPPLIES 500$ 1,242$ 742$ 248%
STUDENT TRIP 2,600 - (2,600) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,500 1,592 92 106%
4,600$ 2,834$ (1,766)$ 62%
LID FUND CONTROL
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 213)151,500$ 106,000$ (45,500)$ 70%
151,500$ 106,000$ (45,500)$ 70%
LID GUARANTY FUND
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 011)244,000$ 244,000$ -$ 100%
244,000$ 244,000$ -$ 100%
LIMITED TAX G.O. BOND FUND:
2002 BOND PRINCIPAL 205,000$ -$ (205,000)$ 0%
2002 BOND INTEREST 273,573 136,786 (136,787) 50%
478,573$ 136,786$ (341,787)$ 29%
COMBINED UTILITY OPERATION:
SALARIES AND WAGES 2,791,123$ 1,562,331$ (1,228,792)$ 56%
OVERTIME 117,180 71,253 (45,927) 61%
BENEFITS 1,113,707 656,377 (457,330) 59%
UNIFORMS 28,650 14,664 (13,986) 51%
SUPPLIES 675,015 356,595 (318,420) 53%
FUEL CONSUMED 150,723 99,710 (51,013) 66%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,410,000 621,492 (788,508) 44%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 143,000 55,868 (87,132) 39%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 25,500 1,859 (23,641) 7%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 228,808 92,148 (136,660) 40%
COMMUNICATIONS 72,200 36,879 (35,322) 51%
TRAVEL 18,600 158 (18,442) 1%
ADVERTISING 3,560 1,132 (2,428) 32%
RENTAL/LEASE 16,300 8,558 (7,742) 53%
INSURANCE 288,211 242,229 (45,982) 84%
UTILITIES 999,853 458,119 (541,734) 46%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 131,930 44,832 (87,098) 34%
MISCELLANEOUS 592,880 359,794 (233,086) 61%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 667,900 118,438 (549,462) 18%
INTERFUND TAXES 1,548,996 894,854 (654,142) 58%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 412,414)1,852,811 70,205 (1,782,606) 4%
LAND - - - 0%
BUILDINGS - - - 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - - 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 111,862 - (111,862) 0%
REVENUE BOND PRINCIPAL 445,499 - (445,499) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 180,398 181,966 1,568 101%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM EXTERNAL DEBT 496,987 238,122 (258,865) 48%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS 33,104 2,759 (30,345) 8%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 272 272 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 818,454 450,855 (367,599) 55%
INTERFUND RENTAL 407,150 237,503 (169,647) 58%
INTERFUND REPAIRS - - - 0%
15,370,401$ 6,878,973$ (8,491,428)$ 45%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 195 of 488
19
Page 5 of 5
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
COMBINED UTILITY CONST/IMPROVE:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,814,861$ 360,163$ (1,454,698)$ 20%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 112,117,132,412.300)496,111 - (496,111) 0%
LAND 3,500 - (3,500) 0%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 8,102,386 1,021,492 (7,080,894) 13%
INTERFUND SERVICES 570,821 357,447 (213,374) 63%
10,987,679$ 1,739,102$ (9,248,577)$ 16%
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS RESERVE:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 85,000$ 258,956$ 173,956$ 305%
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1,226,012 107,755 (1,118,257) 9%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PRINCIPAL 85,888 - (85,888) 0%
REVENUE BONDS 49,132 - (49,132) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 34,875 34,875 - 100%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 90,608 45,643 (44,965) 50%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 7 7 0%
1,571,515$ 447,236$ (1,124,279)$ 28%
EQUIPMENT RENTAL FUND:
SALARIES AND WAGES 218,537$ 124,508$ (94,029)$ 57%
OVERTIME 2,000 91 (1,909) 5%
BENEFITS 100,670 59,801 (40,869) 59%
UNIFORMS 1,000 470 (530) 47%
SUPPLIES 76,000 53,973 (22,027) 71%
FUEL CONSUMED 1,000 674 (326) 67%
SUPPLIES PURCHASED FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 320,510 190,583 (129,927) 59%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,000 4,815 (5,185) 48%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,000 372 (628) 37%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,500 814 (2,686) 23%
TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,500 710 (2,790) 20%
INSURANCE 23,261 32,530 9,269 140%
UTILITIES 14,000 7,436 (6,564) 53%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 85,000 19,033 (65,967) 22%
MISCELLANEOUS 7,500 3,926 (3,574) 52%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES 2,500 1,338 (1,162) 54%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 420,000 312,962 (107,038) 75%
INTERFUND SERVICES 20,000 - (20,000) 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 10,356 6,041 (4,315) 58%
1,321,334$ 820,078$ (501,256)$ 62%
FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND:
BENEFITS 66,515$ 33,227$ (33,288)$ 50%
PENSION AND DISABILITY PAYMENTS 52,500 21,081 (31,419) 40%
PROF SERVICES 4,500 1,065 (3,436) 24%
123,515$ 55,372$ (68,143)$ 45%
TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT:
INSURANCE 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ 100%
INTERGOVTL SERVICES 595,000 49,936 (545,064) 8%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (To 111)- 330,233 330,233 0%
600,000$ 385,169$ (214,831)$ 64%
TOTAL EXPENDITURE ALL FUNDS 72,840,828$ 32,338,251$ (40,502,577)$ 44%
EXPENDITURES BY FUND - DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 196 of 488
20
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
CITY COUNCIL 269,812$ 149,229$ (120,583)$ 55%
OFFICE OF MAYOR 253,184 132,537 (120,647) 52%
HUMAN RESOURCES 286,799 136,806 (149,993) 48%
MUNICIPAL COURT 779,038 426,424 (352,614) 55%
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 138,880 66,413 (72,467) 48%
CITY CLERK 609,840 289,704 (320,136) 48%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 1,412,575 777,501 (635,074) 55%
CITY ATTORNEY 495,000 286,492 (208,508) 58%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL 11,399,538 6,952,172 (4,447,366) 61%
POLICE SERVICES 9,165,244 4,842,275 (4,322,969) 53%
COMMUNITY SERVICES 326,930 183,163 (143,767) 56%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1,658,272 906,199 (752,073) 55%
PARKS & RECREATION 3,506,852 1,877,276 (1,629,576) 54%
PUBLIC WORKS 1,612,816 926,411 (686,405) 57%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 1,351,548 759,794 (591,754) 56%
33,266,328$ 18,712,395$ (14,553,933)$ 56%
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
STORM DRAINAGE UTILITY 2,174,153$ 1,024,697$ (1,149,456)$ 47%
WATER 5,158,024 2,487,947 (2,670,077) 48%
SEWER 4,506,994 1,487,144 (3,019,850) 33%
TREATMENT PLANT 3,531,230 1,879,185 (1,652,045) 53%
15,370,401$ 6,878,973$ (8,491,428)$ 45%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN SUMMARY
CITY OF EDMONDS
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 197 of 488
21
Page 1 of 4
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
CITY COUNCIL
SALARIES 105,665$ 62,119$ (43,546)$ 59%
OVERTIME 7,240 3,537 (3,703) 49%
BENEFITS 69,902 41,794 (28,108) 60%
SUPPLIES 1,525 553 (972) 36%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 50,000 32,158 (17,842) 64%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,000 1,558 (1,442) 52%
TRAVEL 2,500 879 (1,621) 35%
RENTAL/LEASE 480 281 (199) 58%
REPAIRS/MAINT 1,500 - (1,500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 28,000 6,350 (21,650) 23%
269,812$ 149,229$ (120,583)$ 55%
OFFICE OF MAYOR
SALARIES 193,896$ 103,745$ (90,151)$ 54%
OVERTIME - - - 0%
BENEFITS 49,188 23,979 (25,209) 49%
SUPPLIES 2,000 421 (1,579) 21%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
COMMUNICATION 1,400 652 (748) 47%
TRAVEL 700 711 11 102%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 1,429 (71) 95%
REPAIR/MAINT 500 - (500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,601 (1,399) 53%
253,184$ 132,537$ (120,647)$ 52%
HUMAN RESOURCES
SALARIES 144,191$ 51,287$ (92,904)$ 36%
OVERTIME - - - 0%
BENEFITS 32,098 19,218 (12,880) 60%
SUPPLIES 2,500 1,477 (1,023) 59%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 100 - (100) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 77,500 55,219 (22,281) 71%
COMMUNICATIONS 500 214 (287) 43%
TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0%
ADVERTISING 9,000 683 (8,317) 8%
RENTAL/LEASE 2,000 1,353 (647) 68%
REPAIR/MAINT 6,000 4,820 (1,180) 80%
MISCELLANEOUS 12,410 2,535 (9,875) 20%
286,799$ 136,806$ (149,993)$ 48%
MUNICIPAL COURT
SALARIES 486,685$ 272,333$ (214,352)$ 56%
OVERTIME 1,400 572 (828) 41%
BENEFITS 172,053 99,935 (72,118) 58%
SUPPLIES 14,500 6,491 (8,009) 45%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,500 - (6,500) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 66,600 31,085 (35,515) 47%
COMMUNICATIONS 2,600 1,264 (1,336) 49%
TRAVEL 2,500 1,517 (983) 61%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,300 385 (916) 30%
REPAIR/MAINT 2,200 961 (1,239) 44%
MISCELLANEOUS 22,350 11,790 (10,560) 53%
INTERGOVTL SVC 350 92 (258) 26%
779,038$ 426,424$ (352,614)$ 55%
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
Packet Page 198 of 488
22
Page 2 of 4
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BENEFITS -$ 13$ 13$ 0%
SUPPLIES 500 1,330 830 266%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 300 - (300) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 103,680 60,315 (43,365) 58%
COMMUNICATIONS 400 29 (371) 7%
TRAVEL 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
ADVERTISING 30,000 3,210 (26,790) 11%
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000 1,516 (1,484) 51%
138,880$ 66,413$ (72,467)$ 48%
CITY CLERK
SALARIES AND WAGES 302,054$ 167,815$ (134,239)$ 56%
BENEFITS 90,045 52,636 (37,409) 58%
SUPPLIES 13,760 5,509 (8,251) 40%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 89,377 10,949 (78,428) 12%
COMMUNICATIONS 52,067 20,208 (31,859) 39%
TRAVEL 1,000 7 (993) 1%
ADVERTISING 23,690 12,998 (10,692) 55%
RENTAL/LEASE 27,310 9,548 (17,762) 35%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 8,037 7,778 (259) 97%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,500 2,256 (245) 90%
609,840$ 289,704$ (320,136)$ 48%
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SALARIES 741,281$ 414,764$ (326,517)$ 56%
OVERTIME 8,100 5,250 (2,850) 65%
BENEFITS 222,830 129,741 (93,089) 58%
SUPPLIES 60,690 23,138 (37,552) 38%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 63,500 55,478 (8,022) 87%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 71,842 22,823 (49,019) 32%
COMMUNICATIONS 60,220 35,802 (24,418) 59%
TRAVEL 4,800 1,108 (3,692) 23%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,300 2,731 (569) 83%
REPAIR/MAINT 164,720 75,226 (89,494) 46%
MISCELLANEOUS 10,500 10,978 478 105%
INTERFUND RENTAL 792 462 (330) 58%
1,412,575$ 777,501$ (635,074)$ 55%
CITY ATTORNEY
PROFESSIONAL SVC 495,000$ 286,292$ (208,708)$ 58%
MISC PROSECUTOR - 200 200 0%
495,000$ 286,492$ (208,508)$ 58%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
SALARIES 100,000$ -$ (100,000)$ 0%
BENEFITS - UNEMPLOYMENT 70,000 33,756 (36,244) 48%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 294,962 136,957 (158,005) 46%
COMMUNICATIONS - 4 4 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 3,700 3,600 (100) 97%
INSURANCE 444,962 420,109 (24,853) 94%
MISCELLANEOUS 72,300 40,023 (32,277) 55%
INTERGOVT SVC 7,611,611 5,599,363 (2,012,248) 74%
ECA LOAN PAYMENT 250,000 80,635 (169,365) 32%
EXCISE TAXES 5,200 3,588 (1,612) 69%
INTERFUND TRANSFERS 899,623 419,926 (479,697) 47%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 1,084,062 - (1,084,062) 0%
INSTALLMENT PURCHASES 63,380 63,380 (0) 100%
OTHER DEBT - - - 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 296,838 149,706 (147,132) 50%
DEBT ISSUANCE COSTS 5,000 1,125 (3,875) 23%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - - - 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 197,900 - (197,900) 0%
11,399,538$ 6,952,172$ (4,447,366)$ 61%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 199 of 488
23
Page 3 of 4
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
POLICE SERVICES
SALARIES 5,400,738$ 2,966,012$ (2,434,726)$ 55%
OVERTIME 420,000 215,060 (204,940) 51%
HOLIDAY BUYBACK 179,687 2,526 (177,161) 1%
BENEFITS 1,899,147 1,031,839 (867,308) 54%
UNIFORMS 53,570 30,592 (22,978) 57%
SUPPLIES 95,900 51,089 (44,811) 53%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 14,300 3,804 (10,496) 27%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 95,200 52,827 (42,373) 55%
COMMUNICATIONS 33,592 14,621 (18,971) 44%
TRAVEL 26,300 6,526 (19,774) 25%
ADVERTISING 375 66 (309) 18%
RENTAL/LEASE 18,000 9,076 (8,924) 50%
REPAIR/MAINT 16,115 4,076 (12,039) 25%
MISCELLANEOUS 55,512 24,598 (30,914) 44%
INTERGOVTL SVC 536,048 241,618 (294,430) 45%
INTERFUND FUEL-BOAT - 55 55 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 320,760 187,110 (133,650) 58%
INTERFUND REPAIRS - 780 780 0%
9,165,244$ 4,842,275$ (4,322,969)$ 53%
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMIN
SALARIES 212,854$ 122,737$ (90,117)$ 58%
BENEFITS 60,622 36,333 (24,289) 60%
SUPPLIES 1,000 201 (799) 20%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 500 - (500) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 45,924 21,322 (24,602) 46%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,090 461 (629) 42%
TRAVEL 1,000 18 (982) 2%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,320 1,361 41 103%
REPAIR/MAINT 500 - (500) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 365 (635) 37%
INTERFUND RENTAL 620 364 (256) 59%
326,930$ 183,163$ (143,767)$ 56%
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES/PLANNING
SALARIES 1,071,681$ 606,419$ (465,262)$ 57%
OVERTIME 2,800 2,215 (585) 79%
BENEFITS 374,639 216,874 (157,765) 58%
UNIFORMS 320 - (320) 0%
SUPPLIES 17,510 6,417 (11,093) 37%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 2,300 231 (2,069) 10%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 116,890 37,759 (79,131) 32%
COMMUNICATIONS 4,630 3,124 (1,506) 67%
TRAVEL 3,500 426 (3,074) 12%
ADVERTISING 4,250 1,397 (2,853) 33%
RENTAL/LEASE 22,500 12,399 (10,101) 55%
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 2,000 606 (1,394) 30%
MISCELLANEOUS 27,600 13,867 (13,733) 50%
INTERFUND RENTAL 7,652 4,466 (3,186) 58%
1,658,272$ 906,199$ (752,073)$ 55%
ENGINEERING
SALARIES 958,860$ 547,226$ (411,634)$ 57%
OVERTIME 5,000 551 (4,449) 11%
BENEFITS 321,636 192,985 (128,651) 60%
UNIFORMS 450 - (450) 0%
SUPPLIES - - - 0%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 2,500 2,398 (102) 96%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 5,000 2,596 (2,404) 52%
COMMUNICATIONS 6,500 3,157 (3,343) 49%
TRAVEL 620 463 (157) 75%
ADVERTISING - - - 0%
RENTAL/LEASE - - - 0%
REPAIR/MAINT 1,800 895 (905) 50%
MISCELLANEOUS 9,600 5,516 (4,084) 57%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - - 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 6,740 3,934 (2,806) 58%
1,318,706$ 759,721$ (558,985)$ 58%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 200 of 488
24
Page 4 of 4
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
PARKS & RECREATION
SALARIES 1,880,905$ 1,053,853$ (827,052)$ 56%
OVERTIME 5,300 5,325 25 100%
BENEFITS 571,640 345,960 (225,680) 61%
UNIFORMS 6,540 1,934 (4,606) 30%
SUPPLIES 145,026 62,824 (82,202) 43%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 35,012 33,568 (1,444) 96%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 339,666 120,093 (219,573) 35%
COMMUNICATIONS 28,938 11,035 (17,903) 38%
TRAVEL 6,140 899 (5,241) 15%
ADVERTISING 3,852 2,859 (993) 74%
RENTAL/LEASE 50,471 34,942 (15,529) 69%
PUBLIC UTILITY 150,000 90,133 (59,867) 60%
REPAIR/MAINT 52,025 25,973 (26,052) 50%
MISCELLANEOUS 76,370 43,720 (32,650) 57%
INTERGOVTL SVC 70,695 5,000 (65,695) 7%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 17,144 - (17,144) 0%
INTERFUND RENTAL 67,128 39,158 (27,970) 58%
3,506,852$ 1,877,276$ (1,629,576)$ 54%
PUBLIC WORKS
SALARIES 208,578$ 122,149$ (86,429)$ 59%
OVERTIME 200 - (200) 0%
BENEFITS 64,638 37,451 (27,187) 58%
SUPPLIES 5,100 2,776 (2,324) 54%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 200 29 (171) 14%
COMMUNICATIONS 1,100 680 (420) 62%
TRAVEL 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,400 600 (6,800) 8%
PUBLIC UTILITY 2,500 1,378 (1,122) 55%
REPAIR/MAINT 1,000 - (1,000) 0%
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000 522 (478) 52%
INTERFUND RENTAL 1,894 1,106 (788) 58%
294,110$ 166,690$ (127,420)$ 57%
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE
SALARIES 592,852$ 353,114$ (239,738)$ 60%
OVERTIME 8,500 1,314 (7,186) 15%
BENEFITS 245,736 142,592 (103,144) 58%
UNIFORMS 3,000 1,274 (1,726) 42%
SUPPLIES 75,000 41,221 (33,779) 55%
FUEL CONSUMED 700 - (700) 0%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 8,000 1,401 (6,599) 18%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - - - 0%
TRAVEL - 35 35 0%
COMMUNICATIONS 14,000 7,647 (6,353) 55%
PUBLIC UTILITY 302,000 160,558 (141,442) 53%
REPAIR/MAINT 75,000 33,950 (41,050) 45%
MISCELLANEOUS 2,100 2,303 203 110%
INTERFUND RENTAL 24,660 14,385 (10,275) 58%
1,351,548$ 759,794$ (591,754)$ 56%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 33,266,328$ 18,712,395$ (14,553,933)$ 56%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - GENERAL FUND - BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 201 of 488
25
Page 1 of 2
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
STORM DRAINAGE
SALARIES 477,207$ 262,889$ (214,318)$ 55%
OVERTIME 6,000 4,216 (1,784) 70%
BENEFITS 195,826 108,282 (87,544) 55%
UNIFORMS 6,500 3,875 (2,625) 60%
SUPPLIES 58,005 26,142 (31,863) 45%
MINOR EQUIPMENT 4,000 - (4,000) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 18,836 4,864 (13,972) 26%
COMMUNICATIONS 3,200 791 (2,409) 25%
TRAVEL 4,300 - (4,300) 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 7,500 747 (6,753) 10%
INSURANCE 9,302 8,889 (413) 96%
UTILITIES 10,000 5,235 (4,765) 52%
REPAIR/MAINT 12,860 5,102 (7,758) 40%
MISCELLANEOUS 78,500 60,401 (18,099) 77%
INTERGOVT SERVICE 40,000 38,045 (1,955) 95%
STORMWATER TAX 254,061 151,809 (102,252) 60%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 412)200,000 - (200,000) 0%
LAND - - - 0%
BUILDINGS - - - 0%
MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT - - - 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 108,298 - (108,298) 0%
REVENUE BOND 68,724 - (68,724) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOAN 32,063 32,063 (1) 100%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 183,267 88,129 (95,138) 48%
DEBT ISSUE COSTS - - - 0%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 78 78 0%
INTERFUND SERVICES 228,092 125,659 (102,433) 55%
INTERFUND RENTAL 167,112 97,482 (69,630) 58%
2,174,153$ 1,024,697$ (1,149,456)$ 47%
WATER
SALARIES 715,880$ 388,688$ (327,192)$ 54%
OVERTIME 24,180 11,415 (12,765) 47%
BENEFITS 267,990 169,483 (98,507) 63%
UNIFORMS 6,800 2,366 (4,434) 35%
SUPPLIES 143,505 91,662 (51,843) 64%
WATER PURCHASED FOR RESALE 1,410,000 621,492 (788,508) 44%
SUPPLIES FOR INVENTORY/RESALE 140,000 55,868 (84,132) 40%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 10,000 - (10,000) 0%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 77,136 12,738 (64,398) 17%
COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 16,365 (13,635) 55%
TRAVEL 3,400 - (3,400) 0%
ADVERTISING 560 - (560) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,500 4,023 2,523 268%
INSURANCE 84,030 70,440 (13,590) 84%
PUBLIC UTILITY 28,000 21,243 (6,757) 76%
REPAIR/MAINT 24,160 7,068 (17,092) 29%
RCP - MISCELLANEOUS 301,630 173,258 (128,372) 57%
INTERGOVTL SVC 30,000 18,366 (11,634) 61%
WATER TAX 824,935 467,026 (357,909) 57%
INTERFUND TRANSFER-OUT (to 412)200,000 - (200,000) 0%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 1,980 - (1,980) 0%
REVENUE BOND 181,627 - (181,627) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 44,270 45,839 1,569 104%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 260,432 121,818 (138,614) 47%
AMORTIZED DEBT ISSUE COSTS 16,553 1,379 (15,174) 8%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 163 163 0%
INTERFUND SVC 224,970 126,298 (98,673) 56%
INTERFUND RENTAL 104,486 60,949 (43,537) 58%
5,158,024$ 2,487,947$ (2,670,077)$ 48%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 202 of 488
26
Page 2 of 2
Title
2012 Adopted
Budget
7/31/2012
Expenditures Variance % Used
SEWER
SALARIES 434,516$ 259,951$ (174,566)$ 60%
OVERTIME 17,000 12,891 (4,109) 76%
BENEFITS 206,345 123,686 (82,659) 60%
UNIFORMS 5,100 3,014 (2,086) 59%
SUPPLIES 61,005 25,363 (35,642) 42%
SEWER INVENTORY 3,000 - (3,000) 0%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 6,000 1,511 (4,489) 25%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 53,836 5,818 (48,018) 11%
COMMUNICATIONS 30,000 14,280 (15,720) 48%
TRAVEL 2,400 - (2,400) 0%
ADVERTISING 500 - (500) 0%
RENTAL/LEASE 1,800 2,172 372 121%
INSURANCE 104,574 94,658 (9,916) 91%
PUBLIC UTILITY 533,813 178,522 (355,291) 33%
REPAIR/MAINT 16,860 7,076 (9,784) 42%
MISCELLANEOUS 130,000 84,756 (45,244) 65%
INTERGOVTL SVS 393,900 25,419 (368,481) 6%
SEWER UTILITY TAX 470,000 276,020 (193,980) 59%
INTERFUND TRANSFER (to 412, 414)1,452,811 70,205 (1,382,606) 5%
GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 1,584 - (1,584) 0%
REVENUE BONDS 106,475 - (106,475) 0%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOANS 104,065 104,065 (0) 100%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 50,044 26,683 (23,361) 53%
AMORTIZED DEBT ISSUE COSTS 16,551 1,379 (15,172) 8%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 28 28 0%
INTERFUND SVC 176,571 94,838 (81,733) 54%
INTERFUND RENTAL 128,244 74,809 (53,435) 58%
INTERFUND REPAIR/MAINT - - - 0%
4,506,994$ 1,487,144$ (3,019,850)$ 33%
TREATMENT PLANT
SALARIES 1,163,520$ 650,804$ (512,716)$ 56%
OVERTIME 70,000 42,731 (27,269) 61%
BENEFITS 443,546 254,927 (188,619) 57%
UNIFORMS 10,250 5,408 (4,842) 53%
SUPPLIES 412,500 213,428 (199,072) 52%
FUEL CONSUMED 150,723 99,710 (51,013) 66%
SMALL EQUIPMENT 5,500 348 (5,152) 6%
PROFESSIONAL SVC 79,000 68,727 (10,273) 87%
COMMUNICATIONS 9,000 5,442 (3,558) 60%
TRAVEL 8,500 158 (8,342) 2%
ADVERTISING 2,000 1,132 (868) 57%
RENTAL/LEASE 5,500 1,615 (3,885) 29%
INSURANCE 90,305 68,242 (22,063) 76%
UTILITIES 428,040 253,119 (174,921) 59%
REPAIR/MAINT 78,050 25,586 (52,464) 33%
MISCELLANEOUS 82,750 41,378 (41,372) 50%
INTERGOVTL SVS 204,000 36,608 (167,392) 18%
FISCAL AGENT FEES - 4 4 0%
REVENUE BOND 88,673 - (88,673) 0%
INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT 3,244 1,492 (1,752) 46%
INTERFUND SVC 188,821 104,061 (84,760) 55%
INTERFUND RENTAL 7,308 4,263 (3,045) 58%
3,531,230$ 1,879,185$ (1,652,045)$ 53%
Total Combined Utility Fund Expenditures 15,370,401$ 6,878,973$ (8,491,428)$ 45%
CITY OF EDMONDS
EXPENDITURES - COMBINED UTILITY- BY DEPARTMENT IN DETAIL
Packet Page 203 of 488
27
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 1,254,252$ 1,254,252$ 1,608,118$ 28.21%
February 3,063,163 1,808,911 3,432,053 12.04%
March 5,168,945 2,105,781 5,372,339 3.93%
April 7,722,732 2,553,787 8,516,228 10.27%
May 15,170,920 7,448,188 15,369,907 1.31%
June 16,856,021 1,685,100 17,064,191 1.23%
July 18,803,696 1,947,675 18,775,883 -0.15%
August 20,454,375 1,650,679 20,424,120 -0.15%
September 21,996,040 1,541,665 21,963,505 -0.15%
October 24,533,766 2,537,726 24,497,478 -0.15%
November 31,335,142 6,801,376 31,288,794 -0.15%
December 33,017,174 1,682,032 32,968,338 -0.15%
Real Estate Excise Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 50,516$ 50,516$ 55,795$ 10.45%
February 80,158 29,643 119,438 49.00%
March 117,689 37,531 145,824 23.91%
April 170,233 52,544 199,122 16.97%
May 219,071 48,838 255,250 16.51%
June 275,073 56,002 318,412 15.76%
July 330,084 55,011 384,310 16.43%
August 390,495 60,410 454,644 16.43%
September 447,318 56,823 520,802 16.43%
October 504,597 57,280 587,491 16.43%
November 548,998 44,400 639,185 16.43%
December 590,000 41,002 686,923 16.43%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-General Fund
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Real Estate Excise Tax
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Real Estate Excise Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 204 of 488
28
Sales and Use Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 375,013$ 375,013$ 396,472$ 5.72%
February 850,350 475,338 880,438 3.54%
March 1,188,451 338,101 1,236,580 4.05%
April 1,538,704 350,253 1,614,832 4.95%
May 1,953,189 414,485 2,037,398 4.31%
June 2,321,894 368,705 2,436,804 4.95%
July 2,693,818 371,925 2,837,791 5.34%
August 3,130,679 436,861 3,298,000 5.34%
September 3,516,951 386,272 3,704,917 5.34%
October 3,912,817 395,866 4,121,940 5.34%
November 4,351,601 438,784 4,584,175 5.34%
December 4,724,183 372,582 4,976,670 5.34%
Gas Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 123,772$ 123,772$ 109,321$ -11.68%
February 253,656 129,883 232,788 -8.23%
March 371,883 118,227 329,885 -11.29%
April 470,918 99,035 433,268 -8.00%
May 554,498 83,580 502,369 -9.40%
June 617,198 62,700 552,855 -10.42%
July 663,083 45,884 595,099 -10.25%
August 695,629 32,546 624,308 -10.25%
September 725,807 30,179 651,393 -10.25%
October 757,941 32,134 680,232 -10.25%
November 812,573 54,632 729,263 -10.25%
December 892,381 79,808 800,888 -10.25%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Sales and Use Tax
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Gas Utility Tax
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
5,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Sales and Use Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Gas Utility Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 205 of 488
29
Telephone Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 86,875$ 86,875$ 129,337$ 48.88%
February 208,469 121,594 222,717 6.83%
March 342,214 133,745 353,214 3.21%
April 435,440 93,226 485,917 11.59%
May 553,336 117,896 672,856 21.60%
June 648,289 94,953 792,936 22.31%
July 776,209 127,920 918,807 18.37%
August 899,335 123,126 1,064,552 18.37%
September 992,632 93,297 1,174,989 18.37%
October 1,142,349 149,717 1,352,211 18.37%
November 1,227,014 84,665 1,452,430 18.37%
December 1,390,242 163,228 1,645,644 18.37%
Electric Utility Tax
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 151,744$ 151,744$ 159,973$ 5.42%
February 319,668 167,924 322,487 0.88%
March 474,035 154,367 489,585 3.28%
April 631,016 156,981 638,942 1.26%
May 768,814 137,798 783,961 1.97%
June 881,589 112,775 892,229 1.21%
July 988,356 106,767 1,002,829 1.46%
August 1,080,682 92,325 1,096,507 1.46%
September 1,179,059 98,377 1,196,324 1.46%
October 1,264,304 85,245 1,282,817 1.46%
November 1,371,246 106,942 1,391,325 1.46%
December 1,473,880 102,634 1,495,462 1.46%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Telephone Utility Tax
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Revenue Summary-Electric Utility Tax
-
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
1,500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Telephone Utility Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Electric Utility Tax
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 206 of 488
30
General Fund
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 3,440,395$ 3,440,395$ 2,080,142$ -39.54%
February 5,703,503 2,263,108 5,514,121 -3.32%
March 8,127,471 2,423,968 7,666,998 -5.67%
April 11,052,112 2,924,641 10,886,288 -1.50%
May 13,142,760 2,090,649 12,749,656 -2.99%
June 16,357,661 3,214,901 16,874,568 3.16%
July 19,279,887 2,922,226 18,712,395 -2.94%
August 21,498,760 2,218,873 20,865,957 -2.94%
September 24,465,533 2,966,773 23,745,404 -2.94%
October 26,599,165 2,133,632 25,816,234 -2.94%
November 29,101,405 2,502,240 28,244,822 -2.94%
December 33,266,328 4,164,923 32,287,153 -2.94%
Non-Departmental
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 2,047,429$ 2,047,429$ 527,429$ -74.24%
February 2,299,635 252,206 2,317,066 0.76%
March 2,873,705 574,070 2,771,982 -3.54%
April 3,758,093 884,388 4,360,812 16.04%
May 3,985,119 227,026 4,563,592 14.52%
June 5,851,882 1,866,764 6,904,530 17.99%
July 6,655,043 803,160 6,952,172 4.46%
August 6,686,270 31,227 6,984,793 4.46%
September 7,564,704 878,434 7,902,447 4.46%
October 7,683,657 118,953 8,026,711 4.46%
November 7,973,338 289,682 8,329,326 4.46%
December 11,399,538 3,426,200 11,908,495 4.46%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-General Fund
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Non-Departmental
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
11,000,000
12,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Non-Departmental
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
3,000,000
6,000,000
9,000,000
12,000,000
15,000,000
18,000,000
21,000,000
24,000,000
27,000,000
30,000,000
33,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
General Fund
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 207 of 488
31
City Council
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 19,762$ 19,762$ 18,170$ -8.06%
February 41,832 22,070 40,409 -3.40%
March 64,009 22,177 62,230 -2.78%
April 87,150 23,141 77,262 -11.35%
May 105,041 17,891 103,859 -1.13%
June 125,476 20,435 128,336 2.28%
July 149,760 24,284 149,229 -0.35%
August 172,297 22,538 171,686 -0.35%
September 191,074 18,777 190,397 -0.35%
October 219,806 28,731 219,027 -0.35%
November 240,319 20,514 239,468 -0.35%
December 269,812 29,493 268,856 -0.35%
Office of Mayor
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 21,049$ 21,049$ 20,420$ -2.99%
February 42,489$ 21,440$ 40,120$ -5.58%
March 63,849$ 21,360$ 58,059$ -9.07%
April 84,582$ 20,733$ 75,981$ -10.17%
May 105,135$ 20,553$ 94,870$ -9.76%
June 125,384$ 20,249$ 113,618$ -9.38%
July 147,384$ 22,000$ 132,537$ -10.07%
August 168,135$ 20,750$ 151,197$ -10.07%
September 188,520$ 20,385$ 169,529$ -10.07%
October 211,220$ 22,701$ 189,943$ -10.07%
November 232,824$ 21,603$ 209,370$ -10.07%
December 253,184$ 20,360$ 227,679$ -10.07%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Council
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Office of Mayor
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Council
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Office of Mayor
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 208 of 488
32
Human Resources
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 22,108$ 22,108$ 15,139$ -31.52%
February 45,111 23,004 27,098 -39.93%
March 70,318 25,207 56,071 -20.26%
April 94,775 24,457 71,795 -24.25%
May 117,492 22,717 96,673 -17.72%
June 140,095 22,602 114,330 -18.39%
July 162,181 22,086 136,806 -15.65%
August 184,290 22,109 155,456 -15.65%
September 210,792 26,502 177,811 -15.65%
October 231,031 20,240 194,884 -15.65%
November 253,730 22,699 214,031 -15.65%
December 286,799 33,069 241,926 -15.65%
Municipal Court
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 56,684$ 56,684$ 57,047$ 0.64%
February 119,103 62,420 121,057 1.64%
March 185,043 65,939 183,959 -0.59%
April 250,566 65,524 245,061 -2.20%
May 314,083 63,516 302,900 -3.56%
June 381,809 67,726 365,837 -4.18%
July 443,918 62,110 426,424 -3.94%
August 510,114 66,196 490,011 -3.94%
September 573,477 63,363 550,877 -3.94%
October 638,600 65,123 613,433 -3.94%
November 704,816 66,216 677,040 -3.94%
December 779,038 74,222 748,336 -3.94%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Human Resources
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Municipal Court
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Municipal Court
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Human Resources
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 209 of 488
33
Economic Development/Community Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 30,372$ 30,372$ 22,962$ -24.40%
February 73,754 43,382 59,724 -19.02%
March 114,246 40,492 92,678 -18.88%
April 149,965 35,719 132,111 -11.91%
May 187,341 37,376 178,589 -4.67%
June 222,700 35,358 212,324 -4.66%
July 269,288 46,588 249,576 -7.32%
August 301,418 32,130 279,353 -7.32%
September 338,442 37,024 313,667 -7.32%
October 377,797 39,355 350,142 -7.32%
November 410,485 32,688 380,436 -7.32%
December 465,810 55,325 431,712 -7.32%
City Clerk
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 50,352$ 50,352$ 38,375$ -23.79%
February 97,512 47,161 76,194 -21.86%
March 151,688 54,176 119,740 -21.06%
April 200,724 49,035 158,147 -21.21%
May 257,542 56,818 197,762 -23.21%
June 305,615 48,073 246,012 -19.50%
July 357,211 51,597 289,704 -18.90%
August 408,044 50,833 330,930 -18.90%
September 458,834 50,790 372,121 -18.90%
October 503,062 44,229 407,991 -18.90%
November 553,417 50,355 448,830 -18.90%
December 609,840 56,423 494,589 -18.90%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Economic Development/Community Services
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Clerk
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Economic Development/Community Services
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Clerk
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 210 of 488
34
Information Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 46,319$ 46,319$ 45,804$ -1.11%
February 107,710 61,392 94,222 -12.52%
March 152,083 44,373 152,829 0.49%
April 201,916 49,832 200,427 -0.74%
May 248,762 46,847 259,869 4.46%
June 299,283 50,521 316,292 5.68%
July 346,978 47,695 350,853 1.12%
August 409,564 62,586 414,138 1.12%
September 459,114 49,549 464,241 1.12%
October 512,043 52,929 517,761 1.12%
November 561,496 49,453 567,766 1.12%
December 657,841 96,345 665,187 1.12%
Finance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 73,408$ 73,408$ 72,999$ -0.56%
February 136,996 63,588 140,691 2.70%
March 198,836 61,841 200,031 0.60%
April 257,292 58,456 256,611 -0.26%
May 315,263 57,970 312,742 -0.80%
June 381,627 66,364 369,308 -3.23%
July 441,290 59,663 426,648 -3.32%
August 495,104 53,815 478,677 -3.32%
September 555,551 60,447 537,118 -3.32%
October 621,970 66,419 601,334 -3.32%
November 687,980 66,010 665,154 -3.32%
December 754,734 66,754 729,693 -3.32%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Information Services
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Finance
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Information Services
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Finance
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 211 of 488
35
City Attorney
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 41,250$ 41,250$ 32,000$ -22.42%
February 82,500 41,250 72,417 -12.22%
March 123,750 41,250 125,330 1.28%
April 165,000 41,250 170,361 3.25%
May 206,250 41,250 192,778 -6.53%
June 247,500 41,250 234,108 -5.41%
July 288,750 41,250 286,492 -0.78%
August 330,000 41,250 327,419 -0.78%
September 371,250 41,250 368,346 -0.78%
October 412,500 41,250 409,274 -0.78%
November 453,750 41,250 450,201 -0.78%
December 495,000 41,250 491,129 -0.78%
Police
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 755,785$ 755,785$ 649,122$ -14.11%
February 1,479,570 723,784 1,338,091 -9.56%
March 2,251,474 771,905 2,037,833 -9.49%
April 2,965,978 714,504 2,722,871 -8.20%
May 3,657,308 691,330 3,380,135 -7.58%
June 4,467,277 809,969 4,149,872 -7.11%
July 5,203,139 735,862 4,842,275 -6.94%
August 5,920,175 717,036 5,509,581 -6.94%
September 6,700,331 780,155 6,235,629 -6.94%
October 7,422,067 721,736 6,907,309 -6.94%
November 8,377,803 955,736 7,796,760 -6.94%
December 9,165,244 787,441 8,529,588 -6.94%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-City Attorney
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Police
-
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
City Attorney
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Police
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 212 of 488
36
Development Services
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 130,080$ 130,080$ 119,611$ -8.05%
February 260,534 130,454 256,302 -1.62%
March 408,125 147,591 387,213 -5.12%
April 543,094 134,968 516,641 -4.87%
May 680,281 137,188 650,915 -4.32%
June 819,050 138,769 774,015 -5.50%
July 952,449 133,399 906,199 -4.86%
August 1,092,073 139,624 1,039,043 -4.86%
September 1,229,320 137,247 1,169,625 -4.86%
October 1,375,997 146,677 1,309,180 -4.86%
November 1,509,812 133,814 1,436,496 -4.86%
December 1,658,272 148,460 1,577,748 -4.86%
Parks & Recreation
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 225,510$ 225,510$ 221,141$ -1.94%
February 471,071 245,561 441,578 -6.26%
March 736,610 265,539 681,137 -7.53%
April 991,189 254,579 928,272 -6.35%
May 1,256,082 264,893 1,201,609 -4.34%
June 1,582,719 326,637 1,503,266 -5.02%
July 1,980,455 397,735 1,877,276 -5.21%
August 2,384,822 404,367 2,260,577 -5.21%
September 2,699,757 314,936 2,559,105 -5.21%
October 2,946,685 246,927 2,793,167 -5.21%
November 3,185,327 238,643 3,019,377 -5.21%
December 3,506,852 321,525 3,324,151 -5.21%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Development Services
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Parks & Recreation
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Development Services
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Parks & Recreation
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 213 of 488
37
Public Works
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 27,382$ 27,382$ 23,781$ -13.15%
February 50,599 23,217 47,443 -6.24%
March 74,354 23,755 70,857 -4.70%
April 97,129 22,775 95,079 -2.11%
May 119,986 22,856 119,904 -0.07%
June 143,545 23,559 143,089 -0.32%
July 175,267 31,722 166,690 -4.89%
August 198,164 22,897 188,466 -4.89%
September 221,614 23,450 210,768 -4.89%
October 244,229 22,616 232,277 -4.89%
November 267,862 23,633 254,753 -4.89%
December 294,110 26,248 279,717 -4.89%
Facilities Maintenance
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 102,793$ 102,793$ 107,234$ 4.32%
February 220,909 118,116 223,733 1.28%
March 340,858 119,950 337,372 -1.02%
April 481,844 140,985 438,882 -8.92%
May 553,750 71,907 549,148 -0.83%
June 673,162 119,412 646,963 -3.89%
July 779,482 106,320 759,794 -2.53%
August 879,994 100,512 857,767 -2.53%
September 995,315 115,321 970,175 -2.53%
October 1,103,341 108,026 1,075,473 -2.53%
November 1,213,261 109,920 1,182,617 -2.53%
December 1,351,548 138,287 1,317,411 -2.53%
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Public Works
2012
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Facilities Maintenance
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Public Works
Actuals/Trend Budget
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Facilities Maintenance
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 214 of 488
38
Engineering
Cumulative Monthly YTD Variance
Budget Forecast Budget Forecast Actuals %
January 108,801$ 108,801$ 108,908$ 0.10%
February 217,665 108,865 217,975 0.14%
March 326,749 109,084 329,676 0.90%
April 443,098 116,349 435,974 -1.61%
May 551,007 107,909 544,312 -1.22%
June 658,262 107,255 652,666 -0.85%
July 769,311 111,049 759,721 -1.25%
August 879,506 110,195 868,543 -1.25%
September 992,929 113,423 980,552 -1.25%
October 1,104,742 111,813 1,090,970 -1.25%
November 1,212,341 107,599 1,197,228 -1.25%
December 1,318,706 106,365 1,302,268 -1.25%
City of Edmonds, WA
Monthly Expenditure Report-Engineering
2012
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Engineering
Actuals/Trend Budget
Packet Page 215 of 488
AM-5105 8. F.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Sarah Mager
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Addition to Budget Document for 2013 Budget.
Recommendation
N.A. For informational purposes only.
Previous Council Action
N.A.
Narrative
Suggested additions to budget document for 2013 Budget. Committee feedback is being requested on the additions, as well as
any other changes they would like to see.
Attachments
Budget Document Addition
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 09/06/2012 03:13 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/06/2012 03:26 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/06/2012 07:13 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 09:28 AM
Form Started By: Sarah Mager Started On: 09/06/2012 03:04 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/07/2012
Packet Page 216 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
1
City of Edmonds, Washington
2013 Organization Chart
Citizens of Edmonds
Council Members Mayor
(Dave Earling)
Finance and Information
Services
(Shawn Hunstock)
Community
Services/Economic
Development
(Stephen Clifton)
Human Resources
(Carrie Hite, Acting)
Parks & Recreation
(Carrie Hite)
Police Chief
(Al Compaan)
Public Works
(Phil Wiilliams)
Municipal Court
(Douglas Fair)
Packet Page 217 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
2
CITY OFFICIALS
2013 CITY COUNCIL
Council President Strom Peterson
Councilmember Kristiana Johnson
Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
Councilmember Diane Buckshnis
Councilmember Joan Bloom
Councilmember Frank Yamamoto
Councilmember Lora Petso
CITY ADMINISTRATION
Mayor Dave Earling
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite
Public Works Director Phil Williams
Police Chief Al Compaan
Human Resources Director Carrie Hite, Acting
Municipal Court Judge Douglas Fair
2013 BUDGET PREPARED BY:
FINANCE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock
Accountant Deb Sharp
Accountant Sarah Mager
Accounting Technician Lori Cress
Accounting Technician Nori Jacobson
Utility/Accounting Technician Denise Burke
Utility Accounting Technician Sue Schneider
Packet Page 218 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
3
City of Edmonds Background
Edmonds, a vibrant city located just 15 miles north of Seattle and 18 miles south of Everett, is easy to reach by
Amtrak and Sound Transit commuter rail, Community Transit buses, Washington State Ferries, automobiles
and bicycles. Edmonds was a well-established town by the turn of the century and the present urban form
preserves many characteristics of its historic origins. The community’s location along the west-facing slopes of
Puget Sound provides many amenities, including extensive views of the water and Olympic Mountains, access
to four beaches and waterfront parks, and convenient access to a compact, walkable downtown area. The City
prides itself with:
An active arts and cultural community
A strong sense of civic pride widely shared in the community
An active, involved citizenry
Numerous well-kept residential neighborhoods
City of Edmonds Details
A 122-year old community incorporated in 1890 encompassing
an area of 8.9 square miles.
Current population is 39,800
Mayor-Council form of government.
Administered by a full-time Mayor, and a seven-member City
Council. All elected official terms are for a period of four years.
Located 15 miles north of Seattle, and 18 miles south of Everett.
Additional information about the City is included in the
Appendix.
Packet Page 219 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
4
READER’S GUIDE
For the novice, the City’s Annual Budget Document can look formidable. Since budget document users come
with a wide variety of backgrounds, and include City staff, City Councilmembers, citizens, and financial
market experts, the information in the annual budget is designed to provide a lot of different information
about the City to a lot of different users. The information in the budget can be grouped into one of four main
areas to facilitate an understanding of what the City plans to do with its resources for the next fiscal year.
1. A Policy Document: The City’s annual budget addresses two primary kinds of policies: policies that are
under development (usually stated as goals to be accomplished) that may change how the City operates in the
future, and policies that are already in place. The Mayor’s Budget Message, found at the beginning of the
document, provides the background, sets the stage for the specific work plan that will be accomplished during
the coming budget period, and identifies the policy issues that are important in the community as identified by
the City Council. New policy issues that have a fiscal impact are highlighted in this message. All of these
policy issues have the potential to impact fees, taxes, and/or the allocation of existing staff or financial
resources.
2. A Communications Device: The City’s annual budget provides information about the priorities the City
Council has set to be accomplished during the next fiscal year, but it also includes information about the day-
to-day activities the City performs. The Budget Message provides a concise discussion of the major priorities of
the City; the financial and department information included in the detailed budget section of this document
provides additional information about the budget for the major priorities, but also provides a considerable
amount of information about the day-to-day activities, and the resources required to meet service demands.
Performance measures are included in the detailed budget section for each fund to provide information on
how efficient and effective the City is with resources in pursuit of meeting Council goals and management
objectives.
3. A Financial Plan: The budget document is foremost a financial plan, providing a numerical road map that
matches resources available with the spending priorities defined by the Mayor and City Council. Each
operational area of the budget is comprised of specific departments and is summarized by the budget
organization charts.
a. The Budget by Department: The department designation is used to group a set of like activities to
enhance the opportunities for operational efficiencies, or to take advantage of professional
qualifications of staff to work on multiple types of projects. A department can operate in just one fund,
like the Finance Department operating in the General Fund. In this case, the department has a fairly
singular focus in its work, with specialized training that does not cross into other work areas. A
department can also operate in more than one fund, like the Public Works Department that operates in
multiple funds, including the General Fund, Water, Sewer, Surface Water utility funds, and various
Capital Project Funds. In this case the department has a more complex set of work tasks, but the same
set of staff skills can be used in a number of areas. Each department also has divisions and within each
division there can be anywhere from one to several programs. The program level is used to either
manage specific work, allow the ability to cost specific services for which customers are charged a fee
for service, or report to the City Council, citizens, or outside agencies.
Packet Page 220 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
5
b. The Budget by Fund: Summaries of the City’s adopted budget by fund can be found at the beginning
of this document. The City uses a fund structure as the primary method of accounting for financial
operations. A fund can be thought of as a “business”, with all revenues in the fund specifically
associated with the kinds of expenditures in the fund. In most cases, there is a legal restriction on the
use of the revenue in a fund. This means that Water Fund revenues cannot be used to pay for street
repair since the Water Fund revenue is restricted in its use to services necessary to provide water to all
properties in Edmonds not served by other providers. Funds are usually named for their primary
activity (i.e., Street Fund accounts for revenue and expenditures associated with improvements in the
City’s major arterial street infrastructure). The General Fund is used as a catch-all fund, and is
specifically defined as the fund to use when there is no reason to use another fund.
c. The Budget by Category: The City’s budget also includes different categories of revenues and
expenditures which overlay the budget by fund and department. Comparing the budget by categories
can help a reader understand how major sources of revenue or major costs are treated across the
organization. Operating revenues include categories such as: Sales Taxes, Property Taxes, Licenses and
Permits, Charges for Services, Intergovernmental Revenues, Fines and Forfeitures, and Miscellaneous
revenues. Non-Operating Revenue categories include Transfers, Issuance of Long Term Debt or Sale of
Capital Assets. Operating expenditure categories include: Personnel Services (includes salaries and
wages, plus all associated benefits), Professional Services, Materials and Supplies, Transfers, Debt
Service and Capital Outlay. Non-operating expenditure categories include Contingencies and Reserves
which are appropriated but not used unless authorized by the City Council.
4. An Operations Guide: The City’s operations are defined through the budget document in each
department’s discussions. At the beginning of every department section is a page showing the organizational
structure within that department. The following page shows a summary of the resource allocations for that
department and provides a brief summary of how those funds are used. The Mayor’s Budget Message and
budget summary also serve to drive operations by tying services and initiatives back to citizen needs and
Council goals. The budget document as a whole is also used by staff operationally as both a guide for the work
plan to be accomplished and as a reference tool, serving as a comprehensive source of historical information
and projections based on current assumptions. During the course of the fiscal year, each department manages
and monitors its budget, reporting as needed to the Mayor and/or Finance Director on any unusual
occurrences. The Finance Department has the overall responsibility to develop and monitor the budget. The
Finance Department’s staff prepares monthly budget to actual reports in addition to the quarterly financial
status reports which are designed as interim snapshots of the City’s financial projections and are included in
Council meeting packets. The Finance Department also prepares the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) each year.
Packet Page 221 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
6
ANNUAL BUDGET PROCESS
The City of Edmonds budget procedures are mandated by RCW 35A.33. The steps in the budget process are as
follows:
1. Prior to November 1, the Mayor submits a proposed budget to the City Council. This budget is based
on priorities established by the Council and estimates provided by the City departments during the
preceding months, and balanced with revenue estimates made by the Mayor.
2. The City Council conducts public hearings on the proposed budget in October and November.
3. The Council makes its adjustments to the proposed budget and adopts by ordinance a final balanced
budget no later than December 31.
4. The final operating budget as adopted is published and distributed within the first month of the
following year. Copies of the budget are made available to the public.
Every fiscal year the budget process begins with the review of the City’s adopted financial policies followed by
the preparation of a five-year general fund forecast. This document is developed prior to the annual budget so
that annual appropriations can be viewed in the context of the city’s long term direction and resource
capability. The annual budget document implements the projects and priorities identified in the five-year
general fund forecast and capital improvement program. It outlines the manner in which financial resources
will be utilized during the budget period. The course the City is taking can be changed through the allocation
of resources. The City Council, Mayor, Department Directors, City staff and residents all participate in the
budget process.
The City of Edmonds budget process is designed to provide the essential structure for the financial planning,
control and evaluation process of government. It presents a forecast of expected resources and the purposeful
distribution of those resources. Once adopted, the budget is a formal expression of public policy on the City’s
objectives and priorities, and on how resources will be provided to meet those objectives.
City staff present the adopted financial policies to the Council each year. The Council considers changes to
these policies and then adopts the policies with any revisions. City staff then prepares the five-year general
fund forecast and presents it to the Council each year in the fall and it is adopted prior to the end of the year.
City staff then prepares the final estimates of revenues, expenditures and capital improvement changes. This
Preliminary Budget is presented to the Council in early October. Public hearings and Council discussions are
held and the final budget is adopted in early December.
The adopted budget takes effect on January 1st. Throughout the year, expenditures are monitored to ensure
that funds are used in an approved manner. A few times during the budget period, the budget may be
changed (amended) by Council action in an open public meeting to respond to additional City activities
throughout the course of the budget period.
Packet Page 222 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
7
BUDGET PROCEDURES AND AMENDMENT PROCESS
2013 Budget Calendar
Budget Process Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012
Mayor, Department Heads and Council meet with various
community groups to inform them of the budget situation (1)
Council budget workshops conducted on different specific
budget topics (3)
Finance department prepares preliminary revenue forecasts.
Guest editorials in various local media regarding the City's
budget situation and various alternatives to address the issue
(2)
Department budgets are reviewed by Council Committees.
Public budget hearing #2. (RCW 35A.33.070)
Council/Mayor Work Session on budget recommendations.
Property tax levy is set by ordinance and transmitted to
County. (RCW 84.52.020)
Budget and CFP are adopted by ordinance. (RCW
35A.33.075)
Notice of public budget hearing #1 is published.
Revenue forecast is finalized (RCW 35A.33.030)
Hold public budget hearing #1 with revenue presentation.
(RCW 35A.33.055)
Preliminary budget is filed with the City Clerk, distributed to
City Council and made available to the public. (RCW
35A.33.052)
Public notice of preliminary budget filing and of public
hearing #2 is published.(RCW 35A.33.060)
on
333March, April, May & June
on
333March, April, May & June
on
333April, May & June
8/10
8/21, 8/28 &
9/5
9/14
9/24
10/1
10/22
10/22
& 29
11/6
11/13
& 20
11/27
12/4
Packet Page 223 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
8
BUDGET DEFINITIONS
The City Council authorizes transfers within funds and must approve by ordinance any amendments that
increase the total for the fund. Budget amounts presented in the basic financial statements include both the
original amounts and the final amended budget as approved by the City Council.
Expenditure categories are identified in the following:
General Government Services – includes administration, finance, municipal court, attorney, and city clerk
activities.
Public Safety – includes all police activities.
Utilities and Environment – includes expenditures for the public works activities not chargeable to the enterprise
funds.
Transportation – includes all street and arterial street maintenance and construction.
Economic Environment – reflects the planning and building inspection activities.
Culture and Recreation – includes the parks and recreation activities.
Budget and Accounting System
The official budget is maintained, both before and after adoption, on the City’s financial management and
accounting system at a very detailed line item level. Computerized reports may be generated at any time and
at various levels of detail. Departments can also access these budgets at any time on a read-only inquiry basis
to compare actual revenue and expenditures to their budgets. This computerized budget becomes the
accounting system that controls expenditures after adoption of the final budget.
Preliminary Budget
The Preliminary Budget is prepared, pursuant to State law, as the Mayor’s budget recommendations to the
City Council. This public document contains a summary of information at the fund level, and for the General
Fund at the department level. It focuses on key policy issues, while still providing a comprehensive overview
of the complete budget.
Budget Ordinance
The actual appropriations implementing the budget are contained in the budget ordinance adopted by the City
Council.
Final Budget
The Final Budget is issued as a formal published document as modified by the City Council. It is this
document which is formally filed as the Final Budget.
Programs
While the budget proposals of the administration are developed in concert with the fiscal proposals in the
budget, the budget documents themselves only summarize the individual objectives and performance
measures. Generally, these programs are not finalized until the budget is in final form since the budget will
determine the actual activities undertaken by each department.
Components of the Budget
The budget consists of two parts: operating budget and capital budget.
Packet Page 224 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
9
Operating Budget
The operating budget consists of departmental budget proposals, which would be sufficient to maintain the
objectives set by the departments to meet Council goals.
Capital Budget
The capital budget authorizes and provides the basis of control of expenditures for the acquisition of
significant city assets and construction of capital facilities.
Separation of the budget into these two components separates key policy issues in order to facilitate their
consideration. The policy officials can examine the level at which existing programs should be funded, what
program improvements should be made and at what level of funding.
Capital Planning
The City’s Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital projects
for at least the next six years which support the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of projects
that need to be expanded or will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City’s projected
population growth in accordance with the Growth Management Act. Thus, capital projects that preserve
existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These Preservation projects are identified within the six-
year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) along with Capital facility plan projects which encompass the
projected expenditure needs for all city Capital related projects.
Implementation, Monitoring and Amendment
The financial aspects of the budget are monitored in periodic reports issued by the Finance Department
comparing actual expenditures and revenues with the budget. In these reports, financial data can be presented
at a higher level of detail than the final budget. These reports include an analysis of the City’s financial
condition.
From time to time it becomes necessary to modify the adopted budget. The procedure for amending the
budget depends upon the type of change that is needed. One type of change does not affect the “bottom line”
total for a department or a fund. These changes, mainly transfers from one line-item to another within a
department’s operating budget or changes between divisions within a department is presented by
administration to City Council for their consideration and approval.
The second type of budget amendment brings about a change in the total appropriation for a department or
fund. Examples of these changes include but are not limited to the following: the acceptance of additional
grant money, an adjustment to reflect increased revenues such as tax receipts, the appropriation of additional
funding if expenditures are projected to exceed budgeted amounts, and re-appropriation of monies from one
fund to another when deemed necessary. These changes require council approval in the form of an ordinance.
The status of the budget is analyzed periodically through each year to identify any needed adjustments. All
requests for amendments are first filed with the Finance Department.
Basis of Budgeting
All governmental fund type budgets are prepared on the modified accrual basis of accounting in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The budget for proprietary funds is prepared on an
accrual basis, also in accordance with GAAP. The legal level of budgetary control where expenditures cannot
exceed appropriations is at the individual fund level. Revisions that alter the total expenditures of any fund
must be approved by the City Council and adopted by ordinance. All appropriations lapse at the end of each
year.
Packet Page 225 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
10
FUND DEFINITIONS
The following are the fund types budgeted by the City and other fund grouping definitions:
Governmental Fund Types
General Fund
The General Fund supports the general operations of the City government. These include administration, the
legislative function, legal services, public safety, planning and community development, enforcement of local
codes, parks, recreation, and cultural activities. Taxes are the principal source of revenue for the General
Fund: property tax, sales tax, utility tax, and gambling tax. Other important sources are shared revenue from
other governments, licenses and permits, charges for service, and fines and forfeitures. The General Fund
accounts for all City resources except those for which a specific fund has been created.
Special Revenue Funds
Special Revenue funds are used to account for revenues which are legally or administratively restricted for
special purposes. These funds receive revenue from a variety of sources, including Federal and State grants,
taxes, and service fees. These revenues are dedicated to carrying out the purposes of the individual special
revenue fund. There Nineteen Special Revenue funds: Drug Enforcement, Street, Street Construction, Municipal
Arts Acquisition, Memorial Tree, Hotel/Motel Tax, Employee Parking Permit Fund, Youth Scholarship, Tourism
Promotional Arts, Real Estate Excise Tax 2, Real Estate Excise Tax 1, Gifts Catalog, Special Projects, Cemetery
Maintenance/Improvement, Parks Construction, Parks Trust, Cemetery Maintenance Trust, Sister City Commission,
and Transportation Benefit District.
Debt Service Fund
Debt service funds account for payment of principal and interest on general obligation and special assessment
long-term debt. The City of Edmonds has one outstanding general obligation issue accounted for through a
debt service fund, and two special assessment related funds.
Capital Project Funds
These funds are used to account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition of capital facilities
including those financed by special assessment, major improvements and construction. Revenues for capital
funds consist of contributions from operating funds and bond proceeds. These revenues are usually dedicated
to capital purposes and are not available to support operating costs.
Proprietary Fund Types
Enterprise Funds – Enterprise Funds are used to account for operations that are financed and operated in a
manner similar to business enterprises. They are established as fully self-supporting operations with revenues
provided primarily from fees, charges, or contracts for services. The City maintains three Enterprise Funds to
account for the operations of Water, Sewer, and Storm Water.
Internal Service Funds – Internal Service Funds are used to account for operations similar to those accounted
for in Enterprise Funds, but these funds provide goods or services to other departments on a cost
reimbursement basis. The City maintains one Internal Service fund to account for equipment rental.
Fiduciary Funds - Fiduciary, or Trust Funds, are used to account for assets held by the City in a trustee
capacity and cannot be used to support the City’s own programs. These include pension trust, investment
trust, private-purpose trust, and agency funds. The City’s pension trust fund is the Firemen’s Pension Fund
Packet Page 226 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
11
and is budgeted on the accrual basis of accounting where revenues are recognized when earned and expenses
are recorded when incurred.
Chapter 35A.33 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) mandates the City’s budget procedures. The
budget, as adopted annually by the City Council, constitutes the legal authority for expenditures. The City’s
budget is adopted at the fund level and expenditures may not legally exceed appropriations at that level of
detail. Appropriation authority for all funds, except capital project funds, lapse at year-end and are prepared
on a modified accrual basis. Appropriations on budgets for capital project funds are on a life-to-date basis,
and the appropriations do not lapse at year-end, but continue until completion of the project.
FINANCIAL POLICIES
The City’s Financial Policies are intended to serve as a Council-approved set of values and expectations for
Council Members, City staff, citizens and other interested parties who may do business with the City. The use
of the term “City” refers to all City officials and staff who are responsible for the activities to carry out these
policies. The policies describe expectations for financial planning, budgeting, accounting, reporting and other
management practices. They have been prepared to assure prudent financial management and responsible
stewardship of the City’s financial and physical resources.
DEBT POLICIES
The Debt Policies can be segregated into three areas: Legal Debt limits, Practical or Fiscal limits and General
Debt policies.
A. Legal Debt Limit – The Revised Code of Washington (RCW 39.36) establishes the legal debt
limits for cities. Specifically, this RCW provides that debt cannot be incurred in excess of the
following percentages of the value of the taxable property of the City: 1.5% without a vote of
the people; 2.5% with a vote of the people; 5.0% with a vote of the people, provided the
indebtedness in excess of 2.5% is for utilities; and 7.5% with a vote of the people, provided the
indebtedness in excess of 5.0% is for parks or open space development.
Prior to issuing any long-term bonds, the Administration must provide an impact
analysis over the life of the new bonds. Bond issues must be approved by the City
Council.
B. Practical or Fiscal Limitations – More important than the legal limitations is the practical or
fiscal limitations, i.e. ability to repay borrowed funds.
Long-term debt cannot be issued prior to reviewing the impact on the Five Year
Planning Model and its policy guidelines. The impact of other potential bond issues
shall be considered.
Packet Page 227 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
12
C. General Debt Policies
The City will be cognizant of the criteria used by rating agencies to maintain the highest
possible bond rating.
Assessment Debt (LID) shall be considered as an alternative to General Debt.
Debt issuance will conform to IRS regulations and avoid arbitrage consequences.
FINANCIAL PLANNING MODEL POLICIES
The Five-Year Financial Forecast is the primary financial policy document. It represents the culmination of all
financial policies.
Revenues
Revenues will be estimated on a conservative basis. Increases greater than projected
inflation in the five-year financial projection; will require additional documentation.
Major revenue sources in the five-year financial projection; will require explanation.
Operations & Maintenance Expenditures
Expenditures for the General Fund operations will only include basic inflationary
increases at the beginning of the budget preparation process. Proposed increases in
programs or personnel will require a Decision Package and Council approval before
being added to the operations & maintenance expenditures estimate.
CAPITAL ASSET POLICIES
Capital Assets – General capital assets are those assets not specifically related to activities reported
in the proprietary funds. The capital assets purchased or constructed by a governmental fund are
recorded as expenditures in the fund at the time the related purchases are made; however, the
associated capital assets are reported in the governmental activities column of the government-
wide statement of net assets while not reported in the fund balance sheets.
The City classifies assets with an estimated useful life in excess of one year as capital assets.
Capital assets include land, buildings, improvements, machinery, equipment, and infrastructure.
Land is capitalized at cost with no minimum threshold. Buildings, improvements, and machinery
and equipment are capitalized when cost meets or exceeds $5,000. Public domain (infrastructure)
assets consist of certain improvements other than buildings, including utility systems, streets,
traffic controls, and overlays are capitalized when cost equals or exceeds $50,000.
Packet Page 228 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
13
Costs of normal maintenance and repair for general assets are not capitalized. However, any
improvement that increases an asset’s value, capacity or materially extends its life is added to that
asset’s capitalized costs.
Equipment items acquired through capital lease agreements and land purchased through
conditional sales contracts are reported as general capital assets in the government-wide statement
of net assets. In the governmental fund financial statements, lease and contract payments are
reported as expenditures.
All project costs are included in construction in progress in the government-wide statement of net
assets. At completion, capital costs are reclassified to property plant and equipment. In the
governmental fund financial statements, projects are reported as expenditures.
Capital assets acquired or constructed by the proprietary funds are capitalized in those funds at
historical cost. Contributed assets are recorded at their estimated fair values as of the date
acquired. The estimated value of donated assets is recorded as contributed capital by the fund
which receives them.
Land and construction in progress are not depreciated. Buildings, equipment, non-building
improvements and intangible assets are depreciated using the straight line method, using varying
estimated service lines for individual assets and asset classifications depending on particular
characteristics of an asset and factors surrounding its anticipated use. Depreciation is reported as
part of the related program expense column on government-wide statement of activities and as a
fund expense in the proprietary funds, while not reported in the fund statements of governmental
funds. Capital assets are reported net of accumulated depreciation on the government-wide
statement of net assets and in the proprietary fund statement of net assets, while not reported in
the governmental fund balance sheets.
The average service lives used to calculate depreciation for specific categories of assets are
summarized below:
Asset Type Est. Service Life (Yrs)
Buildings 30-50
Improvements other than Buildings 25-60
Infrastructure 20-100
Machinery and Equipment 2-20
Intangible Assets 20-30
Packet Page 229 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
14
OTHER GENERAL FINANCIAL POLICIES
The City’s various user charges and fees will be reviewed at least every three years for proposed
adjustments based on services provided and comparisons with other jurisdictions.
The Finance Director will provide a financial status update at least quarterly.
Budget amendments during the year will be approved by budget motion until the end of the budget year,
when a formal comprehensive budget amendment is submitted.
Interfund loans will be permissible if necessary. Interest rates will be computed based on the annual
average of the State Investment Pool earnings rate.
The City shall, whenever practical and advantageous, take advantage of grants, loans, or other external
financing sources. With the exception of capital improvement program grants requiring a local match,
staff shall report to and seek the approval of the City Council before acceptance of the Grant.
Contingency Reserve Fund Policy: The General Fund is used to account for all general revenues of the City
not specifically levied or collected for other City funds, and for expenditures related to providing general
services by the City. For the purpose of this policy and as it applies to the General Fund only, the City will
establish a Contingency Reserve Fund with a minimum balance of 8% of annual General Fund revenues.
At no time, however, shall the balance in the Contingency Reserve Fund fall below 8% unless specifically
waived by the City Council because of an unforeseen emergency. The City shall maintain a targeted
balance of 16% of annual General Fund revenues.
Risk Management Reserve Fund Policy: The City shall maintain a Risk Management Reserve Fund
dedicated to mitigation of the risk of loss arising from potential claims and lawsuits against the City for
general liability purposes as well as claims resulting from natural disasters such as earthquakes. Amounts
not needed for current or estimated future claims will be made available along with the Contingency
Reserve Fund for unanticipated expenditures or significant declines in actual revenue versus budgeted
revenue. The Risk Management Reserve Fund shall be set at 2% of annual General Fund revenues. The
City shall reach the target of 2% no later than fiscal year 2014.
Investment Policy: It is the policy of the City of Edmonds to invest public funds in a manner which will
provide maximum security with the highest investment return while meeting the daily cash flow demands
of the City of Edmonds and conforming to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public
funds.
Penalty Adjustment on Utility Billing Accounts: If a customer has been assessed a 10% penalty due to
non-payment of a utility bill, the City may allow one penalty adjustment every three years. In order to
qualify for a penalty adjustment, the account must not be past due by more than the amount of current
charges on a single billing statement. Additionally, an adjustment must be requested 45 days from the
date the penalty was assessed; in order for it to be considered.
Leak Adjustment Policy: Upon certain qualifications detailed in the Leak Adjustment Policy, a leak
adjustment may be granted once every three years. Leakage adjustments are not available for leaks
occurring within the residential or commercial structure. Also adjustments are only available in instances
Packet Page 230 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
15
where water consumption is more than 20% greater than the same period in the previous year.
Adjustments are limited to $500 per leak for residential customers and $1,000 for commercial customers.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM POLICIES
1) Utility rates should be structured to ensure adequate infrastructure development and replacement.
2) Late-comer agreements (where appropriate) shall be considered an acceptable means of funding
capital projects, improvements and replacements, in whole or in part.
3) Infrastructure improvements such as water reuse should consider conservation of resources such as
water and electricity.
4) For City-scheduled projects located on residential streets, the City will evaluate for inclusion the
costs of undergrounding the overhead utilities that exist within the right-of-way.
5) Right-of-way agreements for cable and electrical services should be utilized to discourage excessive
wiring throughout the City.
6) Donation of the property needed for rights-of-way and easements shall be pursued.
7) Residential street designs will follow basic designs for arterials, collectors, and local access streets.
Designs to accommodate individual properties shall be avoided.
8) The City strongly encourages design of connecting streets.
9) Residential streets with safety issues, high traffic volumes, high pedestrian activity and poor
roadway conditions will be considered the highest priority projects.
10) A majority of citizens on a street may petition the City to set up a Local Improvement District (LID)
to pay for residential street improvement projects, sidewalks and undergrounding of utilities. The
City will evaluate the possibility of paying for the design, preliminary engineering, construction
engineering, and LID formulation. The residents will pay for undergrounding utilities in the street,
undergrounding from the street to their house, the actual construction costs, and for any
improvements on private property such as rockeries, paved driveways, or roadside plantings.
11) Capital improvements shall be coordinated, whenever feasible, with related improvements of other
jurisdictions.
12) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects shall, whenever possible, take advantage of grants,
loans or other financing external to the City. Staff shall obtain approval from the appropriate
committee before applying for grants, and the Committee Chair shall report for approval the
proposed applications to the full Council. Grant applications shall be made only for projects listed
in the six-year Capital Improvement Program. Staff shall also get approval from the full Council
before accepting grants.
13) Current arterial street improvements determined in the six-year CIP may be funded through a LID
or financing external to the City. The City may participate using operating revenues, grants or
bonds based on health and safety needs or public benefit. The City may participate in the funding
Packet Page 231 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
16
by financing the preliminary engineering design and professional service costs associated with planning
and creating the LID.
14) Street and road improvement projects on slopes will include roadside plantings wherever feasible to
help mitigate the land used for roadway and sidewalk improvements.
15) The first one fourth percent (1/4%) excise tax on real estate sales goes toward special capital/parks
acquisition, and the first $750,000 of the second one fourth percent (1/4%) excise tax on real estate
sales go to parks improvements.
16) Non-transportation capital projects and improvements (i.e. new community center) shall be funded
by operating revenues, grants or bonds as determined in the six-year Financial Planning Model.
17) A dedicated facility replacement fund will be used to help pay for future facilities.
18) Transportation improvements will be coordinated with related improvements such as utility,
landscaping, sidewalks, etc.
19) No capital improvement projects located outside the city limits will be approved without specific
City Council approval.
20) Policies will be reviewed annually and in concert with the adoption of growth management policies
to ensure continuity.
21) Street and road improvement projects shall be evaluated for the inclusion of features that support
the Walk and Roll Plan in order to encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use.
22) Transportation impact fees shall be collected so that “growth may pay for growth” and growth-
caused improvements may be constructed.
Packet Page 232 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
17
FINANCIAL PLAN
Introduction
The National Advisory Council on State and Local Budgeting (NACSLB) endorses the forecasting of revenue
and expenditures in their Recommended Budget Practices. This section of the budget provides a combined
view of both past and anticipated future revenue and expenditures for all funds. A detailed revenue analysis is
presented for each fund type. The plan focuses analysis on revenue sources in order to inform users of this
document on how the City funds services it provides to its citizens. A table, graph and explanation of major
changes is provided for the General Fund, Special Revenue funds, Capital funds, Enterprise funds, Internal
Service funds, and Fiduciary funds. This is followed by a five-year forecast of revenue and expenditures along
with a discussion of the factors that affect the forecast. Long term debt and debt capacity is discussed as well as
the General Fund fiscal capacity. This chapter ends with a discussion of fund balance and working capital
balances.
A budget is a plan that develops and allocates the City’s financial resources to meet community needs in both
the present and future. The development and allocation of these resources is accomplished on the basis of the
foregoing policies, goals and objectives addressing the requirements and needs of the City of Edmonds. While
the other sections of this document will present the budget in detail, this section provides an overview of the
budget as a Financial Plan. As such, this section will focus on City strategies to maintain its financial strength
and the basis for the expectation for future revenues.
A five-year forecast of the City’s revenues and expenditures follows this summary. The purpose of the
forecast is to highlight issues associated with financial policies and budgetary decisions. It is not intended to
be a multi-year budget.
Packet Page 233 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
18
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Actual Actual Actual Amended Outlook Outlook Outlook Outlook
Beginning Fund Balance 5,188,520 6,068,906 6,855,108 7,635,731 7,386,577 6,066,164 4,052,880 1,362,958
REVENUE
Property Tax 13,805,363 13,672,874 13,436,557 13,434,570 13,434,474 13,584,952 13,772,877 13,963,684
Retail Sales Tax 4,425,996 4,468,237 4,690,244 4,724,183 4,818,667 4,915,040 5,013,341 5,113,608
Other Sales & Use Tax 543,242 547,008 520,527 528,142 533,556 539,026 544,554 550,140
Utility Tax 6,064,731 5,984,188 6,232,489 6,350,781 6,414,288 6,478,431 6,543,216 6,608,648
Other Taxes 301,633 303,114 280,161 281,419 286,445 291,565 296,782 302,097
Licenses/Permits/Franchise 1,012,395 1,206,402 1,188,761 1,124,262 1,135,435 1,146,719 1,158,116 1,169,627
Construction Permits 455,306 420,828 477,535 462,000 466,200 470,442 474,726 479,054
Grants 152,752 209,434 99,684 89,269 - - - -
State Revenues 727,487 795,552 714,344 760,276 552,944 553,644 555,459 557,262
Intergov't Service Charges 1,367,262 184,488 221,343 164,108 167,385 170,735 174,160 177,663
Interfund Service Charges 1,319,894 1,284,137 1,398,630 1,582,061 1,589,971 1,597,921 1,605,911 1,613,940
Chgs. for Goods & Services 2,357,564 2,914,196 2,461,239 2,483,041 2,528,870 2,576,239 2,625,167 2,675,673
Fines & Forfeits 674,634 624,447 690,079 619,272 632,990 647,016 661,357 676,019
Misc Revenues 544,823 1,950,788 409,665 411,134 412,911 422,860 433,058 443,511
Total Revenue 33,753,081 34,565,693 32,821,257 33,014,518 32,974,135 33,394,591 33,858,723 34,330,926
Revenue Growth / (Decline)2.4%-5.0%0.6%-0.1%1.3%1.4%1.4%
EXPENSES
Salaries and Wages 17,610,649 12,376,573 12,429,499 12,938,468 13,264,735 13,599,159 13,941,944 14,293,298
Benefits 5,605,511 4,720,882 4,161,662 4,407,282 4,671,880 5,004,687 5,369,216 5,768,818
Supplies 523,008 567,263 474,292 510,972 507,667 520,359 533,368 546,702
Services 3,669,176 3,720,438 3,838,898 3,938,852 3,938,384 4,064,613 4,226,154 4,368,057
Intergov't 1,720,558 8,026,187 8,728,265 8,473,904 8,701,356 8,936,509 9,178,739 9,428,282
Capital 41,667 - - 17,144 - - - -
Debt Service 1,416,154 1,422,455 1,433,777 1,449,280 1,450,432 1,479,576 1,452,295 1,408,285
Transfers 1,239,320 2,013,051 564,012 899,623 796,364 815,148 834,410 854,161
Interfund 1,046,652 932,643 410,229 628,147 963,731 987,824 1,012,520 1,037,833
Corrections/Adjustments/Decision Packages- - - -
Total Expenses 32,872,695 33,779,491 32,040,634 33,263,672 34,294,548 35,407,875 36,548,645 37,705,436
Expense Growth / (Decline)2.8%-5.1%3.8%3.1%3.2%3.2%3.2%
Change in Ending Fund Balance 880,386 786,202 780,623 (249,154)(1,320,413)(2,013,284)(2,689,922)(3,374,510)
Ending Fund Balance 6,068,906 6,855,108 7,635,731 7,386,577 6,066,164 4,052,880 1,362,958 (2,011,552)
2009 - 2016 Analysis in 000's
TOTAL REVENUES & EXPENDITURES
CITY OF EDMONDS
FUND FORECAST
Packet Page 234 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
19
FUND FORECAST
Revenues & Expenditures-2013
Revenues and expenditures are projected on the basis of assumed economic relationships. Revenues are
forecast on the basis of future economic and demographic factors with little dependence on past trends.
Expenditures are forecast based on past trends modified by present and future conditions. Future conditions
are based upon a series of complex assumptions. This model has been used to test a large range of
assumptions and policy options in the course of developing budget recommendations.
The Revenue and Expenditure forecast reflects a moderate set of assumptions regarding revenues and
expenditures. The Tukwila economy is cyclical and the City enjoyed a strong economy in recent years due to
low unemployment coupled with significant retail and housing development. Some revenue losses from the
recent legislative exemptions have been offset by the gains in economic development. However, decreases in
the stock market, higher unemployment rates, and unfunded mandates by state and federal government for
criminal justice, and human services have all had a significant impact on the General Fund budget.
Continued moderate economic growth is reflected in the revenue forecasts through 2012. In the past, the
forecast has relied on increases in assessed value for forecasting. However, with recent legislation and
initiative activity, this forecast is relying on a 1% increase for property taxes plus an average factor for new
construction. While estimated revenue growth has decreased over the past years, expenditures involving
public safety and public services are expected to increase at a greater rate. New commercial development,
and recent annexations are a few of the areas expected to increase the demand for public services. Based on
the current trends, it is anticipated that fund balances will continue to decrease over the next few years as
revenues subside and expenditures increase. It is necessary to reflect non-departmental costs so that
estimated ending fund balances are not overstated. Expenditures in this area generally represent one-time
payments or transfers for capital projects, costs not assigned to a specific department or debt service. The
Finance Department will continue to study revenue options and enhancements to offset the decline in future
revenues. Residual budget is unused budget rolled forward to be utilized in the subsequent year.
Forecasting models have been used to assist in fiscal planning for quite some time. Models have allowed
analysis of alternative actions in funding programs during the development of the budget. The model
accents the continuing need to control the per capita rate of expenditures reflected in the preceding pages.
Continued caution will be required to anticipate and manage the effects of current and future legislative
actions to avoid service reductions for budgetary reasons.
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
TOTAL REVENUE AVAILABLE
TOTAL EXPENDITURE
FUND BALANCEIn
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
Packet Page 235 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
20
If current trends continue, fund balance is estimated to decrease by 8.38% by the end of 2011. Revenue has
been estimated realistically based on anticipated economic growth, and considering the affects of voter
initiatives. Should growth remain slower than anticipated the adverse affect on fund balance may be greater
than predicted. Revenues from property taxes are increased at 1% plus the addition of new construction and
annexations. Initiative 747 went before the voters in November 2001 and passed. The initiative limits the
increase in property taxes to the lesser of 1% or inflation. Assessed valuation for the City is expected to grow
by the rate of 2.5%. However, since the City may not increase property taxes greater than 1%, it is anticipated
that the levy rate will increase as assessed value decreases. This initiative has been overturned by the
Supreme Court but discussion on the decision continues.
This analysis reflects the position of the City if no adjustments are made on the expenditure side and other
revenue does not grow at a rate necessary to offset the slower growth rate from property taxes. The City is
addressing the long-term revenue short fall through concerted efforts with other jurisdictions. At this time,
however, any additional adjustments that will be necessary beyond those already made are unknown.
As mentioned, the City has taken into account the statewide initiative in forecasting property taxes. The issue
that develops when property tax increases are held to 1% is that costs are not. Costs such as employee
benefits, negotiated labor contracts, services and supplies continue to increase at a greater rate. Fuel,
professional services, and healthcare costs are good examples. The shortfall then has to be made up by
increases in sales tax collection and population growth. The City has been able to maintain most of the
existing level of service, in light of legislative action, because the economy is growing at rates sufficient to
offset the limits placed on property taxes. Sales tax revenue needs to grow at a rate that will make up the
revenues lost from property tax declines. If not, the City will then have to make some different choices in the
delivery of basic levels of services.
Packet Page 236 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
21
BUDGET SUMMARY
This section summarizes the 2013 annual budget and provides comparisons to previous years’ revenues and
expenditures. The section begins with a summary of the City’s financial structure and an overview of the
City’s General Fiscal environment. This section continues with summarized budget data of revenues and
expenditures for all funds combined, then a breakdown of General Fund revenues and expenditures follows.
The reader is encouraged to refer to the Operating Budget section, General Fund and Other Funds tabs for a
more detailed account of the departmental budgets.
Financial Structure of the City Budget
The City of Edmonds accounting and budget structure is based upon Governmental Fund Accounting to
ensure legal compliance and financial management for various restricted revenues and program expenditures.
Fund accounting segregates certain functions and activities into separate self-balancing funds created and
maintained for specific purposes (as described below). Resources from one fund used to offset expenditures in
a different fund are budgeted as either a transfer to or transfer from.
The City of Edmonds budget is organized in a hierarchy of levels, each of which is defined below:
Fund A fund is an accounting entity used to record the revenues and expenditures of a
governmental unit which is designated for the purpose of carrying on specific activities or
attaining certain objectives. For example Fund 120, the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund, was
created to account for the hotel/motel taxes levied to support City tourism promotion.
Department Department designates a major department of the City operation, e.g., Public Works or
Parks and Recreation.
Program A specific distinguishable line of work performed by the department, for the purpose of
accomplishing a function for which government is responsible.
Object The appropriation unit (object of expenditure) is the level of detail used in the budget to
sort and summarize objects of expenditure according to the type of goods or services
being purchased, e.g., salaries, supplies.
Packet Page 237 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
22
GENERAL FISCAL ENVIRONMENT
Effective budget and financial policies are developed gradually over a period of time in response to long-term
fiscal and social-economic conditions. Accordingly, although this document responds to the City’s financial
policy, framework has been developed in response to multi-year fiscal pressures.
General Fund
Edmond’s economy is generally cyclical following the economic cycles of the surrounding region. However,
the economic down periods in the cycles have generally been less severe for Tukwila than for other
municipalities in the region due to the relatively stable nature of Edmond’s economy. While the economic
downturn has been a challenge for Edmonds, the City is well positioned for a strong recovery.
Economic cycles are not the only determinants of revenues for municipal budgeting. Even with an up sloping
economy, laws that determine who pays taxes and how much they can pay can also have a major impact. The
Washington State Legislature has adopted several pieces of legislation, which have limited the ability of local
governments to increase revenues and future taxing ability. Although Edmonds economy is stable, these
exemptions have impacted Edmonds revenues substantially. Although inflation is controlled, these altered
revenue sources are having, and will continue to have, a substantial impact on Edmonds budget.
Other significant concerns for the future are the demand for services. In particular, public safety services will
increase dramatically with continued development and annexations. Due to mandatory sentencing guidelines
required by the State, we have experienced an increase in the care and custody of prisoners in the past few
years. Alternatives to incarceration are being used, such as increasing the Home Monitoring Program and
utilizing drug and rehabilitation programs. These programs appear to be having a positive effect on
incarceration costs.
The General Fund must be budgeted and monitored very carefully. Passage of voter approved initiatives and
other pending voter initiatives, can negatively impact the general fund. Due to strong fiscal management in
previous years, available reserves are sufficient to maintain most of the current levels of service provided
another down turn in the economy is neither deep or long.
Packet Page 238 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
23
Beginning 2013 2013 Ending
Fund Balance Resources Expenditures Fund Balance
6,100,000$ 51,180,014$ 52,838,362$ 4,441,652$
Hotel/Motel Tax 800,000 1,249,961 1,598,009 451,952
Street Fund 500,000 231,000 159,829 571,171
Arterial Street Fund 5,000,000 33,790,139 34,000,670 4,789,469
Contingency Fund 892,000 401,816 - 1,293,816
Fire Equipment Cumulative Reserve Fd 640,000 131,685 2,014 769,671
Drug Seizure Fund 220,000 186,000 294,000 112,000
Fund 209 - 2003 Limited Tax GO Bonds - 592,572 591,572 1,000
Fund 210 - 2003 Refunding LTGO Bonds - 501,932 500,932 1,000
Fund 211 - 2008 Refunding LTGO Bonds - 836,829 835,829 1,000
Fund 212 - 2009A SCORE LTGO Bonds - 30,166 30,166 -
Fund 213 - 2009B SCORE BAB Bonds - 254,438 254,438 -
Fund 214 - 2010A LTGO Bonds - 395,775 395,775 -
Fund 215 - 2010B BAB Bonds - 190,450 190,450 -
Fund 216 - 2010 ValleyCom Refunding - 170,990 170,990 -
Fund 301 - Parks Land Acquisition 4,500,000 596,243 1,014,721 4,081,522
Fund 302 - Facility Replacement 2,000,000 5,756 125,563 1,880,193
Fund 303 - General Government Imp 400,000 2,257,203 2,365,216 291,987
Fund 304 - Fire Improvements 140,000 50,100 - 190,100
Fund 401 - Water 3,700,000 6,571,534 8,312,169 1,959,365
Fund 402 - Sewer 2,500,000 6,621,426 7,962,652 1,158,774
Fund 404 - Water/Sewer Revenue Bonds - 651,637 598,202 53,435
Fund 405 - Bond Reserve Fund 411,000 - - 411,000
Fund 411 - Foster Golf Course 425,000 1,912,200 2,284,369 52,831
Fund 412 - Surface Water 1,700,000 3,514,886 4,277,623 937,263
Fund 501 - Equipment Rental 3,300,000 2,342,740 2,232,611 3,410,129
Fund 502 - Self-Insurance Fund 4,500,000 4,187,561 4,255,741 4,431,820
Fund 503 - LEOFF I Insurance Fund 1,350,000 579,040 682,234 1,246,806
FI
D
U
C
I
A
R
Y
FU
N
D
S
Fund 611 - Firemen's Pension Fund 1,450,000 53,872 66,000 1,437,872
40,528,000$ 119,487,965$ 126,040,137$ 33,975,828$
EN
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E
F
U
N
D
S
IN
T
E
R
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
FU
N
D
S
TOTAL BUDGET
2013 BUDGET SUMMARY - ALL FUNDS
Fund
GENERAL FUND
SP
E
C
I
A
L
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
FU
N
D
S
DE
B
T
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
CA
P
I
T
A
L
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
Packet Page 239 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
24
Budgeted Revenues by Fund – 2013
General Fund, 42.83%
Special Revenue Funds,
30.12%
Debt Service, 2.49%
Capital Projects, 2.43%
Enterprise Funds,
16.13%
Internal Service Funds,
5.95%
Fiduciary Funds, 0.05%
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Debt Service
Capital Projects
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
Fiduciary Funds
Budgeted Expenditures by Fund – 2013
General Fund, 41.92%
Special Revenue Funds,
28.61%
Debt Service, 2.36%
Capital Projects, 2.78%
Enterprise Funds,
18.59%
Internal Service Funds,
5.69%
Fiduciary Funds, 0.05%
General Fund
Special Revenue Funds
Debt Service
Capital Projects
Enterprise Funds
Internal Service Funds
Fiduciary Funds
Packet Page 240 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
25
2009 2010 2011 2012 2012
Actual Actual Actual Estimate Budget
Beginning Fund Balance 50,041,630$ 51,444,890$ 48,080,698$ 40,528,000$ 33,975,828$
REVENUES
Property Taxes 11,071,063 12,202,419 13,081,000 13,594,000 13,933,250
Sales and Use Taxes 18,839,297 15,067,112 21,288,632 16,025,000 16,248,000
Parking/Admissions Tax 475,500 738,341 419,000 744,017 765,257
Utility Taxes 3,934,210 4,359,292 3,906,000 4,723,000 4,840,000
Interfund Utility Tax - 1,813,277 1,358,000 1,426,000 1,524,000
Excise Taxes 3,005,679 2,824,966 3,204,000 2,787,861 2,843,496
Hotel/Motel Tax 587,216 489,806 600,000 379,706 385,401
Penalties/Interest 1,844 628 2,000 67 67
Taxes Total 37,914,809 37,495,841 43,858,632 39,679,651 40,539,471
Business Licenses and Permits 481,154 684,141 521,000 2,684,774 2,782,227
Building Permits and Fees 1,541,697 599,322 1,895,000 1,070,118 1,101,339
Licenses & Permits Total 2,022,851 1,283,463 2,416,000 3,754,892 3,883,566
Intergovernmental Total 5,825,138 17,818,457 36,512,252 22,959,192 6,646,252
General Government 232,797 231,116 238,900 207,636 212,572
Security 805,790 333,789 305,000 494,381 512,134
Engineering Services 1,200 - 10,000 59,579 59,867
Transportation 2,109,895 1,672,896 2,754,830 2,481,529 2,509,906
Economic - 31,109 - 143,000 75,000
Plan Check and Review Fees 934,804 402,188 1,083,000 833,500 858,500
Culture and Rec Fees 1,803,882 1,672,081 2,013,000 1,947,500 1,817,000
Utilities & Environment 11,041,555 12,093,808 13,115,000 13,214,125 14,099,309
Charges for Services Total 16,929,923 16,436,988 19,519,730 19,381,250 20,144,288
Fines and Penalties Total 259,991 230,561 241,000 205,408 213,270
Investment Earnings 1,592,659 491,969 1,674,000 214,654 218,782
Rents and Concessions 679,483 636,449 668,000 790,391 753,203
Insurance Premiums/Recovery 1,776 643 1,000 1,000 1,000
Contributions/Donations 927,108 725,333 3,634,000 470,600 1,207,600
Other Misc Revenue 5,821,938 6,784,266 7,260,254 4,924,163 5,095,128
Sale of Capital Assets 224,568 844,408 5,000 700,500 1,300,500
Miscellaneous Total 9,247,532 9,483,069 13,242,254 7,101,308 8,576,213
Transfers In 3,383,554 4,727,490 3,284,808 10,505,264 9,984,494
Other Financing - 6,947,574 26,096,475 15,901,000 350,000
Total Revenues & Transfers 75,583,798 94,423,443 145,171,151 119,487,965 90,337,554
Total Resources Available 125,625,428$ 145,868,333$ 193,251,849$ 160,015,965$ 124,313,382$
Revenue Summary - All Funds
Packet Page 241 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
26
Revenue Budget by Type – 2013
$-
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$15,000,000
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
$30,000,000
$35,000,000
$40,000,000
$45,000,000
$39,679,651
$3,754,892
$22,959,192
$19,381,250
$205,408
$7,101,308
$10,505,264
$15,901,000
Taxes
Licenses and Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for Services
Fines and Penalties
Miscellaneous
Transfers - In
Other Financing
Packet Page 242 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
27
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Actual Actual Actual Estimate Budget
EXPENDITURE
Salaries 25,556,041$ 27,038,900$ 29,141,620$ 27,614,520$ 28,252,802$
Benefits 14,053,340 14,288,092 17,180,510 13,877,618 14,833,698
Total Salaries and Benefits 39,609,381 41,326,992 46,322,130 41,492,138 43,086,500
Total Supplies 6,721,107 6,848,458 8,246,499 8,202,654 8,119,753
Professional Services 5,275,271 9,456,241 14,380,540 11,720,189 6,336,864
Communication 337,561 400,638 411,438 430,981 427,081
Travel 115,312 74,621 162,915 151,265 150,065
Advertising 395,907 465,216 720,650 714,600 714,200
Operating Rentals & Leases 2,246,566 1,938,491 2,110,226 2,600,624 2,628,266
Insurance 452,315 495,438 704,010 626,510 626,510
Public Utility Services 1,310,110 1,466,427 1,540,294 1,551,124 1,479,200
Repairs & Maintenance 618,042 720,398 824,757 845,517 824,706
Miscellaneous 1,286,394 1,041,813 1,488,671 1,053,069 1,004,295
Non-Departmental (Dept 20)- - - - -
Total Other Services and Charges 12,037,478 16,059,283 22,343,501 19,693,879 14,191,187
Total Intergovernmental Services 2,454,544 4,396,421 3,693,400 4,548,400 3,947,475
Total Capital Outlays 4,938,317 12,439,455 65,013,017 37,102,100 8,741,000
Total Debt Service 2,298,305 2,540,296 4,451,692 4,544,011 4,540,288
EXPENDITURE TOTAL 68,059,132 83,610,905 150,070,239 115,583,182 82,626,203
Transfers Out 3,383,554 4,727,490 3,473,114 10,456,955 9,918,538
Bad Debts Expense 163,786 - - - -
Depreciation Expense 2,574,066 2,560,484 - - -
Payment to Fiscal Agent - 6,888,756 - - -
Budget Reductions - - (819,504) - -
TOTAL EXPENDITURES & TRANSFERS 74,180,538 97,787,635 152,723,849 126,040,137 92,544,741
Ending Fund Balance 51,444,890 48,080,698 40,528,000 33,975,828 31,624,206
Total All Uses with Fund Balance 125,625,428$ 145,868,333$ 193,251,849$ 160,015,965$ 124,168,947$
Expenditure Summary - All Funds
2013 Expenditure Budget by Type
Salaries and Benefits
Supplies
Other Services and Charges
Intergovernmental
Capital Outlays
Debt Service
Transfers - Out
2012
2011
Packet Page 243 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
28
2013 General Fund Revenue
General Fund revenue for 2013, excluding fund balances, is $51.2 million; a 10.5% increase from the 2013
Adopted Budget.
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
General Fund Revenues Actual Actual Actual Estimate Budget
Property Taxes 11,115,973$ 12,190,219$ 12,688,000$ 13,530,000$ 13,868,250$
Sales and Use Taxes 12,903,174 12,903,214 15,333,917 16,025,000 16,248,000
Admissions Tax 327,911 582,756 279,000 636,000 654,000
Utility Taxes 3,934,210 4,359,292 3,906,000 4,723,000 4,840,000
Interfund Utility Tax - 1,813,277 1,358,000 1,426,000 1,524,000
Excise Taxes 2,173,767 2,567,119 2,204,000 2,585,731 2,641,303
Penalties/Interest 1,826 628 2,000 67 67
Tax Total 30,456,861 34,416,505 35,770,917 38,925,798 39,775,620
Business Licenses and Permits 481,154 684,141 489,000 2,684,774 2,782,227
Building Permits and Fees 1,541,697 599,322 1,895,000 1,070,118 1,101,339
Licenses & Permits Total 2,022,851 1,283,463 2,384,000 3,754,892 3,883,566
Intergovernmental Total 2,587,088 4,344,251 2,987,072 2,805,177 2,861,937
General Government 61,616 72,547 68,000 59,015 60,951
Security 805,610 333,729 304,000 493,381 511,134
Engineering Services 1,200 - 10,000 59,579 59,867
Transportation 68,793 (24,312) 150,000 153,058 158,149
Plan Check and Review Fees 934,804 402,188 1,083,000 833,500 858,500
Culture and Rec Fees 697,358 628,418 703,000 742,000 611,500
Charges for Services Total 2,569,381 1,412,571 2,318,000 2,340,533 2,260,101
Fines and Penalties Total 259,991 230,273 241,000 205,408 213,270
Investment Earnings 328,698 118,713 505,000 128,757 133,757
Rents and Concessions 351,661 374,680 346,000 454,391 417,203
Insurance Premiums/Recovery 1,776 643 1,000 1,000 1,000
Contributions/Donations 108,013 2,739 21,000 1,600 1,600
Other Misc Revenue 216,071 109,699 122,000 47,766 49,200
Sale of Capital Assets 53,592 989,608 5,000 700,500 1,300,500
Miscellaneous Total 1,059,811 1,596,083 1,000,000 1,334,014 1,903,260
Transfers In 2,215,982 3,156,300 2,462,000 1,814,192 1,868,617
Total Revenues & Transfers 41,171,965$ 46,439,446$ 47,162,989$ 51,180,014$ 52,766,371$
Packet Page 244 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
29
Property Taxes,
$13,530,000, 27%
Sales and Use Taxes,
$16,025,000, 31%
Utility Taxes,
$4,723,000, 9%
Interfund Utility Tax,
$1,426,000, 3%
Excise Taxes,
$2,585,731, 5%
All Other Revenue,
$12,890,283, 25%
2011 General Fund Revenue -$51.2 Million
Packet Page 245 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
30
Each of the main revenues is discussed on the following pages and detailed information on all General Fund
Expenditures may be found in the following pages.
MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES
SALES TAX
The City receives revenues from two sources of sales tax. The main source of sales tax, $16 million in 2013, is
the City-imposed 0.85% on retail sales as shown below. In addition, the City also receives a portion of the sales
tax collected by Snohomish County for Criminal Justice. This is collected countywide and distributed to all
cities on a per capita basis. These two revenues account for 2013 budgeted revenue, 32% of the City’s General
Fund revenue, making sales tax the largest revenue source for the General Fund.
The sales tax rate in the City of Edmonds is the state allowable 9.5% on retail goods. The chart below
summarizes how the 9.5% tax collected is divided between various governmental entities.
Sales Tax Distribution by Government Entity
Percent
Percent
of Total
Washington State 6.50%68.42%
City of Edmonds 0.85%8.95%
Snohomish County 0.25%2.63%
Snohomish County Criminal Justice 0.10%1.05%
Regional Transit Authority 0.90%9.47%
Snohomish County Public Transportation Benefit Area 0.90%9.47%
Total Sales Tax on $100 of retail goods 9.50%100.00%
From 2006 to 2007, the City’s sales tax collection grew 10%. 2008 was the first year to see a decline in sales tax
from the previous year (12%). The chart on the next page shows the change in sales tax since 2008, along with
the forecast sales tax revenues for the years 2011-2012. The City is assuming 1.5% decrease in sales tax growth
for 2011 from 2009 actual sales tax revenue and a 1.5% increase in 2012 from the 2011 budget.
Packet Page 246 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
31
Sales Tax by Year
(Shaded boxes represent budget estimates)
5
10
15
20
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
PROPERTY TAX
Property taxes are the City’s second largest revenue source at $13.5 million in 2013, or 28% of the total revenue
supporting the General Fund. These taxes pay for the City’s general operations such as services provided by
the Police, Public Works Department and Parks. The City receives 23% of the property taxes paid by Edmonds
property owners.
Property Tax by Jurisdiction
City of Edmonds, $1.66
, 15%Snohomish County,
$0.98 , 9%
WA State Schools,
$2.38 , 21%
Sno-Isle Libraries, $0.50
, 5%
Port of Edmonds, $0.12
, 1%
Emergency Medical
Service, $0.50 , 5%
Edmonds School
District, $4.70 , 42%
City Bonds, $0.17 , 1%
Hospital District, $0.11 ,
1%
Packet Page 247 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
32
The City of Edmonds receives a relatively small percentage of a property owner’s tax bill (15%). In
comparison, the Edmonds School District and WA State taken together account for 64% of the property tax bill,
Port of Edmonds, EMS, Snohomish County, and the Hospital District receive 15%, and the Snohomish County
Library District get 5%. Property taxes are distributed to the following jurisdictions:
Government Agency AV Percent of Total
City of Edmonds 1.66$ 14.9%
Emergency Medical Service 0.50 4.5%
City Bonds 0.17 1.5%
Port of Edmonds 0.12 1.0%
Snohomish County 0.98 8.8%
Sno-Isle Libraries 0.50 4.5%
Edmonds School District 4.70 42.3%
WA State Schools 2.38 21.4%
Hospital District 0.11 1.0%
Total 11.11$ 100%
Property Tax Rate
UTILITY TAX
The City implemented a 6% solid waste tax and 10% interfund utility taxes in 2009, which have since become
the City’s third largest tax revenue source at $4 million, or 8.8% in 2011, and $4.1 million in 2012, or 8.9%, of
the total revenue supporting the General Fund. The City of Edmonds has a 6% Utility Tax on cable, electricity,
telephones, cellular phones, and natural gas.
For non-City utilities, telecommunications accounts for 50% of total utility taxes received, natural gas is 26%,
cable is 20% and electricity is 4%.
Packet Page 248 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
33
2009 2010 2011 11-12 2012 12-13 2013
Actual Actual Actual % Change Estimate % Change Budget
City Council 261,235$ 261,235$ 261,235$ 0.54%262,634$ 2.67%269,655$
Mayor's Office 2,140,561 2,492,492 2,595,765 -4.91%2,468,436 2.21%2,522,991
Human Resources 506,660 506,060 571,640 -5.01%542,979 5.60%573,396
Finance 1,932,285 1,963,333 1,921,309 -20.67%1,524,117 5.18%1,603,133
Legal 728,980 685,691 555,856 -2.36%542,731 0.00%542,734
Parks & Rec 3,158,534 3,350,801 3,471,420 -14.66%2,962,377 -14.59%2,530,147
Community Development 3,066,717 2,779,459 3,010,027 -12.58%2,631,309 1.99%2,683,579
Court 1,136,752 1,181,132 1,141,680 -14.29%978,529 1.57%993,849
Police 12,699,005 12,994,938 13,946,824 2.30%14,267,695 -1.44%14,062,710
Fire 10,152,352 9,874,049 10,205,813 -2.52%9,948,846 2.79%10,225,983
Information Technology 676,421 951,073 1,086,270 1.71%1,104,845 4.44%1,153,947
Public Works 3,608,739 5,756,107 4,851,223 -28.17%3,484,525 3.71%3,613,803
Parks Maintenance 965,020 979,084 1,006,554 -8.31%922,901 1.31%935,027
PW Street Maintenance 2,573,891 2,280,106 2,656,916 -1.99%2,603,943 2.79%2,676,535
Non-Departmental (Dept. 20)376,896 709,444 305,000 2717.21%8,592,495 -6.92%7,997,752
Total Expenditures 43,984,048$ 46,765,003$ 47,587,532$ 11.03%52,838,362$ -0.86%52,385,241$
General Fund Expenditures by Department
The City implemented a three pronged approach to dealing with actual and projected revenue declines,
particularly in the area of sales tax receipts. The approach adopted by City Council was to 1) identify new
revenue sources, 2) reduce the cost of programs and services being offered, and 3) reduce the cost of employee
compensation.
May of the reductions found above in 2013 compared to 2012 reflect the efforts of the City to reduce the cost of
operations. This was accomplished through targeted program reductions in certain departments, staffing
reductions, decreased contributions to the self-insurance fund as calculated by the City’s health benefit
consultant, and a voluntary reduction in the cost of living adjustment from the Edmonds firefighter bargaining
unit. Excluding non-departmental expenses and mandatory transfers, the three-pronged budget strategy
resulted in a 6.42% reduction in the cost of operations in the General Fund in 2012, and just a 0.32% increase in
2012.
Packet Page 249 of 488
2013 Budget City of Edmonds, Washington
34
2013 General Fund Expenditures by Department
$262,634
$2,468,436 $542,979
$1,524,117
$542,731
$2,962,377
$2,631,309
$978,529
$14,267,695
$9,948,846
$1,104,845
$3,484,525
$922,901
$2,603,943 City Council
Mayor's Office
Human Resources
Finance
Legal
Parks & Rec
Community Development
Court
Police
Fire
Information Technology
Public Works
Parks Maintenance
Packet Page 250 of 488
AM-5101 8. G.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Debra Sharp
Department:Finance
Committee: Finance Type: Cancel
Information
Subject Title
2013 Budget Schedule
Recommendation
To update the Finance Committee on the proposed budget schedule
Previous Council Action
None
Narrative
The Finance Department added the following items to the City Council's Extended Agenda, which include work sessions,
public hearings, etc needed for the adoption of the 2013 Budget.
September 25
2013 Budget Review Work Session (60 Minutes)
October 9
Finance Committee - Review Property Tax Ordinance (15 Minutes)
October 16
Presentation of Preliminary 2013 Budget
The Finance Director will give a brief overview of the exhibits, layout and changes (30 Minutes)
October 23
Budget Work Session (3 Hours)
October 30 (Fifth Tuesday)
Budget Work Session (3 Hours)
November 5
Public Hearing - Revenue sources including property tax increases (20 Minutes)
Public Hearing - 2013 Budget (20 Minutes)
Property Tax Resolution and Ordinance (20 Minutes)
November 20
Public Hearing - 2013 Budget (20 Minutes)
2013 Budget Adoption (20 Minutes)
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Packet Page 251 of 488
Finance Shawn Hunstock 09/06/2012 10:37 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/06/2012 10:46 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/06/2012 03:11 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/06/2012 03:27 PM
Form Started By: Debra Sharp Started On: 09/06/2012 09:42 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/06/2012
Packet Page 252 of 488
AM-5103 9. A.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:10 Minutes
Submitted For:Stephen Clifton Submitted By:Stephen Clifton
Department:Community Services
Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Interim Zoning Ordinance to allow farmers markets in Business Commercial (BC) and Business Downtown (BD) Zones.
Recommendation
Recommend the City Council Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee express support for adopting subject ordinance
and forward this recommendation to the full City Council.
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The city has been approached by an organization that would like to operate a farmers market on Wednesday evenings in the
BC or BD zone beginning in September of this year and extended at least into the autumn months. The existing City of
Edmonds Development Code does not expressly list farmers markets as a permitted use in the BC and BD zones and allows
"seasonal" farmers markets to operate only during the period between May and September.
The attached interim zoning ordinance will allow farmers markets to operate in the BC and BD zones in any month. The City
Council may adopt an interim zoning ordinance for a period of up to six months, as long as the City Council holds a public
hearing on the proposed interim zoning ordinance within sixty days after adoption (RCW 35A.63.220, RCW 36.70A.390).
During the six month period that this interim zoning ordinance is in effect, the Planning Board will hold a public hearing,
consider whether this interim zoning ordinance should be adopted for a period longer than six months, and transmit its
recommendation to the City Council.
In addition to the above, City staff has reviewed Edmonds City Code Chapter 4.90, Community Oriented Open Air Markets
and has identified that this chapter also needs updating. Amendments to this chapter and other sections of the code will be
forthcoming in order to allow or create a process that will more clearly define how community oriented and/or farmers markets
can operate year round.
Attachments
Interim Zoning Ordinance To Allow Farmers markets in BC and BD Zones
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 08:18 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/07/2012 09:29 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 09:32 AM
Form Started By: Stephen Clifton Started On: 09/06/2012 02:07 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/07/2012
Packet Page 253 of 488
Packet Page 254 of 488
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING AN INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW FARMERS MARKETS
IN THE BC AND BD ZONES, ESTABLISHING SIX MONTHS
AS THE TENTATIVE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE
ORDINANCE, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds only allows farmers markets to operate during the
period between May and September, inclusive; and
WHEREAS, there has been interest expressed in having a farmers market operate during
the entire year; and
WHEREAS, the city has been approached by an organization that would like to operate a
farmers market in the BC or BD zone beginning in September of this year and extended at least
into the autumn months; and
WHEREAS, the Edmonds Community Development Code does not expressly list
farmers markets as a permitted use in the BC and BD zones; and
WHEREAS, the operation of a farmers market would not likely result in any long term
changes in the physical appearance of the city; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Edmonds may adopt an interim zoning
ordinance for a period of up to six months, as long as the City Council holds a public hearing on
the proposed interim zoning ordinance within sixty days after adoption (RCW 35A.63.220, RCW
36.70A.390); and
WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt an interim zoning ordinance that will allow farmers
markets to operate in the BC and BD zones year round; and
WHEREAS, during the six month period that this interim zoning ordinance is in effect,
the Planning Board shall hold a public hearing, consider whether this interim zoning ordinance
should be adopted for a period longer than six months, and transmit its recommendation to the
City Council; NOW, THEREFORE,
Packet Page 255 of 488
2
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Definition of Farmers Market. A new section 21.30.014, entitled “Farmers
Market,” is hereby added to the Edmonds Community Development Code to read as follows:
21.30.014 Farmers Market.
A farmers market is an indoor and/or outdoor retail market consisting of several
independent vendors specializing in the sale of farm-grown or home-grown produce,
food, flowers, plants or other similar perishable goods.
Section 2. Community Business Zone Use Amendments. Section 16.50.010 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled “Uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows
(new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strikethrough):
16.50.010 Uses.
A. Permitted Primary Uses.
1. Single-family dwellings, as regulated in RS-6 zone;
2. Retail stores, offices and service uses, excluding intense uses, such as trailer sales,
used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy equipment
sales and services;
3. New automobile sales and service;
4. Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive
cleaning agents;
5. Printing, publishing and binding establishments;
6. Bus stop shelters;
7. Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and licensed
pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code;
8. Multiple Dwelling Unit(s). This use may not be located on the ground floor of a
structure;
9. Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020;
10. Primary and high schools subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G)
through (R);
11. Local public facilities subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050;
12. Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted
master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.;
13. Farmers markets and seasonal farmers markets.
Packet Page 256 of 488
3
B. Permitted Secondary Uses.
1. Limited assembly, repair or fabrication of goods incidental to a permitted or
conditional use;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted or conditional use;
3. Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility meeting the criteria listed under
subsections (C)(11) through (14) of this section, except that the facility may also be
located along a designated transit route in addition to an arterial or collector street.
C. Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Commercial parking lots;
2. Wholesale uses;
3. Hotels and motels;
4. Amusement establishments;
5. Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions;
6. Drive-in businesses;
7. Laboratories;
8. Fabrication of light industrial products;
9. Convenience stores;
10. Day-care centers;
11. Hospitals, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums;
12. Museums, art galleries, zoos, and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not
meet the criteria for regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033;
13. Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug
abusers;
14. Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070.
D. Secondary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
1. Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted or conditional use;
2. Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC.
Section 3. Community Business Zone Operating Restriction Amendments. Section
16.50.030 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled “Operating restrictions,” is
hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in
strikethrough):
16.50.030 Operating restrictions.
Packet Page 257 of 488
4
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed
building, except:
1. Public utilities and parks;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots;
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries;
5. Seasonal farmers' markets and farmers markets;
6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 ECDC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards.
Section 4. Downtown Business Zone Use Amendments. Section 16.43.020 of the
Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled “Uses,” is hereby amended to read as follows
(new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strikethrough):
16.43.020 Uses.
A. Table 16.43-1.
Permitted Uses BD1 BD2 BD3 BD4 BD5
Commercial Uses
Retail stores or sales A A A A A
Offices A A A A A
Service uses A A A A A
Retail sales requiring intensive outdoor display or storage areas, such as trailer sales,
used car lots (except as part of a new car sales and service dealer), and heavy
equipment storage, sales or services X X X X X
Enclosed fabrication or assembly areas associated with and on the same property as
an art studio, art gallery, restaurant or food service establishment that also provides
an on-site retail outlet open to the public A A A A A
Automobile sales and service X A A X X
Dry cleaning and laundry plants which use only nonflammable and nonexplosive
cleaning agents C A A A X
Printing, publishing and binding establishments C A A A C
Community-oriented open air markets conducted as an outdoor operation and
licensed pursuant to provisions in the Edmonds City Code A A A A A
Packet Page 258 of 488
5
Farmers markets and seasonal farmers markets A A A A A
Residential Uses
Single-family dwelling A A A A A
Multiple dwelling unit(s) A A A A A
Other Uses
Bus stop shelters A A A A A
Churches, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.020 A A A A A
Primary and high schools, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050(G)
through (R) A A A A A
Local public facilities, subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.050 C C C A C
Neighborhood parks, natural open spaces, and community parks with an adopted
master plan subject to the requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 A A A A A
Off-street parking and loading areas to serve a permitted use B B B B B
Commuter parking lots in conjunction with a facility otherwise permitted in this zone B B B B X
Commercial parking lots C C C C X
Wholesale uses X X C X X
Hotels and motels A A A A A
Amusement establishments C C C C C
Auction businesses, excluding vehicle or livestock auctions C C C C C
Drive-in businesses C C A C X
Laboratories X C C C X
Fabrication of light industrial products not otherwise listed as a permitted use X X C X X
Day-care centers C C C A C
Hospitals, health clinics, convalescent homes, rest homes, sanitariums X C C A X
Museums and art galleries of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for
regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 A A A A A
Zoos and aquariums of primarily local concern that do not meet the criteria for
regional public facilities as defined in ECDC 21.85.033 C C C C A
Counseling centers and residential treatment facilities for current alcoholics and drug
abusers X C C A X
Packet Page 259 of 488
6
Regional parks and community parks without a master plan subject to the
requirements of ECDC 17.100.070 C C C C C
Outdoor storage, incidental to a permitted use D D D D D
Aircraft landings as regulated by Chapter 4.80 ECC D D D D D
A = Permitted primary use
B = Permitted secondary use
C = Primary uses requiring a conditional use permit
D = Secondary uses requiring a conditional use permit
X = Not permitted
For conditional uses listed in Table 16.43-1, the use may be permitted if the proposal meets the
criteria for conditional uses found in Chapter 20.05 ECDC, and all of the following criteria are
met:
1. Access and Parking. Pedestrian access shall be provided from the sidewalk. Vehicular access
shall only be provided consistent with ECDC 18.80.060. When a curb cut is necessary, it shall be
landscaped to be compatible with the pedestrian streetscape and shall be located and designed to
be as unobtrusive as possible.
2. Design and Landscaping. The project shall be designed so that it is oriented to the street and
contributes to the pedestrian streetscape environment. Fences more than four feet in height along
street lot lines shall only be permitted if they are at least 50 percent open, such as a lattice
pattern. Blank walls shall be discouraged, and when unavoidable due to the nature of the use
shall be decorated by a combination of at least two of the following:
a. Architectural features or details;
b. Artwork;
c. Landscaping.
Section 5. Downtown Business Zone Operating Restriction Amendments. Section
16.43.040 of the Edmonds Community Development Code, entitled “Operating restrictions,” is
hereby amended to read as follows (new text is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in
strikethrough):
16.43.040 Operating restrictions.
Packet Page 260 of 488
7
A. Enclosed Building. All uses shall be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed
building, except:
1. Public uses such as utilities and parks;
2. Off-street parking and loading areas, and commercial parking lots;
3. Drive-in businesses;
4. Plant nurseries;
5. Seasonal farmers’ markets and farmers markets;
6. Limited outdoor display of merchandise meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.65 EC
7. Bistro and outdoor dining meeting the criteria of ECDC 17.70.040;
8. Outdoor dining meeting the criteria of Chapter 17.75 ECDC.
B. Nuisances. All uses shall comply with Chapter 17.60 ECDC, Performance Standards.
Section 6. Purpose. The purpose of the adoption of this interim zoning ordinance is to
establish the development regulations that will allow farmers markets to operate in the BC zone
while the Planning Board holds a public hearing, gains public input on this issue, provides a
recommendation to Council, and the Council considers the final version of the ordinance on this
subject.
Section 7. Duration of Interim Zoning Ordinance. The City Council shall hold a public
hearing on the Interim Zoning Ordinance within 60 days of adoption and shall adopt findings of
fact justifying this Interim Zoning Ordinance no later than immediately after that hearing. This
Ordinance shall be effective until six (6) months after the effective date.
Section 8. 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 9. 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
Packet Page 261 of 488
8
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 488
9
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2012, 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 AN INTERIM ZONING
ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW FARMERS
MARKETS IN THE BC AND BD ZONES,
ESTABLISHING SIX MONTHS AS THE TENTATIVE
EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE ORDINANCE, AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2012.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
4852-4054-9897, v. 1
Packet Page 263 of 488
AM-5098 9. B.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Mike DeLilla Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approve a Bill of Sale to transfer ownership of sewer pipe on 224th that is currently in Esperance from being City owned to
OVWSD owned.
Recommendation
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the August 21, 2012 City Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
On September 18, 2012, City Council authorized Mayor to sign Interlocal Agreement with Olympic View Water and Sewer
District (OVWSD) to install sewerline and associated appurtenances as part of the 224th St. SW Sewer Replacement Project.
Narrative
The City was in the process of replacing a City owned existing sewerline extending from the intersection of 224th St. SW and
76th Ave W to the intersection of 224th St. SW and 78th Ave W. Historically, the pipe has experienced lack of capacity and
needed to be replaced. The pipe conveys flows for which the overwhelming majority are under the jurisdiction of OVWSD.
During the research phase of the project, the City realized that the majority of the City owned sewer pipe system to be replaced
in this project was actually located in Esperance, which is unincorporated Snohomish County. The City would therefore need
to get a franchise agreement with the County in order to replace the system.
The City began coordinating the replacement of the system with OVWSD. After discussing the situation with OVWSD it was
mutually agreed that OVWSD should actually have ownership of the pipe that is within Esperance and that they would pay for
the replacement costs for the pipe within Esperance. In addition, the City would pay for the replacement costs that are within
City limits. Since the majority of the pipe replacement project is under the jurisdiction of OVWSD, it was agreed that the
project then be led by OVWSD.
This project will be funded as part of the 2012 Sewer Replacement Program. The budget for this project is $120,000.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Bill of Sale
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/06/2012 11:49 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/06/2012 04:46 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 08:18 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/07/2012 09:29 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 09:32 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/05/2012 03:38 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/07/2012
Packet Page 264 of 488
Packet Page 265 of 488
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
6
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
7
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
8
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
6
9
o
f
4
8
8
AM-5089 9. C.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Ed Sibrel Submitted By:Megan Luttrell
Department:Engineering
Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Report on final construction costs for the 2010 Watermain Replacement Project and final acceptance of project.
Recommendation
Forward the item to the consent agenda for approval at the September 18, 2012 City Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
On March 15, 2011, Council voted to award the contract in the amount of $1,834,833.02 for construction of the project to
Kar-Vel Construction.
Narrative
The 2010 Watermain Replacement Project replaced approximately 10,000 linear feet of waterline piping with associated
meters, fire hydrants and two pressure reducing stations. Construction work started in May 2011 and physical completion was
reached in April 2012. The final punch list items and contract documentation has been submitted by the Contractor and the
project is ready for final acceptance.
In March 2011, the City Council approved a contract with Kar-Vel Construction for $1,834,833 with a management reserve of
$184,000. There were four approved change orders that totaled $72,111 and the final construction cost paid to the contractor
with the change orders was $1,906,944.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Site Map
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/06/2012 02:42 PM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/06/2012 04:45 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 08:18 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/07/2012 09:28 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 09:28 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 08/29/2012 10:36 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/07/2012
Packet Page 270 of 488
Packet Page 271 of 488
AM-5026 9. D.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Jerry Shuster
Department:Engineering
Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Authorization for the Mayor to sign the 2012 Statewide Stormwater Grant Program Agreement between the State of
Washington Department of Ecology and the City of Edmonds for $259,745 for a Vactor Waste Facility Retrofit at the Public
Works Yard.
Recommendation
Forward item to the consent agenda for approval at the September 18, 2012 Council meeting.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The 2012 Washington State Legislature appropriated over $24 million to the Department of Ecology (Ecology) for local
governments; to be used in the 2012 Statewide Stormwater Grant Program. The funding targets construction or
design/construction of projects that will result in the greatest improvements to water quality.
In November 2011, the City submitted a grant application to Ecology to expand the current vactor waste handling facility at
the Public Works Yard. The vactor waste handling facility receives a mixture of liquid and solids collected from the thousands
of stormwater catch basins throughout the City. It also receives street sweepings. Theses catch basins collect a portion of the
sediment that is contained in urban stormwater. The full vactor trucks dump their load into a pit where the liquid is drained to
the sanitary sewer system where it under goes treatment at the City’s wastewater treatment plant. The solids are dried and
disposed of in accordance with state and Federal regulations.
The City of Edmonds Public Works vactor waste facility is currently undersized and is operating at a maximum capacity. The
current facility, operating equipment, and staff are unable to support the City’s current maintenance schedule. The City is
unable to clean four stormwater flow control and treatment facilities on an annual basis due to limitations at the current
facility. In addition, street sweeping frequencies would increase by 25% if additional capacity was available.
The current dumping facility requires excessive maintenance to remove solids. The extra maintenance required by the City’s
crew to maintain the current decant facility, is time and money taken away from cleaning the City’s stormwater system on a
more frequent basis.
The City’s goal is to clean approximately 8,000 structures per year, and all underground water quality vaults. The City would
like to increase the stormwater system cleaning frequency by 25%, to at least once per year. This will help ensure the catch
basin and manhole sumps are no more than 60% full as recommended by Ecology. The City cannot currently achieve this
objective since the current decant facility is at maximum capacity and a large amount of maintenance equipment and labor
resources are used on just maintaining it. Reducing maintenance and increasing decant facility capacity is needed to achieve
the cleaning frequency goal. Further, it will facilitate cleaning operations during the months where increased run-off and
sedimentation occurs by reducing reliance on evaporation as the primary decanting method.
This grant provides the resources to expand the current waste handling facility that will allow the City to increase the frequency
of cleaning catch basins, streets, and other City owned and operated stormwater facilities. This will provide a water quality
benefit throughout the City in the creeks, Lake Ballinger, and Puget Sound.
Packet Page 272 of 488
The effective date of the grant agreement is July 1, 2012, and the agreement expires on December 31, 2013. The City plans to
design the facility in 2012 and complete construction in 2013.
The grant agreement (Attachment 1) has been reviewed and approved as to form by the City Attorney. This Committee
meeting and the subsequent full Council meeting serve as the public notice for this grant agreement.
Fiscal Impact:
This grant will add $259,745 to the 412-200 Stormwater Capital Fund. The grant requires a 25% match by the City. The
$86,580 in matching money will be spent from the 412-200 Stormwater Capital Fund from the “Public Works Water Quality
Upgrades” project.
Attachments
Attachment 1 - Department of Ecology Grant
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/06/2012 11:36 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/06/2012 01:10 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 08:18 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/07/2012 09:25 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 09:28 AM
Form Started By: cruzm Started On: 08/08/2012 03:33 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/07/2012
Packet Page 273 of 488
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
4
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
5
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
6
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
7
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
8
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
7
9
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
8
0
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
8
1
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
8
2
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
8
3
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
8
4
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
8
5
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
8
6
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
8
7
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
8
8
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
8
9
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
9
0
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
9
1
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
9
2
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
9
3
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
9
4
o
f
4
8
8
P
a
c
k
e
t
P
a
g
e
2
9
5
o
f
4
8
8
AM-5108 9. E.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Introduction to the Capital Facilities Plan (2013-2018) and the Capital Improvement Program (2013-2018).
Recommendation
Review the Drafts of the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program and provide comments and feedback.
Previous Council Action
None.
Narrative
The City's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Element is a document updated annually and identifies capital projects for at least the
next six years which support the City's Comprehensive Plan. The CFP contains a list of projects that need to be expanded or
will be new capital facilities in order to accommodate the City's projected population growth in accordance with the Growth
Management Act. Thus, capital projects that preserve existing capital facilities are not included in the CFP. These preservation
projects are identified within the six-year capital improvement program (CIP) along with capital facility plan projects which
encompass the projected expenditure needs for all city capital related projects.
CIP vs. CFP
The CFP and CIP are not the same thing; they arise from different purposes and are in response to different needs. While the
CIP is a budgeting tool that includes capital and maintenance projects, tying those projects to the various City funds and
revenues, the CFP is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to City levels of service
standards. The CFP is also required to be consistent with the other elements (transportation, parks, etc) of the Comprehensive
Plan, and there are restrictions as to how often a CFP can be amended. There are no such restrictions tied to the CIP.
The draft 2013-2018 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of General, Transportation
and Stormwater. The draft 2013-2018 CIP is attached as Exhibit 2. The CIP has two sections related to general and parks
projects and each project list is organized by the City's financial fund numbers.
The CFP and CIP will be presented to the full City Council on October 2, 2012 and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled
for October 16, 2011.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - Draft CFP (2013-2018)
Exhibit 2 - Draft CIP (2013-2018)
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 08:18 AM
Engineering Megan Luttrell 09/07/2012 09:48 AM
Public Works Megan Luttrell 09/07/2012 10:06 AM
Packet Page 296 of 488
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 10:06 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/07/2012 10:41 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/07/2012 11:07 AM
Form Started By: Robert English Started On: 09/06/2012 05:24 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/07/2012
Packet Page 297 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT
2013-2018
1Packet Page 298 of 488
CFP
GENERAL
2Packet Page 299 of 488
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
nd
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
)
$0
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
$
0
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
$0 $0
To
t
a
l
$5
-
$
2
3
M
$0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
Pa
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
s
$0
RE
E
T
$0
To
t
a
l
$5
M
$0
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
$
0
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
$0 $0
To
t
a
l
$5
M
$0
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
$
0
RE
E
T
1
/
G
r
a
n
t
s
$0 $0
To
t
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
$0
Li
b
r
a
r
y
/
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
Ci
t
y
G
.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
$0 $0
To
t
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
$0
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
$
1
,
5
5
5
,
0
0
0
RE
E
T
2
$1
5
5
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
40
0
,
0
0
0
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Sc
h
o
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Gr
a
n
t
s
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
,
5
5
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
5
5
,
0
0
0
$2
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
6
-
8
M
$0
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
$
0
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
$0 $0
To
t
a
l
$3
-
$
4
M
$0
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
$
0
G.
O
.
B
o
n
d
s
$0
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
$0
To
t
a
l
$4
-
1
0
M
EI
S
$
0
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
/
US
D
O
T
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
$
0
St
a
t
e
F
u
n
d
s
$0
To
t
a
l
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Un
k
n
o
w
n
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Gr
a
n
t
s
$5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$8
,
5
5
5
,
0
0
0
A
nn
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$1
5
5
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
2
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
M
a
r
k
e
t
(
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
W
a
t
e
r
f
r
on
t
)
Ac
q
u
i
r
e
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
f
o
r
a
ye
a
r
r
o
u
n
d
p
u
b
l
i
c
m
a
r
k
e
t
.
20
1
9
-
2
0
2
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
20
1
8
20
1
5
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
20
1
7
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
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
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
en
a
n
c
e
&
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
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
6
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
)
.
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
Si
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
_
8
-
3
1
-
1
2
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
_
C
F
P
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
3Packet Page 300 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center
at Yost Park
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 –
$23,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study
completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the
consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the
summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of
its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of
Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the
current pool.
SCHEDULE: 2013-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5m - $23m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
4Packet Page 301 of 488
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: 2013-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
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
5Packet Page 302 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Boys & Girls Club Building ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build new Boys & Girls Club facility to accommodate the growing
and changing needs of this important club.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Boys & Girls Club was constructed as a field
house by the Edmonds School District decades ago and is in need of major renovation or
replacement. It is inadequate in terms of ADA accessibility and does not meet the needs of a
modern club.
SCHEDULE: 2013-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts 6Packet Page 303 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Civic Playfield Acquisition
and/or Development
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5M
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 or work with the School District to develop this 8.1 acre
property for continued use as an important community park, sports tourism hub 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: 2013-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
7Packet Page 304 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds/Sno-Isle Library ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand building/parking to accommodate additional library needs
and programs. Library improvements identified in Sno-Isle Libraries Capital Facility Plan:
2007-2025
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements will better serve citizens needs requiring
additional space and more sophisticated technology.
SCHEDULE: 2013-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
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 305 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
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 in partnership with Edmonds School District. 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: 2013-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study $155,000 $2,200,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $155,000 $2,200,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $6m - $8m
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
9Packet Page 306 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $3m - $4m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
10Packet Page 307 of 488
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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $4m -$10m
11Packet Page 308 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
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: 2013-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-
2025
Engineering &
Administration
Right of Way
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL Unknown
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts. 12Packet Page 309 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Public Market (Downtown
Waterfront)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with community partners to establish a public
market, year around, on the downtown waterfront area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will help to create a community
gathering area, boost economic development, bring tourists to town, and will be a
valuable asset to Edmonds.
SCHEDULE:
This project depends on the ability to secure grant funding, and community partners
willing to work with the city to establish this. This potentially can be accomplished
by 2017.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $5m
13Packet Page 310 of 488
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
14Packet Page 311 of 488
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
3
-
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
$2
,
2
7
1
,
8
4
2
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$
2
,
2
7
1
,
8
4
2
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
De
s
g
i
n
/
R
O
W
$
0
(U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$8
6
2
,
3
5
8
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$8
6
2
,
3
5
8
$3
,
1
3
4
,
2
0
0
To
t
a
l
$3
,
1
3
4
,
2
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$8
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
)
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
6
,
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
)
$8
7
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
6
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$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
To
t
a
l
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
4
2
7
,
5
1
2
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
8
9
,
9
4
2
$
4
0
9
,
5
7
0
$
1
,
6
2
8
,
0
0
0
$2
2
6
,
7
0
8
(
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
,
7
0
8
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
)
$1
2
4
,
7
8
0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$6
0
,
8
5
8
$
6
3
,
9
2
2
$2
,
7
7
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$4
5
0
,
8
0
0
$
7
0
0
,
2
0
0
$
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
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
To
t
a
l
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
$4
,
5
1
1
,
7
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
1
9
,
7
0
0
$
3
,
7
9
2
,
0
0
0
$2
8
1
,
5
2
5
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
8
1
,
5
2
5
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
)
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$4
,
7
9
3
,
2
2
5
To
t
a
l
$7
1
9
,
7
0
0
$
4
,
0
7
3
,
5
2
5
$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
To
t
a
l
$1
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
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
s
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
.
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
.
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
.
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
5
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
20
1
9
-
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
S
t
S
W
@
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
(
5
Co
r
n
e
r
s
)
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
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
.
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
)
20
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
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
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
\
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
_
8
-
3
1
-
1
2
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
15Packet Page 312 of 488
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
3
-
2
0
2
5
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
5
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
20
1
9
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
$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
)
$4
,
0
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
)
$4
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
9
2
6
,
0
0
0
$2
,
6
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
)
$4
,
0
7
9
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$4
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
9
2
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
6
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
)
$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
$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
)
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
5
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
)
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
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
)
$5
7
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$3
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
7
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
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
.
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
.
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
)
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
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
Fe
r
r
y
U
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
a
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
In
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
a
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
w
il
l
r
ed
u
c
e
f
e
r
r
y
de
l
a
y
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
t
t
h
e
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g .
T
h
e
u
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
l
o
w
fo
r
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
t
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
S
t
a
t
a
l
l
t
i
m
e
s
.
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
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
\
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
_
8
-
3
1
-
1
2
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
16Packet Page 313 of 488
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
3
-
2
0
2
5
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
5
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
20
1
9
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
$1
9
0
,
3
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
9
0
,
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
)
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
9
,
7
0
0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$2
9
,
7
0
0
$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
)
$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
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
"
S
a
f
e
$
4
1
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
)
$
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
9
7
,
0
0
0
Ro
u
t
e
s
t
o
S
c
h
o
o
l
"
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Gr
a
n
t
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$4
1
7
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
9
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
)
$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
To
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
To
t
a
l
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$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
To
t
a
l
$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
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
T
I
B
/
$1
,
0
8
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
)
$8
8
,
0
0
0
$
9
9
7
,
0
0
0
RC
O
G
r
a
n
t
P
r
e
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
$0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$1
,
0
8
5
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$8
8
,
0
0
0
$
9
9
7
,
0
0
0
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
.
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
.
23
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
f
r
o
m
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
(
S
R
-
10
4
)
t
o
M
a
d
r
o
n
a
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Im
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
l
o
n
g
23
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
,
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
s
a
f
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
S
R
-
10
4
a
n
d
M
a
d
r
o
n
a
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
f
e
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
r
o
u
t
e
t
o
Se
v
i
e
w
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
a
n
d
n
e
a
r
b
y
pa
r
k
s
.
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
5
t
h
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
N
o
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
/
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Im
p
r
o
v
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
o
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sa
f
e
t
y
o
n
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
5
t
h
a
n
d
6t
h
a
l
o
n
g
w
/
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
al
o
n
g
t
h
a
t
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
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
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
\
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
_
8
-
3
1
-
1
2
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
17Packet Page 314 of 488
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
3
-
2
0
2
5
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
5
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
20
1
9
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
3
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
)
$6
4
,
0
0
0
$
2
7
5
,
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
$
3
3
8
,
0
0
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(
L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$6
7
7
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$1
2
7
,
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
)
$2
2
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
)
$2
2
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
)
$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
)
$1
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
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
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
)
$5
,
7
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
)
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
9
0
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
)
$5
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
9
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
"
S
a
f
e
$
4
3
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
8
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
8
,
0
0
0
Ro
u
t
e
s
t
o
S
c
h
o
o
l
"
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Gr
a
n
t
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$4
3
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
8
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
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
)
$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
To
t
a
l
$1
,
2
4
9
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$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
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
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
.
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
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
C
r
e
a
t
e
m
o
r
e
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
r
co
r
r
i
d
o
r
a
l
o
n
g
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
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
)
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
\
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
_
8
-
3
1
-
1
2
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
18Packet Page 315 of 488
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
3
-
2
0
2
5
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
Pu
r
p
o
s
e
20
1
5
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ph
a
s
e
20
1
9
-
2
0
2
5
20
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Gr
a
n
t
Op
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
$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
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
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
$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
$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
"
S
a
f
e
$3
7
1
,
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
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
8
,
0
0
0
Ro
u
t
e
s
t
o
S
c
h
o
o
l
"
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Gr
a
n
t
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$3
7
1
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
2
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
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
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
"
P
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
a
n
$2
7
1
,
0
0
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$2
7
1
,
0
0
0
an
d
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
S
a
f
e
t
y
"
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$0
(U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Gr
a
n
t
$0
(L
o
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
)
$2
7
1
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
7
1
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$2
9
,
6
0
0
,
4
2
5
A nn
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$
4
,
65
7
,
7
0
0
$
6
,
6
8
2
,
7
2
5
$
3
,
5
8
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
4
6
4
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
4
1
4
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
8
0
1
,
0
0
0
$
8
0
,
0
9
7
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
s
So
u
r
c
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
9
-
2
0
2
5
$9
,
9
0
1
,
3
5
4
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$3
,
5
7
1
,
7
8
4
$
4
,
2
0
1
,
5
7
0
$
1
,
6
2
8
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$1
8
,
0
4
9
,
2
3
3
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
2
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
4
0
7
,
2
3
3
$
1
,
9
4
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
9
3
9
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
3
2
6
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
3
1
1
,
0
0
0
$0
$6
0
3
,
0
0
0
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
$0
$0
$0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
8
8
,
0
0
0
$
4
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
0
,
0
9
7
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
4
6
,
8
3
8
Lo
c
a
l
F
u
n
d
s
$9
6
2
,
9
1
6
$
7
3
,
9
2
2
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
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
.
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
m
i
d
-
b
l
o
c
k
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
re
f
u
g
e
i
s
l
a
n
d
~
4
0
0
'
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
S
R
-
1
0
4
@
P
i
n
e
S
t
.
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
a
sa
f
e
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
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
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
.
15
t
h
S
t
S
W
f
r
o
m
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
t
o
8t
h
A
v
e
S
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
l
o
c
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
.
SR
-
1
0
4
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
M
i
d
b
l
o
c
k
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
\
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
_
8
-
3
1
-
1
2
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
19Packet Page 316 of 488
PROJECT NAME: 212th St. SW @ 84th Ave.
W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,412,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The intersection of 84th Ave and 212th is 5 legged, which also
includes Main Street and Bowdoin Way approaches. The intersection is stop-controlled for all
approaches. 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, improving the LOS to B.
COST BREAKDOWN
SCHEDULE: A federal grant was secured for all project phases. Construction is scheduled for
completion in 2013.
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$332,590
Construction $2,798,730
1% for Art $2,880
TOTAL $3,134,200
20Packet Page 317 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,932,000
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 2019 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$786,000
Construction $3,146,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $3,932,000
21Packet Page 318 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW
intersection improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,079,000
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 2016 and 2018.
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$490,000 $926,000
Construction $2,663,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $490,000 $926,000 $2,663,000
22Packet Page 319 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 174th Ave.
W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $906,000
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. Install traffic signal to increase the LOS and reduce
intersection delay.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers
accessing either street.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2019 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$180,000
Construction $726,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $906,000
23Packet Page 320 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Main St. @ 9th Ave
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000
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 2019 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$220,000
Construction $873,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,093,000
24Packet Page 321 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. @ 9th Ave.
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,093,000
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 2019 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$220,000
Construction $873,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,093,000
25Packet Page 322 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Ferry Underpass at Main St
Railroad Crossing
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $60-$80 M
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Ferry commuters currently have to cross the railroad tracks,
creating safety concerns due to the high train traffic. With the potential increase in train
traffic with the coal trains, an underpass would significantly improve the safety at the
crossing. Emergency vehicles have no way of accessing the west side of the railroad tracks
when a train is going across.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve safety at the railroad crossing, reduce delay
for the ferry system, and allow access for the emergency vehicles to the west side of the
railroad tracks when a train is crossing Main St.
SCHEDULE: Feasibility study is scheduled for 2016 (pending grant funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Engineering &
Administration
$15 Million
Construction $42 Million
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $57 Million
26Packet Page 323 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Main St. Pedestrian Lighting
from 5th Ave. to 6th Ave.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
$1,714,600
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.
Construction will be completed by 2013.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $220,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $220,000
27Packet Page 324 of 488
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
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 2016 and 2017 and construction for 2018
(unsecured funding for all phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$30,000 $100,000
Construction $647,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $30,000 $100,000 $647,000
28Packet Page 325 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 236th St. SW from
Edmonds Way to Madrona Elementary School
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $417,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a walkway on the south side of 236th St. SW
from SR 104 to Madrona Elementary.
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: Engineering is scheduled to begin in 2013 and construction completed
by 2015. A Safe Routes to School grant application was submitted in Spring ’12 to fund
the design and construction phases. A response is scheduled for Spring ‘13.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
& ROW
$65,000
Construction $55,000 $297,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $120,000 $297,000
29Packet Page 326 of 488
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: 2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $32,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $32,000
30Packet Page 327 of 488
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 2016 – 2017 and construction in 2018 (must meet an
MUTCD traffic signal warrant and get WSDOT approval such 196th St. SW is a State Route).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$100,000 $163,000
Construction $616,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000 $163,000 $616,000
31Packet Page 328 of 488
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 2016 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $53,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $63,000
32Packet Page 329 of 488
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 2016 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $69,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $79,000
33Packet Page 330 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway
from Bell St to Caspers St.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,114,000
* 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 2013 and construction in 2014 (pending grant funding;
RCO and TIB grant application submitted earlier this year and response scheduled for the
end of this year).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$88,000 $96,000
Construction $901,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $88,000 $997,000
34Packet Page 331 of 488
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 2017 (project is dependent on obtaining a grant, such
as the “Safe Routes to School”).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$127,000
Construction $550,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $127,000 $550,000
35Packet Page 332 of 488
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 2018 (unsecured funding / pending grant funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - 2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$190,000
Construction $760,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $190,000 $760,000
36Packet Page 333 of 488
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 2016 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$20,000
Construction $200,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $220,000
37Packet Page 334 of 488
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 2018 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction $100,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $110,000
38Packet Page 335 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 4th Ave Corridor
Enhancement
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,700,000
* 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
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study $25,000
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000 $1,150,000
Construction $1,425,000 $2,900,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $25,000 $200,000 $1,150,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000
39Packet Page 336 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 238th St. SW from 100th
Ave. W to 104th Ave. W
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $436,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a sidewalk on the north side of 238th St. SW from
100th Ave. W to 104th Ave. W.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve pedestrian safety along that stretch and creating
safe pedestrian connection between 100th Ave. W and 104th Ave. W.
SCHEDULE Engineering is scheduled to begin in 2013 and construction completed by 2015. A
Safe Routes to School grant application was submitted in Spring ’12 to fund the design and
construction phases. A response is scheduled for Spring ‘13.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$138,000
Construction $50,000 $248,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $188,000 $248,000
40Packet Page 337 of 488
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
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction $1,049,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,249,000
41Packet Page 338 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9th Ave. S
(interim solution)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a mini-roundabout or re-striping of 9th Ave. with the
removal of parking on both sides of the street.
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 re-
striping of 9th Ave. would improve the LOS to C or LOS B with the installation of a mini-
roundabout.
SCHEDULE: 2013 (pending grant funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$500
Construction $9,500
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000
42Packet Page 339 of 488
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 2019 and 2026
(unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$35,000
Construction $140,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000
43Packet Page 340 of 488
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
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2018 and 2025 (unsecured
funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$35,000
Construction $140,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $175,000
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.
44Packet Page 341 of 488
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 2019 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$210,000
Construction $840,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,050,000
45Packet Page 342 of 488
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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
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
46Packet Page 343 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 15th St. SW from Edmonds
Way to 8th Ave. S
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $371,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk on 15th St. SW from
Edmonds Way to 8th Ave. S.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route for kids
attending Sherwood Elementary.
SCHEDULE: Engineering is scheduled to begin in 2013 and construction completed by
2015. A Safe Routes to School grant application was submitted in Spring ’12 to fund the
design and construction phases. A response is scheduled for Spring ‘13.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$123,000
Construction $248,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $123,000 $248,000
47Packet Page 344 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 Pedestrian Mid-
block Crossing
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $271,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: No pedestrian crossing exists near the SR-104 @ Pine St.
intersection. SR-104 has five lanes of traffic, with a 40 mph speed limit. A mid-block with a
refuge island would be added ~ 400’ north of the intersection, allowing pedestrian to cross
safely from the west side of SR-104 to City Park (east side of SR-104).
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safer pedestrian crossing.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and construction will take place in 2013 (unsecured funding).
WSDOT submitted a Bicycle and Pedestrian grant in Summer ’12 to fund both phases.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$55,000
Construction $216,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $271,000
48Packet Page 345 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 76th Ave W @ 212th St. SW
Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,923,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a northbound and southbound left-turn lane to convert the signal
operation for those approaches from split phasing to protected-permissive phasing. Add a right-
turn lane for the westbound, southbound, and northbound movements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the existing level
of service from LOS D (LOS F by 2015) to LOS C.
SCHEDULE: A federal grant was secured for the design and a portion of the right of way phases.
Design started in 2012 and is scheduled for completion in 2015, along with the right-of-way phase.
Construction is scheduled for 2015 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$450,800 $700,200 $20,000
Construction $1,608,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $450,800 $700,200 $1,628,000
49Packet Page 346 of 488
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
LOS would be improved from LOS E to LOS C.
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 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$35,000
Construction $138,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $173,000
50Packet Page 347 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW Corridor
Safety Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,296,000
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
5) Overlay of 228th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to ~ 2,000’ east of 76th Ave. W
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The project will improve access / safety to the I-5 / Mountlake
Terrace Park & Ride from SR99. This east / west connection will reduce demand and congestion along two east-
west corridors (220th Street SW and SR104). Roadway safety will also be improved as SR 99/ 228th Street SW
will become a signalized intersection. The accident-prone left turns from SR99 to 76th Ave. W. will be restricted
with the addition of a raised center island.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and ROW acquisition scheduled for completion by 2014. Construction scheduled to
start in 2015. In 2010, federal grant was secured for the completion of design and ROW acquisition. In 2012, a
federal grant was secured for construction. A small amount of construction funding is still needed due to project
additions made since the submittal of the most recent grant application.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering,
Administration, and
ROW
$719,700 $255,275
Construction $3,818,000
1% for Art *
TOTAL $719,700 $4,073,275
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
51Packet Page 348 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th
Ave. W Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,431,000
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 2019 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$286,000
Construction $1,145,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,431,000
52Packet Page 349 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Caspers St. @ 9th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,022,000
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 2019 and 2026
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-
2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$204,000
Construction $818,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,022,000
53Packet Page 350 of 488
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 2019 and 2026
(unsecured funding). The project cost is split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since
half the project is in Esperance.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2026
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$2,042,000
Construction $8,169,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,211,000
54Packet Page 351 of 488
CFP
STORMWATER
55Packet Page 352 of 488
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
3
-
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
)
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
)
$6
4
6
,
2
6
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$
6
4
6
,
2
6
0
$6
4
6
,
2
6
0
To
t
a
l
$6
4
6
,
2
6
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
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
)
De
s
i
g
n
$0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
5
6
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$2
2
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
7
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
8
,
0
0
0
$7
5
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
2
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
7
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
8
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
0
0
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$
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
$
1
2
7
,
0
0
0
$7
0
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$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
$
1
2
7
,
0
0
0
$1
9
7
,
5
6
8
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
9
7
,
5
6
8
Ye
s
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
)
20
1
2
-
2
0
1
3
(
W
a
s
t
e
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
$
3
6
5
,
8
5
6
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$6
5
,
8
5
6
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
Fa
c
i
l
i
t
y
)
$5
6
3
,
4
2
4
To
t
a
l
$2
6
3
,
4
2
4
$
3
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
S
t
u
d
y
$
6
,
6
9
8
,
2
5
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
7
8
5
,
7
5
0
$
2
,
7
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
7
,
5
0
0
$2
,
2
3
2
,
7
5
0
(
P
a
r
k
s
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
)
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
9
5
,
2
5
0
$
9
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
2
,
5
0
0
$8
,
9
3
1
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
3
8
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
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
)
Po
s
s
i
b
l
e
G
r
a
n
t
/
T
B
D
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
4
,
8
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
)
$3
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
8
2
5
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$1
8
,
8
4
2
,
6
8
4
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$
1
,
54
1
,
6
8
4
$
1
,
5
3
7
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
7
3
2
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
3
9
4
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
2
6
1
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
3
7
7
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
s
So
u
r
c
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
$1
9
7
,
5
6
8
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
9
7
,
5
6
8
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
1
,
5
7
3
,
2
5
0
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
5
3
5
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
5
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
6
8
7
,
5
0
0
$7
,
0
7
1
,
8
6
6
De
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
$1
,
2
6
9
,
1
1
6
$
7
8
7
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
1
9
6
,
2
5
0
$
1
,
8
6
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
2
6
1
,
0
0
0
$
6
8
9
,
5
0
0
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
.
Lo
w
I
m
p
a
c
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
20
1
3
=
9
5
t
h
/
9
3
r
d
S
t
.
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Ad
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
f
l
o
o
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
il
l
u
s
e
L
o
w
Im
p
a
c
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
m
a
n
a
g
e
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
.
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
Up
g
r
a
d
e
s
:
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
3
=
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
o
f
w
a
s
t
e
ha
n
d
l
i
n
g
f
a
c
il
i
t
y
;
20
1
4
=
W
a
s
h
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
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
)
a
n
d
b
e
a
b
l
e
t
o
d
o
m
o
r
e
st
r
e
e
t
s
w
e
e
p
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
a
t
c
h
b
a
s
i
n
c
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
w
a
t
e
r
qu
a
l
i
t
y
i
n
C
r
e
e
k
s
,
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
,
&
L
a
k
e
B
a
ll
i
n
g
e
r
.
20
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
Pu
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
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
To
t
a
l
C
o
s
t
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
s
1
&
3
-
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
S
u
m
p
s
o
n
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
to
H
i
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
w
i
t
h
Ra
i
n
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
I
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
p
i
p
e
(n
e
a
r
1
0
7
t
h
P
l
W
)
.
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
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
a
s
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
S
W
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
p
i
p
e
n
e
a
r
1
0
7
t
h
P
L
W
f
o
r
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
R
a
i
n
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
wi
l
l
b
e
ad
d
e
d
o
n
1
0
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
.
20
1
8
Re
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
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
.
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
C
r
/
W
il
l
o
w
Cr
e
e
k
/
D
a
y
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
/
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
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
on
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
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
/
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
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
.
56Packet Page 353 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Southwest Edmonds Basin
Study Projects 1 & 3 - Connect Sumps on 238th St
SW to Hickman Park Infiltration System with Rain
Gardens and Replace Infiltration pipe (near 107th Pl
W). SSWCP1 Projects 1A and 1C.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $646,260
Alignment of the proposed storm drain pipe along 238th St SW. Existing catch basin sumps in the foreground.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project will install a stormwater pipe to replace the the existing
aging and incomplete storm drain system and install rain gardens on 104th Ave W. near
cemetery. This project has been combined with a replacement of an infiltration pipe (near
107th Pl W) for efficiency (this replacement project is not a CFP but it is included in the total
project cost).
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 located Hickman Park will reduce the potential for flooding. This
infiltration system was designed to handle the stormwater flows from this street. Rain gardens
have been added to the project for water quality treatment purposes.
SCHEDULE: 2013-2018
COST BREAKDOWN2,3
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study $50,000
Eng. & Admin. $25,610
Construction $565,000
1% for Art $5,650
TOTAL $646,260
1. SSWCP – Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan - 2010
2. Total costs are in 2012 dollars.
3. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%;2018-3%
57Packet Page 354 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Southwest Edmonds Basin
Study Project 2 – Connect Sumps near
Robinhood Lane – SSWCP1 Project 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: 2013-2018
COST BREAKDOWN2,3
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study $105,000 $441,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $105,000 $441,000
1. SSWCP – Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan - 2010
2. Total costs are in 2012 dollars.
3. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%; 2018-3%
58Packet Page 355 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Low Impact Development
Retrofit Project - 2013 = 95th/93rd St. Drainage
Improvement Project. – SSWCP1 Project 5
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $756,000
Project area along 93rd Pl W, south of 224th St SW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 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 during large storm events.
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. Other locations will be looked at fro retrofit on an annual basis.
SCHEDULE: 2013-2018
COST BREAKDOWN2,3
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study $50,000 $28,000 $28,820 $29,480 $30,360
Eng. & Admin. $5,000 $2,600 $2,620 $2,680 $2,760
Construction $171,000 $96,400 $96,560 $101,840 $104,880
1% for Art
TOTAL $226,000 $127,000 $131,000 $134,000 $138,000
1. SSWCP – Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan - 2010
2. Total costs are in 2012 dollars.
3. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%; 2018 3%
59Packet Page 356 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Lake Ballinger Associated
Projects – SSWCP1 Project 7
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $700,000
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. Funds will
be used for construction of improvements, as needed.
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: 2013-2018
COST BREAKDOWN2,3
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study $106,000 $110,000 $115,000 $119,000 $123,000 $127,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $106,000 $110,000 $115,000 $119,000 $123,000 $127,000
1. SSWCP – Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan - 2010
2. Total costs are in 2012 dollars.
3. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%; 2018-3%
60Packet Page 357 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Public Works Yard Water
Quality Upgrades: (2012-2013 = Upgrade of
waste handling facility; 2014=Wash Station). –
SSWCP1 Project 9
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $563,424
Existing Waste Handling Facility
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A grant received from the Department of Ecology will fund an
upgrade to the waste handling facility. Design will be completed late 2012 or early 2013.
Construction will be completed in 2013. The grant has a 25% match by the City. A vehicle wash
station, formerly part of this project, has been moved to 2014.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Allow Public Works Yard to handle more catch basin and
street sweeping waste (from increased catch basin cleaning and street sweeping). Allow for the
City to meet the requirements under the Federal and State Clean Water Act.
SCHEDULE: 2013-2018
COST BREAKDOWN2,3
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin. $8,000 $10,000
Construction $255,424 $290,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $263,424 $300,000
1. SSWCP – Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan - 2010
2. Total costs are in 2012 dollars.
3. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%; 2018 3%
Project
location
61Packet Page 358 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Shellabarger
Cr/Willow Cr – SSWCP1 Projects 12 & 13
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $8,931,000
Edmonds Marsh as seen from the viewing platform. Previously restored section of Willow Creek. Source:
www.unocaledmonds.info/clean-up/gallery.php
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Build on a feasibility study to be completed in late 2012/early 2013 with
People for Puget Sound that will assess the feasibility of day lighting the Willow Creek channel. The
potential for salmonid rearing in the March will also be evaluated. 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. Funds will be
used for study and construction but exact breakdown cannot be assessed at this time. Grant funding at
75% is assumed for 2013-2018.
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: 2013-2018
COST BREAKDOWN2,3
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study $90,000
Eng. & Admin. $10,000
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000 $500,000 $2,381,000 $3,700,000 $2,000,000 $250,000
1. SSWCP – Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan - 2010
2. Total costs are in 2011 dollars.
3. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%; 2018 3% 62Packet Page 359 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Perrinville Creek High Flow
Reduction/Management Project– SSWCP1
Project 15
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6,500,000
Perrinville Creek Channel illustrating the channel incision that
will be addressed by restoration.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A flow reduction study is scheduled for 2013 that will develop
alternatives to implement in the basin. Beginning in 2014 projects are expected to be designed
and/or constructed. It is expected that this project will be implemented with the City of
Lynnwood (half the Perrinville basin is in Lynnwood) and Snohomish County (owner of the
South County Park). Projects will likely be a combination of detention, infiltration, and stream
bank stabilization. Grant funding at 75% is assumed for 2014-2018.
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. Before any habitat improvements can be implemented, the flows must be
controlled or these improvements will likely be washed away.
SCHEDULE: 2013-2018
COST BREAKDOWN2,3
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study $200,000
Eng. & Admin. $100,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $500,000
Construction $400,000 $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $1,500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000
1. SSWCP – Storm and Surface Water Comprehensive Plan - 2010
2. Total costs are in 2012 dollars.
3. Future expenses reflect the following annual inflation rates: 2013 4%; 2014 4%; 2015 4%; 2016 4%; 2017 4%; 2018 3%
Perrinville
Creek
63Packet Page 360 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2013-2018
1Packet Page 361 of 488
2Packet Page 362 of 488
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2013-2018)
Table of Contents
FUND DESCRIPTION DEPARTMENT PAGE
GENERAL
112 Transportation Public Works 6
113
Multimodal
Transportation
Community
Services
9
116
Building
Maintenance
Public Works
10
125
REET-2
Transportation
Public Works
12
129 Special Projects Parks & Recreation 13
412-100 Water Projects Public Works 14
412-200 Storm Projects Public Works 15
412-300 Sewer Projects Public Works 17
414
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Public Works
19
PARKS
125
REET-2 Parks
Improvement
Parks & Recreation
22
126 Parks Acquisition Parks & Recreation 24
132
Parks Construction
(Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
25
3Packet Page 363 of 488
4Packet Page 364 of 488
CIP
GENERAL
5Packet Page 365 of 488
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Fu
n
d
1
1
2
-
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
C
F
P
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
Pr
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
/
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
An
n
u
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
s
$1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
5t
h
A
v
e
S
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
f
r
o
m
E
l
m
W
a
y
t
o
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
$
7
7
3
,
5
0
0
$7
7
3
,
5
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
-
S
i
g
n
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$7
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
5
0
0
$
2
2
,
5
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
-
C
a
b
i
n
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
/
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
o
u
n
t
d
o
w
n
D
i
s
p
l
a
y
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
9
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
9
5
,
0
0
0
Si
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
-
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
@
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
$5
0
8
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
8
,
0
0
0
Si
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
f
o
r
N
B
L
T
-
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
@
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
(
i
n
t
e
r
i
m
)
$
5
,
0
0
0
$0
Sa
f
e
t
y
/
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
21
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
/
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
(
F
i
v
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
)
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
X
$
2
1
6
,
9
0
0
$
3
,
1
3
4
,
2
0
0
$3
,
1
3
4
,
2
0
0
22
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
S
a
f
e
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
$
2
6
0
,
3
0
0
$
7
1
9
,
7
0
0
$
4
,
0
7
3
,
2
7
5
$
4
,
7
9
2
,
9
7
5
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
@
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
$
1
6
1
,
5
0
0
$
4
5
0
,
8
0
0
$
7
0
0
,
2
0
0
$
1
,
6
2
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
7
7
9
,
0
0
0
SR
5
2
4
(
1
9
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
)
/
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
-
G
u
a
r
d
r
a
i
l
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
SR
5
2
4
(
1
9
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
)
/
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
-
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
8
7
9
,
0
0
0
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
@
3
r
d
S
i
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
$1
5
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
3
,
0
0
0
Pu
g
e
t
D
r
.
@
O
V
D
S
i
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
1
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
8
,
0
0
0
Ma
i
n
S
t
.
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
(
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
X
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
@
9
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
(
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
X
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
22
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
@
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
7
3
,
0
0
0
Fe
r
r
y
U
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
a
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
X
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ar
t
e
r
i
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
Hw
y
9
9
@
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
$4
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
9
2
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
6
6
3
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
0
7
9
,
0
0
0
Ty
p
e
2
R
a
i
s
e
d
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
r
k
e
r
s
$9
8
,
0
0
0
$
9
8
,
0
0
0
No
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
5
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
X
$
1
,
4
7
6
,
2
0
0
$
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
$1
1
,
8
0
0
$0
SR
-
9
9
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
(
P
h
a
s
e
3
)
$
2
,
0
0
0
$
9
8
,
0
0
0
$
5
8
4
,
0
0
0
$6
8
2
,
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
C
a
s
p
e
r
s
S
t
.
X
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
8
,
0
0
0
$
9
9
7
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
8
5
,
0
0
0
23
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
t
o
1
0
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
X
$
1
8
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
8
,
0
0
0
$
4
3
6
,
0
0
0
15
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
e
S
X
$
1
2
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
8
,
0
0
0
$
3
7
1
,
0
0
0
80
t
h
A
v
e
W
f
r
o
m
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
t
o
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
4
7
,
0
0
0
$
7
7
7
,
0
0
0
23
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
/
S
R
-
1
0
4
t
o
M
a
d
r
o
n
a
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
X
$
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
9
7
,
0
0
0
$
4
1
7
,
0
0
0
2n
d
A
v
e
.
S
f
r
o
m
J
a
m
e
s
S
t
.
t
o
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$3
2
,
0
0
0
$
3
2
,
0
0
0
AD
A
C
u
r
b
R
a
m
p
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
.
C
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
(
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
)
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
0
,
0
0
0
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
.
f
r
o
m
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
t
o
2
0
0
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$1
2
7
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
7
7
,
0
0
0
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
d
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
9
0
,
0
0
0
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
3
r
d
A
v
e
.
t
o
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
0
,
0
0
0
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
t
o
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
Au
d
i
b
l
e
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
S
i
g
n
a
l
s
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
SR
-
1
0
4
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
M
i
d
b
l
o
c
k
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
X
$
2
7
1
,
0
0
0
$2
7
1
,
0
0
0
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
X
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
3
,
0
0
0
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$7
9
,
0
0
0
$
7
9
,
0
0
0
Sh
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
R
o
a
d
X
$
3
,
9
0
0
$0
22
6
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
$
6
,
8
0
0
$0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
s
h
a
r
r
o
w
s
)
$1
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
2
,
0
0
0
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
R
o
u
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
n
g
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
$0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
(
S
u
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
,
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
e
s
)
X
$
4
,
5
8
0
$
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
$
1
0
5
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$2
,
1
9
3
,
9
8
0
$
5
,
7
9
9
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
0
9
6
,
4
7
5
$
2
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
9
7
6
,
5
0
0
$
4
,
6
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
5
6
8
,
5
0
0
$
3
2
,
4
8
7
,
1
7
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
Fu
n
d
1
1
2
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
6Packet Page 366 of 488
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
L
o
a
n
(
1
)
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
$1
9
,
1
4
1
$
1
9
,
0
5
0
$
1
8
,
9
6
0
$
1
8
,
8
6
9
$
1
8
,
8
6
0
$
1
8
,
7
7
0
$
1
8
,
6
8
0
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
L
o
a
n
(
2
)
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
$2
2
,
5
5
3
$
2
2
,
4
4
7
$
2
2
,
3
4
1
$
2
2
,
2
3
5
$
2
2
,
2
2
9
$
2
2
,
1
2
3
$
2
2
,
1
0
7
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
L
o
a
n
(
3
)
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
R
o
a
d
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
$3
5
,
3
4
9
$
3
5
,
1
8
3
$
3
5
,
0
1
9
$
3
4
,
8
5
4
$
3
4
,
8
5
4
$
3
4
,
6
9
0
$
3
4
,
6
7
1
To
t
a
l
D
e
b
t
$7
7
,
0
4
3
$
7
6
,
6
8
0
$
7
6
,
3
2
0
$
7
5
,
9
5
8
$
7
5
,
9
4
3
$
7
5
,
5
8
3
$
7
5
,
4
5
8
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
a
n
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$4
2
3
,
4
4
9
$3
2
5
,
6
9
7
$
3
5
4
,
6
0
1
$
3
1
5
,
3
5
3
$
5
0
6
,
3
9
5
$
1
3
9
,
9
5
2
$
2
0
4
,
8
6
9
Mo
t
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
F
u
e
l
T
a
x
$
1
1
7
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
1
2
5
-
(
R
E
E
T
2
T
r
a
n
s
.
)
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
1
0
0
f
o
r
5
t
h
A
v
e
.
S
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
$
2
2
2
,
5
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
2
0
0
f
o
r
F
i
v
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
$
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
2
0
0
f
o
r
F
i
v
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
$
1
2
8
,
5
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
1
0
0
f
o
r
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
$
2
2
2
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
2
0
0
f
o
r
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
$
2
4
1
,
4
0
0
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
$2
9
,
5
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
-
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
2
0
0
(
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
)
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
7
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
2
,
0
0
0
$
6
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$1
,
0
3
3
,
3
4
9
$
1
,
6
2
6
,
6
9
7
$
5
9
9
,
6
0
1
$
8
1
2
,
3
5
3
$
1
,
0
0
6
,
3
9
5
$6
4
1
,
9
5
2
$
7
0
7
,
8
6
9
Gr
a
n
t
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
(S
t
a
t
e
-
T
I
B
)
f
o
r
5
t
h
A
v
e
S
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
$5
5
1
,
0
0
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
)
-
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
-
C
a
b
i
n
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
/
P
e
d
.
C
o
u
n
t
d
o
w
n
D
i
s
p
l
a
y
$5
,
0
0
0
$
2
9
5
,
0
0
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
)
f
o
r
2
1
2
t
h
@
8
4
t
h
(
F
i
v
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
)
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
$1
8
7
,
6
1
9
$
2
,
2
7
1
,
8
4
2
(S
t
a
t
e
)
f
o
r
2
2
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$
2
2
5
,
1
6
0
$
7
1
9
,
7
0
0
$
3
,
7
9
1
,
7
5
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
)
f
o
r
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
@
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
$
1
3
9
,
6
9
8
$
3
8
9
,
9
4
2
$
4
0
9
,
5
7
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
)
f
o
r
F
e
r
r
y
U
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
a
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
(S
t
a
t
e
)
f
o
r
M
a
i
n
S
t
.
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
5
t
h
t
o
6
t
h
A
v
e
$4
8
7
,
5
7
4
$
1
9
0
,
3
0
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
)
f
o
r
M
a
i
n
S
t
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
5
t
h
t
o
6
t
h
A
v
e
$4
9
2
,
5
0
0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
)
f
o
r
H
w
y
9
9
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
P
h
a
s
e
3
)
$2
,
0
0
0
$
9
8
,
0
0
0
$
5
8
4
,
0
0
0
(S
t
a
t
e
)
f
o
r
S
h
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$1
5
,
4
4
9
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
)
f
o
r
2
2
6
t
h
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$
8
,
3
7
1
Y ea
r
l
y
S
u
b
T
o
t
a
l
G
r
a
n
t
s
/
L
o
a
n
s
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
$1
,
5
6
3
,
3
7
1
$
4
,
5
1
5
,
7
8
4
$4
,
7
8
5
,
3
2
0
$0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
Fu
n
d
1
1
2
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
7Packet Page 367 of 488
Gr
a
n
t
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Gr
a
n
t
s
/
L
o
a
n
s
S
o
u
g
h
t
/
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
(
n
o
t
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
An
n
u
a
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
s
$1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Si
g
n
a
l
-
C
a
b
i
n
e
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
Si
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
-
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
@
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
$2
5
6
,
0
0
0
22
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
S
a
f
e
t
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$2
4
3
,
5
1
9
76
t
h
@
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$2
2
6
,
7
0
8
$
1
,
4
0
8
,
0
0
0
19
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
@
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
-
G
u
a
r
d
r
a
i
l
$3
0
,
0
0
0
19
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
@
8
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
-
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
6
,
0
0
0
Ma
i
n
S
t
@
3
r
d
A
v
e
S
i
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
$1
5
3
,
0
0
0
Pu
g
e
t
D
r
.
@
O
V
D
S
i
g
n
a
l
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
22
0
t
h
S
t
S
W
@
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
Fe
r
r
y
U
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
a
t
M
a
i
n
S
t
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Hw
y
9
9
@
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
S
W
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$4
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
9
2
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
6
6
3
,
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
C
a
s
p
e
r
s
S
t
$8
8
,
0
0
0
$
9
0
1
,
0
0
0
23
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
f
r
o
m
1
0
0
t
h
A
v
e
W
t
o
1
0
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
$1
8
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
8
,
0
0
0
15
t
h
S
t
S
W
f
r
o
m
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
e
W
$1
2
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
8
,
0
0
0
80
t
h
A
v
e
/
1
8
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
/
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
4
7
,
0
0
0
23
6
t
h
S
t
S
W
f
r
o
m
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
W
a
y
/
S
R
-
1
0
4
t
o
M
a
d
r
o
n
a
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
$1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
9
7
,
0
0
0
2n
d
A
v
e
F
r
o
m
M
a
i
n
S
t
t
o
J
a
m
e
s
S
t
$3
2
,
0
0
0
AD
A
C
u
r
b
R
a
m
p
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
D
r
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
$6
4
,
0
0
0
$
2
7
5
,
0
0
0
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
B
e
a
c
h
R
d
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
Wa
l
n
u
t
f
r
o
m
3
r
d
t
o
4
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
$2
2
0
,
0
0
0
Wa
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
6
t
h
t
o
7
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
Au
d
i
b
l
e
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
S
i
g
n
a
l
s
$2
5
,
0
0
0
SR
-
1
0
4
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
M
i
d
-
B
l
o
c
k
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
$2
7
1
,
0
0
0
Ma
p
l
e
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
$6
3
,
0
0
0
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
f
r
o
m
7
t
h
t
o
8
t
h
A
v
e
.
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
$7
9
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
,
s
h
a
r
r
o
w
s
,
o
r
s
i
g
n
s
)
$5
8
,
0
0
0
$
5
8
,
0
0
0
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
R
o
u
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
n
g
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
Ye
a
r
l
y
S
u
b
T
o
t
a
l
G
r
a
n
t
s
/
L
o
a
n
s
S
o
u
g
h
t
/
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
$
8
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
1
0
3
,
2
2
7
$
2
,
2
0
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
6
8
6
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
2
5
4
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
1
6
1
,
0
0
0
Gr
a
n
t
/
N
o
t
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
$1
,
5
6
3
,
3
7
1
$
4
,
6
0
3
,
7
8
4
$
6
,
8
8
8
,
5
4
7
$
2
,
2
0
1
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
1
8
6
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
2
5
4
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
1
6
1
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
&
G
r
a
n
t
s
$2
,
5
9
6
,
7
2
0
$
6
,
2
3
0
,
4
8
1
$
7
,
4
8
8
,
1
4
8
$
3
,
0
1
3
,
3
5
3
$
5
,
1
9
2
,
3
9
5
$
4
,
8
9
5
,
9
5
2
$
7
,
8
6
8
,
8
6
9
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
($
2
,
1
9
3
,
9
8
0
)
(
$
5
,
7
9
9
,
2
0
0
)
(
$
7
,
0
9
6
,
4
7
5
)
(
$
2
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
4
,
9
7
6
,
5
0
0
)
(
$
4
,
6
1
5
,
5
0
0
)
(
$
7
,
5
6
8
,
5
0
0
)
To
t
a
l
D
e
b
t
($
7
7
,
0
4
3
)
(
$
7
6
,
6
8
0
)
(
$
7
6
,
3
2
0
)
(
$
7
5
,
9
5
8
)
(
$
7
5
,
9
4
3
)
(
$
7
5
,
5
8
3
)
(
$
7
5
,
4
5
8
)
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$3
2
5
,
6
9
7
$
3
5
4
,
6
0
1
$
3
1
5
,
3
5
3
$
5
0
6
,
3
9
5
$
1
3
9
,
9
5
2
$
2
0
4
,
8
6
9
$
2
2
4
,
9
1
1
Fu
n
d
1
1
2
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
8Packet Page 368 of 488
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Fu
n
d
1
1
3
-
M
u
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
C
F
P
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
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
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
X
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
-
D
e
s
i
g
n
R
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
-
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
i
s
c
.
$0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
a
n
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
s
t
)
St
a
t
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
-
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
L
a
w
-
L
o
c
a
l
M
a
t
c
h
i
n
g
$
$5
5
,
8
5
9
$5
5
,
8
5
9
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
-
T
E
A
2
1
,
C
M
A
Q
,
B
u
s
5
3
0
9
RT
I
D
ST
2
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
Fu
n
d
1
1
3
9/
7
/
2
0
1
2
9Packet Page 369 of 488
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Fu
n
d
1
1
6
-
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
C
F
P
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
AD
A
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
-
C
i
t
y
W
i
d
e
$5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
A
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
$3
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
B
o
i
l
e
r
R
e
p
a
i
r
s
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
P
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
P
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
R
a
d
i
a
t
o
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$
8
5
,
0
0
0
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
R
e
p
a
i
r
s
$6
5
,
0
0
0
$6
5
,
0
0
0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
B
l
i
n
d
s
$0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
A
s
b
e
s
t
o
s
A
b
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
F
l
o
o
r
i
n
g
/
G
y
m
$1
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
,
0
0
0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
C
o
u
n
t
e
r
t
o
p
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
O
i
l
T
a
n
k
D
e
c
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
i
n
g
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
E
l
e
v
a
t
o
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
R
o
o
f
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
7
5
,
0
0
0
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
G
u
t
t
e
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$5
,
0
0
0
$0
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
E
l
e
v
a
t
o
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
$4
5
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
P
a
r
k
M
a
i
n
t
.
B
l
d
g
.
R
o
o
f
$0
Fi
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
1
6
P
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
$5
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
Fi
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
1
6
C
a
r
p
e
t
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
Fi
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
1
6
H
V
A
C
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
Fi
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
1
7
C
a
r
p
e
t
$1
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
,
0
0
0
Fi
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
1
7
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
P
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
$1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
Fi
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
2
0
C
a
r
p
e
t
$1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
Fi
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
2
0
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
P
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
Fi
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
2
0
S
t
a
i
r
s
a
n
d
D
e
c
k
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$3
5
,
0
0
0
$3
5
,
0
0
0
Gr
a
n
d
s
t
a
n
d
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
n
d
R
o
o
f
R
e
p
a
i
r
s
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
Li
b
r
a
r
y
P
l
a
z
a
A
p
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$4
,
5
0
0
$4
,
5
0
0
Li
b
r
a
r
y
P
l
a
z
a
B
r
i
c
k
F
a
ç
a
d
e
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
$2
1
,
0
0
0
$2
1
,
0
0
0
Li
b
r
a
r
y
W
o
o
d
T
r
i
m
$0
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
C
l
u
b
h
o
u
s
e
R
o
o
f
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
F
l
o
o
r
i
n
g
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
C
l
u
b
h
o
u
s
e
G
u
t
t
e
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
C
l
u
b
h
o
u
s
e
E
x
t
.
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
$0
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
C
l
u
b
h
o
u
s
e
F
i
r
e
A
l
a
r
m
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
Mi
s
c
.
F
i
r
e
S
p
r
i
n
k
l
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
R
e
p
a
i
r
s
$1
0
,
0
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
a
f
e
t
y
/
F
i
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
1
7
S
o
f
f
i
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
$2
,
0
0
0
$2
,
0
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
a
f
e
t
y
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
P
a
i
n
t
i
n
g
$0
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
a
f
e
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
C
h
a
m
b
e
r
C
a
r
p
e
t
$0
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
a
f
e
t
y
R
a
i
l
i
n
g
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
$9
,
0
0
0
Se
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
M
i
s
c
R
e
p
a
i
r
s
&
M
a
i
n
t
.
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
Se
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
S
i
d
i
n
g
/
S
e
a
l
i
n
g
(
C
D
B
G
)
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$8
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
1
,
5
0
0
$
2
4
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
6
9
4
,
5
0
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
Fu
n
d
1
1
6
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
10Packet Page 370 of 488
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
a
n
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
s
t
)
$1
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
3
,
6
0
0
$
2
9
8
,
6
0
0
$
3
3
,
6
0
0
$
4
2
,
1
0
0
$
5
1
,
1
0
0
$
1
,
1
0
0
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
f
r
o
m
G
e
n
F
u
n
d
#
0
0
1
$5
6
,
6
0
0
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
CT
E
D
G
r
a
n
t
s
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Sn
o
.
C
o
.
C
D
B
G
G
r
a
n
t
(
N
o
t
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
EE
C
B
G
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
G
r
a
n
t
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
WA
S
t
a
t
e
H
C
P
F
G
r
a
n
t
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$2
4
6
,
6
0
0
$
4
6
3
,
6
0
0
$
5
4
8
,
6
0
0
$
2
8
3
,
6
0
0
$
2
9
2
,
1
0
0
$
3
0
1
,
1
0
0
$
2
5
1
,
1
0
0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$2
4
6
,
6
0
0
$
4
6
3
,
6
0
0
$
5
4
8
,
6
0
0
$
2
8
3
,
6
0
0
$
2
9
2
,
1
0
0
$
3
0
1
,
1
0
0
$
2
5
1
,
1
0
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
($
8
3
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
1
6
5
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
5
1
5
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
2
4
1
,
5
0
0
)
(
$
2
4
1
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
2
3
2
,
0
0
0
)
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$1
6
3
,
6
0
0
$
2
9
8
,
6
0
0
$
3
3
,
6
0
0
$
4
2
,
1
0
0
$
5
1
,
1
0
0
$
1
,
1
0
0
$
1
9
,
1
0
0
Fu
n
d
1
1
6
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
11Packet Page 371 of 488
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Fu
n
d
1
2
5
-
R
E
E
T
2
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
C
F
P
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
F
u
n
d
1
1
2
f
o
r
O
l
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
D
r
i
v
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
F
u
n
d
1
1
2
f
o
r
f
u
t
u
r
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
a
n
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
s
t
)
RE
E
T
2
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
To
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
Fu
n
d
1
2
5
-
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
12Packet Page 372 of 488
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Fu
n
d
1
2
9
-
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
C
F
P
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
St
a
t
e
R
o
u
t
e
(
S
R
)
9
9
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
$4
6
0
,
7
0
0
$
1
4
,
7
0
0
$1
4
,
7
0
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$4
6
0
,
7
0
0
$
1
4
,
7
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
1
4
,
7
0
0
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
a
n
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
s
t
)
$5
,
8
4
1
$
5
,
8
4
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$5
,
8
4
1
$
5
,
8
4
1
Gr
a
n
t
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
PS
R
C
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
G
r
a
n
t
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$4
6
0
,
7
0
0
$
1
4
,
7
0
0
To
t
a
l
G
r
a
n
t
s
$4
6
0
,
7
0
0
$
1
4
,
7
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
&
G
r
a
n
t
s
$4
6
6
,
5
4
1
$
2
0
,
5
4
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
To
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
($
4
6
0
,
7
0
0
)
(
$
1
4
,
7
0
0
)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$5
,
8
4
1
$
5
,
8
4
1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
Fu
n
d
1
2
9
13Packet Page 373 of 488
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Fu
n
d
4
1
2
-
1
0
0
-
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
C
F
P
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
20
1
0
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$1
9
9
,
0
0
0
$0
20
1
1
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$8
8
1
,
2
0
0
$0
20
1
2
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$8
0
6
,
2
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
20
1
2
W
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
s
$2
6
1
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
20
1
3
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
1
4
0
,
1
0
0
$2
,
1
4
0
,
1
0
0
20
1
4
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$9
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
9
1
7
,
7
1
9
$3
,
0
1
2
,
7
1
9
20
1
5
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$9
5
,
1
8
1
$
2
,
6
9
7
,
5
1
1
$2
,
7
9
2
,
6
9
2
20
1
6
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$9
8
,
9
8
8
$
2
,
8
5
7
,
5
5
2
$2
,
9
5
6
,
5
4
0
20
1
7
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$1
0
2
,
9
4
8
$
2
,
9
7
1
,
9
3
4
$3
,
0
7
4
,
8
8
2
20
1
8
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$1
0
7
,
0
6
5
$
3
,
2
0
2
,
6
0
0
$
3
,
3
0
9
,
6
6
5
20
1
9
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
$1
1
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
2
,
0
0
0
Pi
o
n
e
e
r
W
a
y
R
o
a
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
/
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
$3
6
,
7
0
0
$0
Fi
v
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
3
.
0
M
G
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
R
e
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
$7
2
2
,
8
0
0
$7
2
2
,
8
0
0
Fi
v
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
1
.
5
M
G
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
R
e
c
o
a
t
i
n
g
$4
7
7
,
3
0
0
$4
7
7
,
3
0
0
76
t
h
A
v
e
W
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
P
R
V
I
m
p
r
)
$5
9
,
3
0
0
$
4
9
0
,
8
0
0
$4
9
0
,
8
0
0
Te
l
e
m
e
t
r
y
S
y
s
t
e
m
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$6
8
,
6
0
0
$
1
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
1
,
9
0
0
$
1
2
,
4
0
0
$
1
2
,
9
0
0
$
1
2
8
,
3
0
0
20
1
6
W
a
t
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
$8
6
,
1
0
0
$
8
9
,
5
0
0
$1
7
5
,
6
0
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$2
,
2
9
3
,
4
0
0
$
2
,
8
0
9
,
5
0
0
$
3
,
0
2
3
,
9
0
0
$
3
,
6
1
6
,
8
9
9
$
3
,
5
3
9
,
2
0
0
$
3
,
0
9
1
,
3
9
9
$
3
,
3
2
7
,
5
0
0
$
1
9
,
4
0
8
,
3
9
8
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
S
e
w
e
r
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
3
0
0
(
L
i
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
2
)
$3
1
,
2
0
0
$0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
n
d
1
1
2
(
M
a
i
n
S
t
)
$2
2
2
,
0
0
0
$0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
n
d
1
1
2
(
F
i
v
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
)
$7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$7
0
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
n
d
1
1
2
(
5
t
h
A
v
e
n
u
e
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
)
$2
2
2
,
5
0
0
$2
2
2
,
5
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
n
d
1
1
7
(
2
0
1
3
W
a
t
e
r
m
a
i
n
)
$5
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
F
u
n
d
1
1
7
(
2
0
1
0
W
a
t
e
r
m
a
i
n
)
$3
,
2
0
0
$0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
F
u
n
d
1
1
7
(
S
h
e
l
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
)
$1
7
8
$0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
F
u
n
d
1
1
7
L
S
2
$7
9
1
$0
To
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
$2
5
7
,
3
6
9
$
9
2
7
,
5
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$
9
2
7
,
5
0
0
To
t
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$2
,
5
5
0
,
7
6
9
$
3
,
7
3
7
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
0
2
3
,
9
0
0
$
3
,
6
1
6
,
8
9
9
$
3
,
5
3
9
,
2
0
0
$
3
,
0
9
1
,
3
9
9
$
3
,
3
2
7
,
5
0
0
$
2
0
,
3
3
5
,
8
9
8
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
&
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
s
t
)
$4
7
7
,
7
8
7
$
1
,
4
4
7
,
7
1
8
$
3
,
1
4
2
,
5
1
8
$
2
4
9
,
5
1
8
$
3
,
4
6
7
,
7
1
9
$
6
8
,
1
2
0
$
3
,
5
2
0
,
9
0
4
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
F
e
e
P
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
$2
1
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
4
1
1
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
4
1
2
-
2
0
0
(Ut
i
l
i
t
y R
a
t
e
C
a
l
c
s
)
$5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
4
1
2
-
3
0
0
(Ut
i
l
i
t
y R
a
t
e
C
a
l
c
s
)
$5
,
0
0
0
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
F
i
r
e
H
y dr
a
n
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
2
0
1
1
W
a
t
e
r
m
a
i
n
$5
4
,
0
0
0
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
F
i
r
e
H
y dr
a
n
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
2
0
1
2
W
a
t
e
r
m
a
i
n
$3
0
,
7
0
0
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
F
i
r
e
H
y dr
a
n
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
M
a
i
n
S
t
I
m
p
r
.
$5
,
0
0
0
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
F
i
r
e
H
y dr
a
n
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$1
0
1
,
8
0
0
$
1
0
5
,
9
0
0
$
1
1
0
,
1
0
0
$
1
1
4
,
6
0
0
$
1
1
9
,
1
8
4
$
1
2
3
,
9
0
0
To
t
a
l
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
(
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
s
,
G
r
a
n
t
s
L
o
a
n
s
,
m
i
s
c
)
$
7
9
8
,
4
8
7
$
1
,
5
7
9
,
5
1
8
$
3
,
2
7
3
,
4
1
8
$
3
8
4
,
6
1
8
$
3
,
6
0
7
,
3
1
9
$
2
1
2
,
3
0
4
$
3
,
6
6
9
,
8
0
4
Un
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Ne
w
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
,
g
r
a
n
t
s
,
l
o
a
n
s
,
b
o
n
d
s
,
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
,
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
$3
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
6
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
6
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
To
t
a
l
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$3
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
6
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
6
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$3
,
9
9
8
,
4
8
7
$
6
,
8
7
9
,
5
1
8
$
3
,
2
7
3
,
4
1
8
$
7
,
0
8
4
,
6
1
8
$
3
,
6
0
7
,
3
1
9
$
6
,
6
1
2
,
3
0
4
$
3
,
6
6
9
,
8
0
4
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
&
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
($
2
,
5
5
0
,
7
6
9
)
(
$
3
,
7
3
7
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
3
,
0
2
3
,
9
0
0
)
(
$
3
,
6
1
6
,
8
9
9
)
(
$
3
,
5
3
9
,
2
0
0
)
(
$
3
,
0
9
1
,
3
9
9
)
(
$
3
,
3
2
7
,
5
0
0
)
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$1
,
4
4
7
,
7
1
8
$
3
,
1
4
2
,
5
1
8
$
2
4
9
,
5
1
8
$
3
,
4
6
7
,
7
1
9
$
6
8
,
1
2
0
$
3
,
5
2
0
,
9
0
4
$
3
4
2
,
3
0
4
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
Fu
n
d
4
1
2
-
1
0
0
9/
7
/
2
0
1
2
14Packet Page 374 of 488
CF
P
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
1
&
3
-
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
I
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
i
p
e
(
n
e
a
r
1
0
7
t
h
P
L
W
)
&
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
su
m
p
s
o
n
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
S
W
t
o
H
i
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
+
a
d
d
R
a
i
n
Ga
r
d
e
n
s
t
o
1
0
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
.
X
$9
4
,
1
0
0
$
6
4
6
,
2
6
0
$6
4
6
,
2
6
0
Pr
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
N
X
$1
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
4
1
,
0
0
0
$
5
4
6
,
0
0
0
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
a
n
d
H
w
y
1
0
4
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
$
1
9
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
8
3
,
0
0
0
$2
8
3
,
0
0
0
Wi
l
l
o
w
C
r
e
e
k
P
i
p
e
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
$5
1
9
,
0
0
0
$
5
1
9
,
0
0
0
No
r
t
h
s
t
r
e
a
m
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
A
b
a
n
d
o
n
m
e
n
t
S
o
u
t
h
o
f
P
u
g
e
t
D
r
-
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
Re
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
s
t
r
e
a
m
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
u
n
d
e
r
P
u
g
e
t
D
r
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
7
5
,
0
0
0
Ta
l
b
o
t
R
d
/
P
e
r
r
i
n
v
i
l
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
&
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
En
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
$5
9
8
,
0
0
0
$0
Pe
r
r
i
n
v
i
l
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
T
a
l
b
o
t
R
d
(
D
e
s
i
g
n
)
$
6
6
,
0
0
0
$0
Pe
r
r
i
n
v
i
l
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
C
u
l
v
e
r
t
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
T
a
l
b
o
t
R
d
(P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
/
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
)
$6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
Pe
r
r
i
n
v
i
l
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
H
i
g
h
F
l
o
w
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
Co
v
e
r
f
o
r
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
P
i
l
e
s
(S
e
e
N
o
t
e
2
)
X
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$0
Wa
s
t
e
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
(S
e
e
N
o
t
e
3
)
$8
0
,
5
2
1
$
2
6
3
,
4
2
4
$2
6
3
,
4
2
4
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
W
a
s
h
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
$2
9
5
,
0
0
0
$2
9
5
,
0
0
0
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
6
t
h
a
n
d
8
t
h
A
v
e
N
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
$3
9
0
,
0
0
0
88
t
h
A
v
e
W
a
n
d
1
9
4
t
h
S
t
S
W
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
5
0
,
0
0
0
No
r
t
h
T
a
l
b
o
t
R
d
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$
1
0
8
,
8
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
$2
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
-
w
i
d
e
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$
1
4
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
4
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
4
,
0
0
0
$1
6
1
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
4
6
4
,
0
0
0
La
k
e
B
a
l
l
i
n
g
e
r
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(S
e
e
N
o
t
e
4
)
X
$5
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
$
1
2
7
,
0
0
0
$
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
Lo
w
I
m
p
a
c
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
R
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(S
e
e
N
o
t
e
5
)
$2
2
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
7
,
0
0
0
$1
3
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
8
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
6
,
0
0
0
St
o
r
m
a
n
d
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
W
a
t
e
r
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
a
s
s
e
s
t
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
)
$2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
Go
o
d
h
o
p
e
P
o
n
d
B
a
s
i
n
S
t
u
d
y
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
St
o
r
m
S
y
s
t
e
m
V
i
d
e
o
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
$
2
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
S
t
o
r
m
C
u
r
e
d
i
n
-
p
l
a
c
e
p
i
p
e
(
C
I
P
P
)
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
$0
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
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
X
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
/
S
h
e
l
l
a
b
a
r
g
e
r
C
r
/
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
-
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
/
M
a
r
s
h
Re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
(Se
e
N
o
t
e
s
6
&
7
)
X
$7
6
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
3
8
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
,
9
3
1
,
0
0
0
Sh
e
l
l
C
r
e
e
k
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
Y
o
s
t
P
a
r
k
$1
7
8
,
0
0
0
$1
7
8
,
0
0
0
$1
,
4
5
6
,
4
2
1
$
2
,
0
2
5
,
6
8
4
$3
,
1
3
9
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
7
6
2
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
8
9
4
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
1
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
7
7
7
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
,
6
0
8
,
6
8
4
Ti
e
r
2
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-
A
s
s
u
m
e
7
5
%
G
r
a
n
t
F
u
n
d
e
d
&
2
5
%
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
e
d
u
n
l
e
s
s
n
o
t
e
d
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
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
s
St
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
An
n
u
a
l
l
y
F
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
5
Y
e
a
r
C
y
c
l
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
t
o
r
m
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
Ti
e
r
1
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-
A
s
s
u
m
e
1
0
0
%
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
e
d
u
n
l
e
s
s
n
o
t
e
d
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
.
SW
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
B
a
s
i
n
S
t
u
d
y
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(S
e
e
N
o
t
e
1
)
No
r
t
h
s
t
r
e
a
m
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
Fu
n
d
4
1
2
-
2
0
0
S
t
o
r
m
Pe
r
r
i
n
v
i
l
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
B
a
s
i
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(S
e
e
N
o
t
e
1
)
Fu
n
d
4
1
2
-
2
0
0
9/
7
/
2
0
1
2
15Packet Page 375 of 488
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
Fi
v
e
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
$1
2
8
,
5
0
0
$1
2
8
,
5
0
0
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
L
o
w
I
m
p
a
c
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$0
St
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
-
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$
2
4
1
,
4
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
3
,
0
0
0
$1
0
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
4
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
1
1
2
F
u
n
d
$
2
4
1
,
4
0
0
$
2
2
8
,
5
0
0
$
1
0
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
8
2
,
5
0
0
Ma
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
(
L
o
w
I
m
p
a
c
t
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$
1
,
7
2
3
$
2
,
3
6
0
$2
,
3
6
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
$0
SW
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
-
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
I
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
p
i
p
e
n
e
a
r
1
0
7
t
h
P
l
W
/
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
Su
m
p
s
o
n
2
3
8
t
h
S
t
t
o
H
i
c
k
m
a
n
P
a
r
k
I
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
$5
,
6
5
0
$5
,
6
5
0
5
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
R
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
$1
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
V
a
u
l
t
(
f
r
o
m
L
a
k
e
B
a
l
l
i
n
g
e
r
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
)
$1
,
7
5
0
$0
Ot
h
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
h
a
t
m
e
e
t
1
%
f
o
r
A
r
t
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
$1
3
,
9
6
2
$
2
1
,
1
8
1
$
2
6
,
2
1
6
$
2
2
,
2
8
8
$
1
6
,
8
0
0
$1
0
0
,
4
4
6
To
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
1
1
7
F
u
n
d
$3
,
4
7
3
$
9
,
0
1
0
$
1
3
,
9
6
2
$
2
1
,
1
8
1
$
2
6
,
2
1
6
$
2
2
,
2
8
8
$
1
6
,
8
0
0
$
1
0
9
,
4
5
6
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
P
e
r
m
e
a
b
l
e
P
a
v
i
n
g
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
C
o
s
t
s
)
$
4
5
,
6
1
1
$0
St
o
r
m
P
i
p
e
o
n
7
6
t
h
-
p
a
r
t
o
f
I
n
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
f
r
o
m
C
i
t
y
-
W
i
d
e
)
$0
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
V
a
u
l
t
(
f
r
o
m
L
a
k
e
B
a
l
l
i
n
g
e
r
As
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
2
0
1
2
)
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
1
3
2
F
u
n
d
$
9
5
,
6
1
1
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$3
4
0
,
4
8
4
$2
3
7
,
5
1
0
$
1
1
6
,
9
6
2
$
1
2
7
,
1
8
1
$
2
3
5
,
2
1
6
$1
3
8
,
2
8
8
$
1
3
6
,
8
0
0
$
9
9
1
,
9
5
6
$1
,
7
9
6
,
9
0
5
$
2
,
2
6
3
,
1
9
4
$
3
,
2
5
5
,
9
6
2
$
4
,
8
8
9
,
1
8
1
$
6
,
1
2
9
,
2
1
6
$
5
,
1
4
9
,
2
8
8
$
3
,
9
1
3
,
8
0
0
$
2
5
,
6
0
0
,
6
4
0
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
$2
,
1
6
6
,
6
6
7
$
2
,
6
0
6
,
2
6
2
$
2
,
7
9
3
,
0
6
8
$
2
,
9
9
1
,
6
0
6
$
6
6
0
,
1
7
5
$
1
,
5
7
7
,
9
5
9
$
1
,
4
5
0
,
6
7
1
$8
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$0
$
0
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$8
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
,
0
0
0
$
0
$1
2
0
,
5
0
0
$
1
8
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$4
,
4
0
3
,
1
6
7
$
2
,
8
0
6
,
2
6
2
$
3
,
1
1
4
,
0
6
8
$
3
,
0
1
3
,
6
0
6
$
6
8
2
,
1
7
5
$
1
,
5
9
9
,
9
5
9
$
1
,
4
6
0
,
6
7
1
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
$0
$
2
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
3
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
0
$
8
8
3
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
5
3
5
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
5
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
6
8
7
,
5
0
0
$0
$
2
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
1
3
3
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
5
3
5
,
7
5
0
$
7
,
0
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
1
8
7
,
5
0
0
$4
,
4
0
3
,
1
6
7
$
5
,
0
5
6
,
2
6
2
$
6
,
2
4
7
,
5
6
8
$
5
,
5
4
9
,
3
5
6
$
7
,
7
0
7
,
1
7
5
$
6
,
5
9
9
,
9
5
9
$
4
,
6
4
8
,
1
7
1
($
1
,
7
9
6
,
9
0
5
)
(
$
2
,
2
6
3
,
1
9
4
)
(
$
3
,
2
5
5
,
9
6
2
)
(
$
4
,
8
8
9
,
1
8
1
)
(
$
6
,
1
2
9
,
2
1
6
)
(
$
5
,
1
4
9
,
2
8
8
)
(
$
3
,
9
1
3
,
8
0
0
)
$2
,
6
0
6
,
2
6
2
$
2
,
7
9
3
,
0
6
8
$
2
,
9
9
1
,
6
0
6
$
6
6
0
,
1
7
5
$
1
,
5
7
7
,
9
5
9
$
1
,
4
5
0
,
6
7
1
$
7
3
4
,
3
7
2
5.
F
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
9
5
t
h
/
9
3
r
d
A
v
e
S
t
o
r
m
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
6.
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
n
l
y
.
D
o
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
l
c
u
d
e
g
r
a
n
t
f
r
o
m
S
a
l
m
o
n
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
B
o
a
r
d
g
i
v
e
n
t
o
P
e
o
p
l
e
f
o
r
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u
n
d
.
3.
7
5
%
g
r
a
n
t
f
u
n
d
e
d
.
7.
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
I
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
)
.
To
1
1
7
-
A
r
t
s
2.
1
0
0
%
g
r
a
n
t
f
u
n
d
e
d
.
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
No
t
e
s
:
1.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
u
n
d
e
r
T
i
e
r
2
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
b
e
l
o
w
.
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
An
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
f
r
o
m
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
F
u
n
d
(
4
1
1
)
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
F
e
e
s
(
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
)
Gr
a
n
t
s
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
a
n
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
s
t
)
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
&
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
To
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
To
1
1
2
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
n
d
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
Un
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
Pr
o
c
e
e
d
s
o
f
L
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
d
e
b
t
(
B
o
n
d
s
)
As
s
u
m
e
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
l
o
a
n
s
,
g
r
a
n
t
s
,
&
i
n
t
e
r
a
g
e
n
c
y
a
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
s
To
t
a
l
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
To
t
a
l
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
&
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
To
1
3
2
-
P
a
r
k
s
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
c
e
e
d
s
o
f
L
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
d
e
b
t
(
B
o
n
d
s
)
Fu
n
d
4
1
2
-
2
0
0
9/
7
/
2
0
1
2
16Packet Page 376 of 488
CF
P
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
Li
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
2
$4
4
,
3
0
0
$0
Li
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
3
,
4
,
5
,
9
,
1
0
,
1
1
,
1
2
,
1
4
,
&
1
5
$8
0
3
,
7
2
0
$
3
,
4
8
4
,
9
0
0
$3
,
4
8
4
,
9
0
0
20
1
2
S
e
w
e
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
/
R
e
h
a
b
/
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$1
0
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
2
2
4
,
5
0
0
$1
,
2
2
4
,
5
0
0
20
1
3
S
e
w
e
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
/
R
e
h
a
b
/
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$4
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
9
8
2
,
0
0
0
$1
,
9
8
2
,
0
0
0
20
1
5
S
e
w
e
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
/
R
e
h
a
b
/
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$1
9
7
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
8
7
8
,
0
0
0
$2
,
0
7
5
,
0
0
0
20
1
6
S
e
w
e
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
/
R
e
h
a
b
/
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
9
0
,
0
0
0
$4
3
0
,
0
0
0
20
1
8
S
e
w
e
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
/
R
e
h
a
b
/
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
5
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
S
e
w
e
r
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$3
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
5
,
0
0
0
$1
7
5
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
C
I
P
P
S
e
w
e
r
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
$3
,
4
0
0
$
3
0
2
,
6
0
0
$
4
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
3
5
2
,
6
0
0
Me
t
e
r
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
B
a
s
i
n
L
S
-
0
1
$1
,
0
0
0
$
7
2
,
6
0
0
$7
2
,
6
0
0
Me
t
e
r
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
B
a
s
i
n
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Z
o
n
e
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
Sm
o
k
e
T
e
s
t
i
n
B
a
s
i
n
L
S
-
0
1
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
Sm
o
k
e
T
e
s
t
i
n
B
a
s
i
n
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
Z
o
n
e
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
1
9
,
0
0
0
$
9
9
,
1
0
0
$9
9
,
1
0
0
$1
,
0
2
6
,
9
2
0
$
7
,
2
4
0
,
7
0
0
$
7
0
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
2
5
3
,
0
0
0
$
8
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
,
6
4
0
,
7
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
,
0
2
6
,
9
2
0
$
7
,
2
4
0
,
7
0
0
$
7
0
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
2
5
3
,
0
0
0
$
8
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
,
6
4
0
,
7
0
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
&
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Se
w
e
r
L
i
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
Se
w
e
r
M
a
i
n
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
C
I
P
P
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
&
I
n
f
l
o
w
S
t
u
d
y
&
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
Fu
n
d
4
1
2
-
3
0
0
-
S
e
w
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
20
1
2
S
e
w
e
r
C
o
m
p
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
To
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Fu
n
d
4
1
2
-
3
0
0
9/
7
/
2
0
1
2
17Packet Page 377 of 488
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
$3
,
4
0
5
,
0
7
8
$
4
,
3
3
4
,
3
5
8
$
9
6
5
,
6
5
8
$
2
8
8
,
6
5
8
$
1
,
1
6
0
,
6
5
8
$
3
1
0
,
6
5
8
$
1
,
3
0
0
,
6
5
8
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$3
1
,
2
0
0
$4
7
,
0
0
0
$8
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
,
2
6
1
,
2
7
8
$
4
,
4
0
6
,
3
5
8
$
9
9
0
,
6
5
8
$
3
1
3
,
6
5
8
$
1
,
1
8
5
,
6
5
8
$
3
3
5
,
6
5
8
$
1
,
3
2
5
,
6
5
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
$1
,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
3
,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$1
,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
3
,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$5
,
3
6
1
,
2
7
8
$
8
,
2
0
6
,
3
5
8
$
9
9
0
,
6
5
8
$
3
,
4
1
3
,
6
5
8
$
1
,
1
8
5
,
6
5
8
$
1
,
8
3
5
,
6
5
8
$
1
,
3
2
5
,
6
5
8
($
1
,
0
2
6
,
9
2
0
)
(
$
7
,
2
4
0
,
7
0
0
)
(
$
7
0
2
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
2
,
2
5
3
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
8
7
5
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
5
3
5
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
1
,
0
3
5
,
0
0
0
)
$4
,
3
3
4
,
3
5
8
$
9
6
5
,
6
5
8
$
2
8
8
,
6
5
8
$
1
,
1
6
0
,
6
5
8
$
3
1
0
,
6
5
8
$
1
,
3
0
0
,
6
5
8
$
2
9
0
,
6
5
8
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
4
1
1
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
&
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
To
t
a
l
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
(
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
F
u
n
d
s
,
G
r
a
n
t
s
L
o
a
n
s
,
m
i
s
c
)
Un
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
Ne
w
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
,
g
r
a
n
t
s
,
l
o
a
n
s
,
b
o
n
d
s
,
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
,
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
To
t
a
l
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
F
u
n
d
4
1
4
(
2
0
1
2
S
e
w
e
r
C
o
m
p
P
l
a
n
U
p
d
a
t
e
)
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
a
n
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
s
t
)
Se
w
e
r
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
F
e
e
s
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
1
0
0
(
L
i
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
2
)
Fu
n
d
4
1
2
-
3
0
0
9/
7
/
2
0
1
2
18Packet Page 378 of 488
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Fu
n
d
4
1
4
-
W
W
T
P
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
C
F
P
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
Re
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$1
,
2
4
7
,
2
7
4
$
9
9
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
1
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
8
9
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
2
6
2
,
0
0
0
Up
g
r
a
d
e
s
$6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
St
u
d
i
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
-
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
a
n
d
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
$2
7
1
,
9
1
0
$
2
7
6
,
1
9
0
$
2
7
6
,
1
9
0
$
2
7
6
,
1
9
0
$
2
7
6
,
1
9
0
$
2
7
6
,
1
9
0
$1
,
3
8
0
,
9
5
0
PW
T
F
L
o
a
n
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
$7
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
7
5
4
$
2
5
0
,
7
5
4
$
2
5
0
,
7
5
4
$
2
5
0
,
7
5
4
$
1
,
2
3
2
,
0
1
6
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$1
,
5
9
4
,
1
8
4
$
2
,
1
4
1
,
1
9
0
$
2
,
6
0
7
,
1
9
0
$
2
,
4
2
1
,
9
4
4
$
1
,
1
7
6
,
9
4
4
$
1
,
1
7
6
,
9
4
4
$
9
0
0
,
7
5
4
$
1
0
,
4
2
4
,
9
6
6
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
a
n
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
s
t
)
$2
0
5
,
9
4
0
$
1
6
3
,
5
3
0
$
3
1
1
,
8
4
0
$
7
5
,
1
5
0
-
$
8
1
,
5
4
0
-
$
3
4
3
,
2
3
0
-
$
6
0
4
,
9
2
0
In
t
e
r
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
$6
6
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
$1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
Mi
s
c
e
l
l
a
n
e
o
u
s
(
b
i
o
s
o
l
i
d
s
,
L
y
n
n
w
o
o
d
,
e
t
c
)
$1
1
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
,
0
0
0
Re
b
a
t
e
f
r
o
m
P
U
D
f
o
r
E
n
e
r
g
y
E
f
f
.
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
PW
T
F
L
o
a
n
P
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
$1
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
$4
3
5
,
4
4
0
$
1
,
4
9
8
,
0
3
0
$
1
,
8
2
6
,
3
4
0
$
1
,
7
8
9
,
6
5
0
-
$
6
7
,
0
4
0
-
$
3
2
8
,
7
3
0
-
$
5
9
0
,
4
2
0
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
g
e
n
c
y
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
$1
,
3
2
2
,
2
7
4
$
9
5
5
,
0
0
0
$
8
5
6
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
7
5
4
$
9
0
0
,
7
5
4
$
9
0
0
,
7
5
4
$
9
0
0
,
7
5
4
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$1
,
7
5
7
,
7
1
4
$
2
,
4
5
3
,
0
3
0
$
2
,
6
8
2
,
3
4
0
$
2
,
3
4
0
,
4
0
4
$
8
3
3
,
7
1
4
$
5
7
2
,
0
2
4
$
3
1
0
,
3
3
4
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
($
1
,
5
9
4
,
1
8
4
)
(
$
2
,
1
4
1
,
1
9
0
)
(
$
2
,
6
0
7
,
1
9
0
)
(
$
2
,
4
2
1
,
9
4
4
)
(
$
1
,
1
7
6
,
9
4
4
)
(
$
1
,
1
7
6
,
9
4
4
)
(
$
9
0
0
,
7
5
4
)
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$1
6
3
,
5
3
0
$
3
1
1
,
8
4
0
$
7
5
,
1
5
0
-
$
8
1
,
5
4
0
-
$
3
4
3
,
2
3
0
-
$
6
0
4
,
9
2
0
-
$
5
9
0
,
4
2
0
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
e
a
r
n
e
d
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
a
t
0
.
7
5
%
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
Ex
p
e
n
s
e
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
d
o
n
e
b
y
d
i
r
e
c
t
b
i
l
l
i
n
g
(
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
)
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Re
p
a
i
r
a
n
d
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
$1
,
2
4
7
,
2
7
4
$
8
8
2
,
0
0
0
$
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
Up
g
r
a
d
e
s
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
St
u
d
i
e
s
a
n
d
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
PW
T
F
L
o
a
n
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
$7
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
7
5
4
$
2
5
0
,
7
5
4
$
2
5
0
,
7
5
4
$
2
5
0
,
7
5
4
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
$1
,
3
2
2
,
2
7
4
$
9
5
5
,
0
0
0
$
8
5
6
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
7
5
4
$
9
0
0
,
7
5
4
$
9
0
0
,
7
5
4
$
9
0
0
,
7
5
4
Co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
b
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
b
y
a
g
e
n
c
y
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
5
0
.
7
9
%
$
6
7
1
,
5
4
3
$
4
8
5
,
0
1
6
$
4
3
4
,
7
3
7
$
2
7
9
,
7
1
1
$
4
5
7
,
4
6
6
$
4
5
7
,
4
6
6
$
4
5
7
,
4
6
6
Mo
u
n
t
l
a
k
e
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
23
.
1
7
%
$3
0
6
,
4
2
4
$
2
2
1
,
3
1
2
$
1
9
8
,
3
6
9
$
1
2
7
,
6
3
2
$
2
0
8
,
7
4
1
$
2
0
8
,
7
4
1
$
2
0
8
,
7
4
1
Ol
y
m
p
i
c
V
i
e
w
W
a
t
e
r
&
S
e
w
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
16
.
5
5
%
$2
1
8
,
8
5
0
$
1
5
8
,
0
6
2
$
1
4
1
,
6
7
7
$
9
1
,
1
5
5
$
1
4
9
,
0
8
4
$
1
4
9
,
0
8
4
$
1
4
9
,
0
8
4
Ro
n
a
l
d
S
e
w
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
9.
4
9
%
$1
2
5
,
4
5
7
$
9
0
,
6
1
0
$
8
1
,
2
1
7
$
5
2
,
2
5
6
$
8
5
,
4
6
4
$
8
5
,
4
6
4
$
8
5
,
4
6
4
TO
T
A
L
S
10
0
.
0
0
%
$1
,
3
2
2
,
2
7
4
$
9
5
5
,
0
0
0
$
8
5
6
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
7
5
4
$
9
0
0
,
7
5
4
$
9
0
0
,
7
5
4
$
9
0
0
,
7
5
4
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
7
Fu
n
d
4
1
4
9/
7
/
2
0
1
2
19Packet Page 379 of 488
20Packet Page 380 of 488
CIP
PARKS
21Packet Page 381 of 488
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Fu
n
d
1
2
5
-
P
a
r
k
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
C
F
P
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
Pa
r
k
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
*
Ha
i
n
e
s
W
h
a
r
f
P
a
r
k
&
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
$1
7
8
,
0
0
0
$0
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
F
i
e
l
d
/
C
o
u
r
t
/
S
t
a
g
e
$5
,
0
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
0
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$1
8
0
,
0
0
0
Br
a
c
k
e
t
t
'
s
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
N
o
r
t
h
$5
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$
9
5
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$1
2
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
P
a
r
k
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$5
7
5
,
0
0
0
Ci
v
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
C
o
m
p
l
e
x
X
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
/
H
a
t
c
h
e
r
y
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
3
5
,
0
0
0
Fi
s
h
i
n
g
P
i
e
r
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$6
0
,
0
0
0
Fo
r
m
e
r
W
o
o
d
w
a
y
H
S
(w
i
t
h
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
)
X
$1
5
5
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
5
5
5
,
0
0
0
Ma
p
l
e
w
o
o
d
P
a
r
k
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
Ma
r
i
n
a
B
e
a
c
h
P
a
r
k
$5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$1
3
0
,
0
0
0
Ma
t
h
a
y
B
a
l
l
i
n
g
e
r
P
a
r
k
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$2
5
,
0
0
0
Me
a
d
o
w
d
a
l
e
C
l
u
b
h
o
u
s
e
G
r
o
u
n
d
s
$5
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$6
5
,
0
0
0
Pi
n
e
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
$5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
Se
a
v
i
e
w
P
a
r
k
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$1
5
,
0
0
0
Si
e
r
r
a
P
a
r
k
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
$1
1
5
,
0
0
0
Su
n
s
e
t
A
v
e
n
u
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
l
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
Yo
s
t
P
a
r
k
/
P
o
o
l
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
,
0
0
0
$1
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$3
5
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
P
a
r
k
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
*
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
B
e
a
u
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
$3
6
,
0
0
0
$2
9
,
0
0
0
$
2
9
,
0
0
0
$2
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
,
0
0
0
N
o
t
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
N
o
t
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
$1
0
2
,
0
0
0
Mi
s
c
P
a
v
i
n
g
$5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
w
i
d
e
P
a
r
k
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
/
M
i
s
c
S
m
a
l
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$3
5
,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
Sp
o
r
t
s
F
i
e
l
d
s
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
/
P
l
a
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
P
a
r
t
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
i
z
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
*
Aq
u
a
t
i
c
C
e
n
t
e
r
(d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
u
p
o
n
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
f
u
l
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
c
a
m
p
a
i
g
n
)
X
$0
Tr
a
i
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
*
Mi
s
c
U
n
p
a
v
e
d
T
r
a
i
l
/
B
i
k
e
P
a
t
h
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
A
r
t
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
N
e
e
d
s
S
t
u
d
y
X
No
t
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
$0
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
No
t
E
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
$0
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
M
a
r
s
h
/
S
h
e
l
l
a
b
a
r
g
e
r
C
r
/
W
i
l
l
o
w
C
r
-
F
e
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
X
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$0
Pa
r
k
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
/
O
t
h
e
r
P
a
r
k
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$0
Pi
n
e
R
i
d
g
e
P
a
r
k
F
o
r
e
s
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
u
d
y
$5
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$
5
2
4
,
0
0
0
$
9
6
4
,
0
0
0
$
7
1
9
,
0
0
0
$
5
2
7
,
0
0
0
$
7
0
2
,
0
0
0
$
7
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
2
6
7
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
P
a
r
k
F
u
n
d
1
3
2
(
4
t
h
A
v
e
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
)
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
P
a
r
k
F
u
n
d
1
3
2
(
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
T
o
u
r
)
$5
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
P
a
r
k
F
u
n
d
1
3
2
(
D
a
y
t
o
n
S
t
P
l
a
z
a
)
$1
3
5
,
5
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
P
a
r
k
F
u
n
d
1
3
2
(
I
n
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
)
$3
2
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
P
a
r
k
F
u
n
d
1
3
2
(
O
l
d
M
i
l
l
t
o
w
n
)
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
P
a
r
k
F
u
n
d
1
3
2
(
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
)
To
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
$1
7
2
,
5
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
&
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
$6
9
6
,
5
0
0
$
9
8
9
,
0
0
0
$
8
1
9
,
0
0
0
$
5
2
7
,
0
0
0
$
7
0
2
,
0
0
0
$
7
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
2
6
7
,
0
0
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
Fu
n
d
1
2
5
-
P
a
r
k
s
9/
7
/
2
0
1
2
22Packet Page 382 of 488
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
a
n
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
s
t
)
$3
9
0
,
2
1
2
$
5
2
1
,
7
1
2
$
1
8
2
,
7
1
2
$
1
3
,
7
1
2
$
1
3
6
,
7
1
2
$
8
4
,
7
1
2
$
1
4
,
7
1
2
Re
a
l
E
s
t
a
t
e
T
a
x
1
/
4
%
$6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
Do
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
M
i
l
l
t
o
w
n
,
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
$0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$0
$0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
$1
7
8
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$1
,
2
1
8
,
2
1
2
$
1
,
1
7
1
,
7
1
2
$
8
3
2
,
7
1
2
$
6
6
3
,
7
1
2
$
7
8
6
,
7
1
2
$
7
3
4
,
7
1
2
$
6
6
4
,
7
1
2
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$1
,
2
1
8
,
2
1
2
$
1
,
1
7
1
,
7
1
2
$
8
3
2
,
7
1
2
$
6
6
3
,
7
1
2
$
7
8
6
,
7
1
2
$
7
3
4
,
7
1
2
$
6
6
4
,
7
1
2
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
&
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
($
6
9
6
,
5
0
0
)
(
$
9
8
9
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
8
1
9
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
5
2
7
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
7
0
2
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
7
2
0
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
6
3
5
,
0
0
0
)
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$5
2
1
,
7
1
2
$
1
8
2
,
7
1
2
$
1
3
,
7
1
2
$
1
3
6
,
7
1
2
$
8
4
,
7
1
2
$
1
4
,
7
1
2
$
2
9
,
7
1
2
*P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
a
l
l
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
m
a
y
b
e
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
1
%
f
o
r
a
r
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
Fu
n
d
1
2
5
-
P
a
r
k
s
9/
7
/
2
0
1
2
23Packet Page 383 of 488
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Fu
n
d
1
2
6
-
P
a
r
k
s
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
C
F
P
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
$3
8
2
,
1
1
7
$
3
0
2
,
2
0
8
$
3
0
3
,
7
5
2
$6
0
5
,
9
6
1
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
M
a
r
i
n
a
B
c
h
/
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
R
o
o
f
$9
2
,
2
3
6
$8
9
,
0
0
0
$
8
8
,
0
0
0
$9
2
,
0
0
0
$9
0
,
9
0
0
$
8
9
,
8
0
0
$
8
8
,
7
0
0
$5
3
8
,
4
0
0
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
P
S
C
C
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
$3
3
,
0
3
8
$5
6
,
5
3
8
$
5
7
,
8
8
8
$5
9
,
8
8
0
$6
1
,
8
1
6
$
6
3
,
6
9
9
$
6
6
,
2
0
9
$3
6
6
,
0
2
9
De
p
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
F
A
C
S
e
i
s
m
i
c
r
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
$2
9
,
8
6
0
$2
9
,
6
2
4
$
2
9
,
7
6
3
$2
9
,
8
7
4
$2
9
,
9
5
7
$
2
9
,
6
2
1
$
2
9
,
6
4
0
$1
7
8
,
4
7
9
To
t
a
l
D
e
b
t
$
5
3
7
,
2
5
2
$
4
7
7
,
3
7
0
$
4
7
9
,
4
0
4
$
1
8
1
,
7
5
4
$
1
8
2
,
6
7
3
$
1
8
3
,
1
2
0
$
1
8
4
,
5
4
9
$
1
,
6
8
8
,
8
6
9
Mi
s
c
.
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
/
L
a
n
d
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Wa
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
1
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
a
n
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
s
t
)
$7
5
,
8
8
0
$2
2
0
,
9
6
8
Re
a
l
e
s
t
a
t
e
T
a
x
1
/
4
%
/
1
s
t
Q
t
r
%
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
E
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
$3
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$6
7
5
,
8
8
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
2
3
,
9
6
8
$
6
0
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
Gr
a
n
t
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
20
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Gr
a
n
t
s
/
L
o
a
n
s
S
o
u
g
h
t
(
n
o
t
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Lo
c
a
l
/
S
t
a
t
e
/
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
D
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
M
i
s
c
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
)
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ye
a
r
l
y
S
u
b
T
o
t
a
l
G
r
a
n
t
s
/
L
o
a
n
s
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
S
u
b
s
i
d
y
$1
2
1
,
8
3
7
$
9
6
,
4
1
8
$
9
2
,
5
6
4
$0
$0
$0
$0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
&
G
r
a
n
t
s
&
S
u
b
s
i
d
y
$9
9
7
,
7
1
7
$
8
9
6
,
4
1
8
$
6
9
2
,
5
6
4
$
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
2
3
,
9
6
8
$
6
0
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
D
e
b
t
($
5
3
7
,
2
5
2
)
(
$
4
7
7
,
3
7
0
)
(
$
4
7
9
,
4
0
4
)
(
$
1
8
1
,
7
5
4
)
(
$
1
8
2
,
6
7
3
)
(
$
1
8
3
,
1
2
0
)
(
$
1
8
4
,
5
4
9
)
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
($
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
$0
(
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
$0
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$2
6
0
,
4
6
5
$
2
1
9
,
0
4
8
$
2
1
3
,
1
6
0
$
3
1
8
,
2
4
6
$
2
4
1
,
2
9
5
$
1
9
,
8
8
0
$
4
1
5
,
4
5
1
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
Fu
n
d
1
2
6
9/
6
/
2
0
1
2
24Packet Page 384 of 488
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Fu
n
d
1
3
2
-
P
a
r
k
s
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
CF
P
2
0
1
2
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
20
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
To
t
a
l
(2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
4t
h
A
v
e
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
$0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
2
2
5
,
0
0
0
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
T
o
u
r
$
2
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
,
0
0
0
$2
3
,
0
0
0
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
l
a
z
a
$
1
6
8
,
0
0
0
$0
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
$
3
5
2
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
0
0
0
$7
,
0
0
0
Se
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
$
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ol
d
M
i
l
l
t
o
w
n
$9
5
,
1
2
0
$0
Ci
t
y
P
a
r
k
S
p
r
a
y
P
a
r
k
$0
$
1
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
M
a
r
k
e
t
(
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
W
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
)
$
0
$5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
$6
3
7
,
1
2
0
$
1
,
8
5
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
8
,
0
5
5
,
0
0
0
Re
v
e
n
u
e
s
a
n
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
20
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
(
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
1
s
t
)
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
M
i
l
l
t
o
w
n
$
7
3
,
1
4
0
Be
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
T
o
u
r
$
3
,
5
0
0
$
1
1
,
5
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
1
1
2
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
$
1
1
,
8
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
1
1
7
-
2
0
0
f
o
r
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
T
o
u
r
$
3
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
1
2
0
f
o
r
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
T
o
u
r
$
5
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
1
2
5
f
o
r
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
T
o
u
r
$
5
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
1
2
7
-
2
0
0
f
o
r
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
T
o
u
r
$
6
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
1
2
5
f
o
r
4
t
h
A
v
e
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
$
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
1
2
5
f
o
r
D
a
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
P
l
a
z
a
$
1
3
5
,
5
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
1
2
5
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
$
3
2
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
2
0
0
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
$
9
5
,
6
1
1
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
3
0
0
f
o
r
I
n
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
$
1
3
,
9
5
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
1
2
5
f
o
r
C
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
1
2
5
f
o
r
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
F
u
n
d
1
2
5
f
o
r
O
l
d
M
i
l
l
t
o
w
n
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
(
$
8
5
,
1
4
3
)
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$
2
9
9
,
3
5
8
$
5
1
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Gr
a
n
t
s
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
2
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
20
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
Gr
a
n
t
s
/
L
o
a
n
s
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
4t
h
A
v
e
/
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
T
o
u
r
(
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
/
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
a
r
k
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
)
$1
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
,
5
0
0
Da
y
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
l
a
z
a
(
A
r
t
s
F
e
s
t
.
F
o
u
n
d
.
/
H
u
b
b
a
r
d
T
r
u
s
t
/
E
d
i
n
B
l
o
o
m
)
$
3
2
,
5
0
0
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
C
M
A
Q
)
$
1
5
0
,
9
5
0
In
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
(
S
t
a
t
e
R
C
O
)
$
2
5
8
,
8
0
0
Ol
d
M
i
l
l
t
o
w
n
:
F
G
C
a
n
d
E
I
B
,
H
M
F
,
d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
$
1
0
7
,
1
2
3
Ye
a
r
l
y
S
u
b
T
o
t
a
l
G
r
a
n
t
s
/
L
o
a
n
s
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
$
5
6
0
,
3
7
3
$
1
1
,
5
0
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Gr
a
n
t
s
/
L
o
a
n
s
S
o
u
g
h
t
(
n
o
t
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
4t
h
A
v
e
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
(
s
t
a
t
e
,
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
,
o
t
h
e
r
)
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Se
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
/
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
(
D
O
E
,
C
D
B
G
)
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ci
t
y
P
a
r
k
S
p
r
a
y
P
a
r
k
(
d
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
RC
O
S
t
a
t
e
g
r
a
n
t
/
C
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Pu
b
l
i
c
M
a
r
k
e
t
(
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
W
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
)
$5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ye
a
r
l
y
S
u
b
T
o
t
a
l
G
r
a
n
t
s
/
L
o
a
n
s
S
o
u
g
h
t
(
n
o
t
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
$
1
,
3
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
Gr
a
n
t
s
S
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
$5
6
0
,
3
7
3
$
1
,
3
3
6
,
5
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
&
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
&
G
r
a
n
t
s
$8
5
9
,
7
3
1
$
1
,
8
4
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
To
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
(6
3
7
,
1
2
0
.
0
0
)
(
$
1
,
8
5
5
,
0
0
0
)
(
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
)
(
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
)
$0
(
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
)
$0
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$2
2
2
,
6
1
1
-
$
7
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
*P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
m
a
y
b
e
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
e
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
1
%
f
o
r
A
r
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
Fu
n
d
1
3
2
9/
7
/
2
0
1
2
25Packet Page 385 of 488
AM-5096 10. A.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:60 Minutes
Submitted By:Carrie Hite
Department:Parks and Recreation
Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Type:
Information
Subject Title
Review of updated job descriptions, draft Personnel Policies
Recommendation
Personnel Committee review job descriptions and forward to Council for approval.
Personnel Commmittee review draft of Personnel Policies and discuss any concerns. Draft policies still need review by EPOA
and the Mayor before going to Council for review.
Previous Council Action
December 7, 2010: Council voted to authorize $50,000 to hire a Compensation Consultant to complete a non-represented
compensation survey and policy review, and a complete job description update.
March/April/May 2011: There were various discussions with the Public Safety and HR Committee, who forwarded to Council
the RFP/RFQ for approval.
June 21, 2011: Council voted to advertise an RFQ/RFP for a Compensation study and job description update to be completed.
August 10-Sept 2, 2011: RFP was published.
October 10th, 2011: Council President Peterson and Council member Fraley-Monillas and staff interviewed three firms and
forwarded a recommendation to Council.
October 18th, 2011: Council awarded a contract to Public Sector Personnel Consultants ( PSPC ).
October 25th, 2011: PSPC briefed Council on the process of performing a job description update and non-represented
compensation study and policy review and has been working on these throughout the year.
Narrative
Job Descriptions:
The updated job descriptions are complete and ready for Council review.
The City received a WCIA audit finding in 2010 in regard to outdated job descriptions and Personnel Policies.
The job descriptions include updates to legislative changes, and are now in compliance with state and federal laws. The
descriptions were reviewed by individual employees and labor unions, and approved the Directors and Mayor.
Personnel Policies:
The City also received a WCIA audit finding in 2010 in regard to the outdated Personnel Policies. This revision has taken
place over the last year, and included a complete revision to be in compliance with state and federal law. The revised policies
have been reviewed by the Directors, WCIA, Lighthouse Law, Teamsters, and SEIU. They are pending EPOA review. After
the EPOA review, the Mayor will have the final review before it comes in final form to Council. Because of the amount of
changes, we wanted to begin discussions with the Personnel Committee, even though it is still in draft form.
Because of the amount of attachments this would entail, the job descriptions and personnel policies have not been
attached. All of the job descriptions and draft Personnel Policies have been disseminated to the Personnel Committee. In
addition, there will be a copy in the Council office for review by other City Council members and/or the public. We will also
have a copy at the meeting.
Packet Page 386 of 488
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/06/2012 09:35 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/06/2012 03:13 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/06/2012 03:27 PM
Form Started By: Carrie Hite Started On: 09/05/2012 12:33 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/06/2012
Packet Page 387 of 488
AM-5100 10. B.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Amendment to Citizens Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials Ordinance
Recommendation
N/A
Previous Council Action
On May 1, 2012, the Citizen's Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials made a recommendation to the Council
regarding their compensation (minutes attached).
Narrative
Currently, the Compensation Commission is required to have a recommendation (attached) by “the first Monday in May of
each even numbered year”. The recommendation from Council President Peterson, Finance Director Hunstock, and HR
Reporting Director Director Hite is to consider changing the verbiage to “no later than the deadline for submission of the
preliminary budget”. This would extend the deadline until October 16, 2012, giving the salary commission more time to
consider ever-changing budget forecasts before making a final decision.
The Council is presently paid per attached Ordinances 3410 and 3686. The Council President is paid an extra $200 per month
as follows:
City Code: 1.02.031 Council President
C. In addition to the salary as a member of the city council, the council president shall be entitled to receive a salary of $100.00
per month and $25.00 per council meeting in order to compensate him for the time necessary to prepare the agenda and other
associated responsibilities. This total additional compensation shall not exceed $200.00 per month. When the council president
is absent and council president pro tempore is serving in his place, the city council president pro tempore shall receive the
$25.00 per meeting payment. [Ord. 2722, 1989; Ord. 2389, 1983; Ord. 2308, 1982; Ord. 2131 § 1, 1980; Ord. 2126 § 1, 1980;
Ord. 2116 § 1, 1980].
Attachments
5-1-12 Council Min
Citizen's Compensation Recommendation
Ord. 3410
Ord. 3686
Citizens Commission Ordinance
Attachment A to Citizens Commission Ordinance
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/06/2012 01:41 PM
Packet Page 388 of 488
Mayor Dave Earling 09/06/2012 03:12 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/06/2012 03:27 PM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/06/2012 06:12 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/06/2012
Packet Page 389 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 1, 2012
Page 4
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, explained over the past several years he has been attending the monthly
Superintendent’s luncheons that are held 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. at the School District Headquarters. It is an
excellent opportunity to learn what is going on in the schools. During the September and October
meetings, participants are asked to identify issues they would like to have in-depth discussions on and that
is used to set the agenda for the remainder of the year. At the beginning of each meeting Dr. Brossoit is
available to answer questions. Although he does not have any school-age children, he attends the
meetings because 60% of residents’ total property taxes go to the School District and he wants to know
what they are doing with that money. He is very pleased with what they are doing with the money; the
Edmonds School District is very well run.
Lisa Gallucci, Edmonds, Board of Directors Member, Edmonds Community Foundation, invited the
Council, Mayor and the public to attend their third annual Bowling for Backpacks at 6:00 p.m. on Friday,
May 4 at Robin Hood Lanes that benefits the Bottomless Backpacks Food for Youth program in the
Edmonds School District. This event raises money for backpacks and food which is delivered each Friday
to families in crisis through the district.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported she sponsored a lane for bowlers; anyone unable to bowl can
sponsor a team. Anyone interested in sponsoring a lane can contact Ms. Gallucci at
LisaGallucci@lg.ventures@yahoo.com or on their Bottomless Backpacks Facebook page.
7. CITIZENS COMMISSION FOR COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS RECOMMENDATION.
Citizens’ Commission on Compensation of Elected Officials Member Dilys Rosales introduced the
members of the Commission: Co-Chairs Brent Hunter and Eric Radcliffe, and Commissioners Alan
Doman, Lisa Gallucci, Norma Middleton and Debbie Rosenfelt. Commissioner Rosales expressed the
Commission’s appreciation for Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite’s assistance.
Commissioner Rosales described the Commission:
• Comprised of seven members.
• Meets every even year, and their recommendations are to be filed with the City Clerk by the first
Monday in May.
• The task of the Commission is to review compensation of elected officials (Mayor, Council, and
Judge) and recommend adjustments, so that citizens of the highest quality may be attracted to
public service.
• Any approved compensation changes for Councilmembers will become effective with the new
Council terms beginning January 1, 2013.
Commissioner Rosales described the Council’s policy on non-represented employee compensation:
• The Council adopted a policy for non-represented employees that strive to maintain equity in pay
for all employees, offers competitive salaries to attract high level applicants, offers internal equity
to foster long term retention of valuable employees, and rewards meritorious job performance for
deserving individuals.
• The Council’s compensation policy for non-represented employees is based on maintaining salary
ranges at the median when compared to cities of similar size in King, Pierce, Kitsap, Thurston
and Snohomish Counties.
• This policy has been in place for approximately ten years, however recent additions of Kitsap and
Thurston County have been made.
• Currently a review of current compensation policies for non-represented employees is being
conducted (estimated completion – within one month)
Packet Page 390 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 1, 2012
Page 5
Cities used in the comparison are:
• Olympia
• Lacey
• Bremerton
• Puyallup
• Lynnwood
• Kirkland
• Bothell
• University Place
• Issaquah
• Des Moines
• Burien
• Sammamish
Commissioner Rosales described criteria the Commission used in reviewing the Mayor, Judge and
Council compensation:
• City population
• Form of government
• Current and projected budget
• Compensation of elected officials in comparison cities
• Feedback from previous and current position holders
• Industry trends in compensation and benefits
Commissioner Rosales provided a graph illustrating how Edmonds ranks with the above cities,
summarizing out of the 12 comparable cities used, Edmonds ranks 6th by population, and 9th by FTE.
With regard to the Mayor’s salary, Commissioner Rosales provided a graph comparing the mayor’s salary
2000-2012:
Year Salary
2000-2011 $84,000/year
2002-2004 $97,000/year
2005 $98,940/year
2006-2007 $101,414/year
2008-2012 $113,210/year
Commissioner Rosales relayed the 2012 Commission’s recommendation for Mayor’s compensation:
• No compensation change for the Mayor based on:
o The current comparison of compensation to comparable city mayors
o The projected budget shortages.
• If other non-represented officials receive a cost of living adjustment (COLA) in 2013 or 2014 this
should also be applied to the Mayor.
• Benefits to remain the same. If benefit plan or contribution rate changes for non-represented
employees, Commission recommends this changes for the Mayor as well.
Commissioner Rosales relayed the 2012 Commission’s recommendation for Judge’s compensation:
• Maintain compensation at 95% of the salary of a District Court Judge
• If there are any changes in the state salary rate these are recommended to be reflected in the City
of Edmonds Judge’s compensation for 2013 and 2014.
Packet Page 391 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 1, 2012
Page 6
• Benefits to remain the same. If benefit plan or contribution rate changes for non-represented
employees, Commission recommends this changes for the Judge as well
With regard to maintaining compensation at 95% of the salary of District Court Judge, Commission Co-
Chair Brent Hunter explained the State provides Court Improvement Funds as long as the City pays the
Judge 95% of the salary of a District Court Judge. The City’s judge is part-time and receives a pro-rated
amount; the amount of the Court Improvement Fund is $12,000/year.
With regard to Councilmembers’ compensation, Commissioner Rosales provided a chart illustrating
Councilmember’s base pay history 2000-2012 ($6600/year 2000-2001 and $7200 2002-2012) plus
$50/meeting up to a maximum of 8 meetings a month, or a maximum of $1000/month.
She explained, to provide flexibility, the Commission has analyzed and prepared the following three
options for Council compensation:
• Option 1 (no change):
o No changes to the current compensation or benefits structure for the Councilmember
o Benefits to remain the same. If benefit plan or contribution rate changes for non-represented
employees, Commission recommends this changes for the Council as well
o $600 monthly base
o $50 per meeting up to 8 per month
o $567 - 90% City/10% Council for Councilmember only health coverage
o Estimated total monthly cost per Councilmember: $1567
o Estimated total monthly cost per Council President: $1767
• Option 2A (hybrid cafeteria plan structure):
o Cost of Councilmember benefits included in monthly base pay
o Benefits to remain the same. If benefit plan or contribution rate changes for non-represented
employees, Commission recommends this changes for the Council as well
o $1,167 monthly base pay
o $50 per meeting up to 8 per month
o Estimated total monthly cost per Councilmember: $1567
o Estimated total monthly cost per Council President: $1767
• Option 2B (full cafeteria plan structure):
o Full pay for meeting attendance and cost of Councilmember benefits included in monthly
base pay
o Benefits to remain the same. If benefit plan or contribution rate changes for non-represented
employees, Commission recommends this changes for the Council as well
o Councilmembers can elect where to direct their total compensation:
Cash compensation
Individual and family/dependent benefit coverage
Deferred compensation
o Estimated total monthly cost per Councilmember: $1567
o Estimated total monthly cost per Council President: $1767
Commissioner Rosales advised the options have been reviewed by the City Attorney. She relayed the
Commission’s recommendation that Option 2B be adopted for 2013-2014. This option gives
Councilmembers the ability to elect the package that suits their needs the best. In order to attract and meet
the differing needs of a diverse group of Councilmembers, the Commission feels it is important to create
flexibility via the benefits and compensation offered.
Councilmember Plunkett observed the recommendation from Mayor and staff on the agenda memo is to
review material and presentation, and consider adoption of recommendations. He pointed out the Council
is being asked to pick an option, however, the Council cannot vote on their own salaries. City Attorney
Packet Page 392 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 1, 2012
Page 7
Jeff Taraday explained State law that authorizes Citizen Commissions on Compensation in RCW
35.21.015(3) specifically states any change in salary shall be filed by the Commission with the City Clerk
and shall become effective and incorporated into the city or town budget without further action of the City
Council or Salary Commission. The Council ultimately takes action on the budget but does not take a
specific action on their own salaries. The purpose of the Citizen Commission on Compensation is to
prevent the Council from taking action on their own salaries. He recommended the Council not take any
action tonight, simply hear the report and let the Commission do what they are authorized to do under
State law which is to file their report with the City Clerk by the first Monday in May.
Councilmember Buckshnis observed she would receive a raise under Option 2B; she typically earns $600-
700/month and attends 2-3 meetings per month. Including the pay for meetings at the maximum amount
in the salary is not appropriate because in a typical month she would never earn $400/month for meetings.
Commissioner Rosales answered the Commission reviewed the average number of meetings
Councilmembers attend; the average is six. Other than in 2012, the Council budget has included $400 per
month for meetings for each Councilmember. Councilmember Buckshnis liked the flexibility of a
cafeteria plan but was uncertain she could accept payment for meetings she did not attend. She preferred
Option 2A.
Mr. Taraday explained there is a constitutional prohibition on elected officials setting their own
compensation. The constitutional prohibition is avoided by having the Commission set compensation and
as long as the Council does not modify it, it is included in the budget and the Council adopts the budget.
As soon as the Council begins to tinker with its own compensation, a mid-term change cannot be made.
The Council can change future councilmembers’ compensation, but not their own.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented she learned a lot during her meeting with Commissioner
Rosenfelt. She noted Edmonds is the only city that pays per meeting; most have only a base pay. She
liked the smorgasbord approach because it provides flexibility. The interest she relayed to Commission
Rosenfelt was recruiting more people of diversity, people of color and different economic backgrounds so
that the Council looks like the citizens of Edmonds. She summarized the Commission had provided a well
thought out approach.
Councilmember Bloom echoed Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’s comments, stating she enjoyed
meeting with Co-Chair Hunter and felt her concerns were heard. She has similar concerns with regard to
recruitment, particularly younger people.
Councilmember Plunkett commented the Council does not recruit candidates, the proposed changes may
provide the flexibility to encourage citizens to apply. He commended the Commission on their work,
particularly the flexibility they offered.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled he has voted on the Citizen’s Commission on Compensation of Elected
Officials’ recommendations in the past and it then applied not to the sitting Councilmembers but to
Councilmembers in their next term. Commissioner Rosales assured their intent was for the change to be
effective January 1, 2013. It was her understanding that could be done because the Commission was not
recommending a change in the budget. Mr. Taraday answered the Commission could give the Council a
raise if they wished, but the Council cannot modify it. For some Councilmembers, the cafeteria plan may
in effect be a raise. Assuming the Council does not modify the Commission’s recommendation, they are
not violating the constitutional prohibition on setting their own compensation. He summarized the
Commission has done their work, it is filed with the City Clerk, incorporated into the budget, the Council
adopts the budget.
Councilmember Plunkett commented another option would be for the Council to vote and make it
applicable to future Councilmembers. He was uncertain that option was clear to the Commission. He
Packet Page 393 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 1, 2012
Page 8
suggested the Commission meet with Mr. Taraday to discuss how their recommendation would apply.
Ms. Hite explained some Commissioners served on the previous Commission; the City Attorney at that
time interpreted the law slightly differently which has created some confusion. The intent of the
Commission is for their recommendation to apply to the current Council beginning on January 1, 2013.
The Council salary and benefits remain the same, only the method of payment changes. She summarized
if the Council took no action, the Commission could file their recommendation with the City Clerk and
when the Council adopts the 2013 budget, funds will be included in the budget and the method of
payment will change beginning January 1, 2013.
Student Representative Springer asked how the Council’s salary and benefits compared with other cities.
Co-Chair Hunter answered information was provided to the Council earlier in the process. The proposed
change put the Council’s compensation in the upper level. The intent was to rearrange the existing
compensation to provide more flexibility.
Mayor Earling thanked the Commission for their work.
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE HOME OCCUPATION
REGULATIONS RELATED TO URBAN FARMING (ECDC 20.20). THE AMENDMENT
FOCUSES ON ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TYPE II CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, WHILE RETAINING CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT THE URBAN FARM MUST
MEET. (FILE NO. AMD20120002).
Associate Planner Jen Machuga explained the City’s regulations regarding urban farming are contained
within the home occupation regulations, ECDC 20.20. Currently the regulations require a Type II
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in order for an urban farm to sell produce on site. The fee for a Type II
CUP is approximately $600. It was recently brought to the City’s attention that the requirement for a CUP
for an urban farm may be in conflict with the State law requirements of RCW 36.70.090 related to the
pedaling of produce. RCW 36.70.090 states it shall be lawful for anyone to sell, deliver or pedal any farm
produce gathered or produced by the person without license. The reference to state law along with a
memo from the City Attorney that further discusses the potential conflict between the State law and the
current requirement for a CUP for an urban farm is included in the Council packet.
The potential conflict between State law and the City’s urban farming regulations was initially presented
to the Planning, Parks and Public Works Committee on February 14, 2012 and forwarded to the Planning
Board for review. The Planning Board conducted a hearing on April 11, 2012 and voted unanimously to
forward the item to the City Council for a hearing. The draft code language is included in the Council
packet as Exhibit 1 and includes the changes recommended by the Planning Board.
When the home occupation regulations were updated a couple years ago, regulations for urban farms were
added to the code, including the requirement for the CUP. Restrictions were also included such as a limit
on the hours of operation and requirement that they show visitors to the site can be accommodated
without creating a traffic hazard. The proposed code amendment would not change any of the other
regulations related to urban farms, it only removes the requirement for the CUP. This is consistent with
the City Attorney’s recommendation that the requirement for the CUP be removed in order to be
consistent with State law.
In addition to recommending removal of the CUP, the Planning Board also recommended adding
clarifying language to the signage requirement for urban farms so that in addition to a sign that can be
affixed to the urban farm display, a sign may be associated with the display which would also allow a
small free-standing sign next to the display.
Packet Page 394 of 488
Packet Page 395 of 488
Packet Page 396 of 488
Packet Page 397 of 488
Packet Page 398 of 488
0006.900020
jzl/
7/7/02
ORDINANCE NO. 3410
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A NEW SALARY AND
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATORY BENEFITS FOR CITY
COUNCILMEMBERS; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE
SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
WHEREAS, the City Council has established a Citizens’ Advisory Commission
to provide a recommendation to it regarding the salaries and benefits of elected officials in the
City of Edmonds; and
WHEREAS, said Commission has returned its findings and recommended salary
adjustments for City Councilmembers; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Commission’s findings and
recommendations and determines it appropriate to set a Six Hundred Dollar ($600) monthly
salary for Councilmembers, and to increase each Councilmember’s available level of health
insurance to that provided to non-represented City employees; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The base salary for the position of City Councilmember is hereby
established at Six Hundred Dollars ($600) per month, with an additional payment of $50 per
meeting attended to a maximum of eight (8) meetings per month; PROVIDED the total monthly
salary received from the City shall not exceed the maximum described herein. The salary
increase authorized hereunder shall be effective upon the commencement date of the next term
{JZL521353.DOC;1/00006.900020/} - 1 -
Packet Page 399 of 488
for each Council position. Should any Councilmember elect to utilize the City’s health insurance
benefits, such Councilmember’s available benefit level is hereby increased to that provided to
non-represented City employees.
Section 2. Should the terms of this ordinance conflict with those of any previous
City enactment, including but not limited to Ordinance No. 3110, such previous enactment is
hereby amended to, but only to, the extent necessary to reconcile said conflict.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance, being an exercise of a power specifi-
cally delegated to the City legislative body, is not subject to referendum, and shall take effect
five (5) days after passage and publication of an approved summary thereof consisting of the
title.
APPROVED:
MAYOR GARY HAAKENSON
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
BY
W. Scott Snyder
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 07/19/2002
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 07/23/2002
PUBLISHED: 07/28/2002
EFFECTIVE DATE: 08/02/2002
ORDINANCE NO. 3410
{JZL521353.DOC;1/00006.900020/} - 2 -
Packet Page 400 of 488
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 3410
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the 23rd day of July, 2002, the City Council of the City of Edmonds, passed
Ordinance No. 3410. A summary of the content of said ordinance, consisting of the title,
provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING A
NEW SALARY AND ADDITIONAL COMPENSATORY BENEFITS FOR CITY
COUNCILMEMBERS; AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this 25th day of July, 2004.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
{JZL521353.DOC;1/00006.900020/} - 3 -
Packet Page 401 of 488
Packet Page 402 of 488
Packet Page 403 of 488
Packet Page 404 of 488
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING CHAPTER 10.80 OF THE
EDMONDS CITY CODE RELATING TO THE CITIZENS’
COMMISSION ON COMPENSATION OF ELECTED
OFFICIALS.
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds has established a citizens’ commission that establishes
the compensation of elected officials; and
WHEREAS, the current ordinance setting forth the procedures for the commission
contains certain deadlines that are not required by state law; and
WHEREAS, the current ordinance setting forth the procedures for the commission
contains language that is ambiguous and possibly in conflict with state law; and
WHEREAS, the city council would like to clarify these provisions and give the
commission more time within which to establish and/or revisit its prior determinations about
compensation;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 10.80 of the Edmonds City Code, entitled “Citizens’ Commission on
Compensation of Elected Officials,” is hereby amended to read as set forth in Attachment A,
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full (new text
is shown in underline; deleted text is shown in strike-through).
Packet Page 405 of 488
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 406 of 488
3
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __________
of the City of Edmonds, Washington
On the ____ day of ___________, 2012, 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 CHAPTER 10.80 OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE
RELATING TO THE CITIZENS’ COMMISSION ON
COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
DATED this _____ day of ________________, 2012.
CITY CLERK, SANDRA S. CHASE
4840-7251-8158, v. 1
Packet Page 407 of 488
ATTACHMENT A to Ordinance _______.
Chapter 10.80 CITIZENS’ COMMISSION ON
COMPENSATION OF ELECTED OFFICIALS
Sections:
10.80.010 Purpose.
10.80.020 Duties.
10.80.030 Eligibility.
10.80.040 Appointment.
10.80.050 Operation.
10.80.060 Compensation schedule recommendation.
10.80.070 Open meetings.
10.80.080 Referendum.
10.80.090 Reimbursement unaffected.
10.80.010 Purpose.
It is the policy of the city of Edmonds to base the compensation of
elected officials on realistic standards so that elected officials of the
city may be compensated according to the duties of their offices, and
so that citizens of the highest quality may be attracted in public
service, while at the same time taking into consideration the city’s
most recent budget forecasts. To effectuate this policy, the Edmonds’
citizens commission on the compensation of elected officials
(“compensation commission”) is hereby created consisting of seven
members with duties and responsibilities as set forth below. [Ord.
3508 § 1, 2004].
10.80.020 Duties.
The compensation commission shall study the relationship of and set
the compensation for each respective position. Except as provided
otherwise below, the compensation commission shall be solely
responsible for its own organization, operation, and action and shall
enjoy the fullest cooperation of all elected officials, departments and
agencies of the city of Edmonds. The commission may reconvene
itself as necessary to revisit an earlier compensation determination of
the commission PROVIDED THAT if the commission files more than
one compensation schedule with the city clerk before the statutory
due date for submitting the mayor’s preliminary budget, the schedule
that is filed most recently in advance of that due date shall be
included in the preliminary budget.[Ord. 3508 § 1, 2004].
10.80.030 Eligibility.
The compensation commission shall consist of seven members, all of
Packet Page 408 of 488
ATTACHMENT A to Ordinance _______.
whom must be at least 21 years of age, registered to vote, and
maintain personal residence within the boundaries of the city of
Edmonds. No city of Edmonds official or public employee, immediate
family member of the official or employee shall be eligible for
membership on the compensation commission. As used in this
section, the phrase “immediate family” means parents, spouse,
siblings, children, or dependent relative of the official or employee,
whether or not they are living in the same household. [Ord. 3508 § 1,
2004].
10.80.040 Appointment.
Two members of the compensation commission shall be appointed
by the city council and one member shall be appointed by the mayor;
the appointed three members shall select the other four members.
The members of the compensation commission shall serve four-year
terms originally commencing on October 1, 1999, except that the first
seven members shall be appointed for different terms as follows: (A)
one member appointed by the city council for a period of four years;
(B) one member appointed by the city council for a period of two
years; (C) two of the members selected by those three members to
serve for periods of four years; and (D) two of the members elected
by those three members to serve for periods of two years. No person
may serve more than two consecutive terms. Members of the
compensation commission may be removed by the mayor, with the
approval of the council, only for cause of incapacity, incompetence,
neglect of duty, malfeasance in office, or for a disqualifying change of
eligibility. The unexcused absence of any member of the commission
from two consecutive meetings of the commission shall constitute
relinquishment of that person’s membership on the commission. Such
relinquishment creates a vacancy in that person’s position on the
commission. Upon a vacancy in any position on the commission, a
successor shall be selected and appointed to fill the unexpired term.
The selection and appointment shall be concluded within 30 days of
the date that position becomes vacant and shall be conducted in the
same manner as originally provided for that person’s appointment.
[Ord. 3508 § 1, 2004].
10.80.050 Operation.
The members of the compensation commission shall elect a chair
from among their number. The commission shall prepare establish a
Packet Page 409 of 488
ATTACHMENT A to Ordinance _______.
recommended schedule of compensation by an affirmative vote of not
less than five members of the commission. Members of the
commission shall receive no compensation for their services. [Ord.
3508 § 1, 2004].
10.80.060 Compensation schedule recommendation.
The commission shall file its schedules of recommended
compensation for elected officials of the city with the city clerk no later
than the first Monday in May of each even-numbered year. The
signature of the chair of the commission shall be affixed to each
schedule submitted to the city clerkstatutory deadline for submission
of the preliminary budget. The chair shall certify that the schedule has
been adopted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and
with the rules, if any, of the commission. Such schedules shall
become effective only upon adoption by the city council and in
accordance with state lawand incorporated into the city budget
without further action of the city council or commission, PROVIDED
THAT any decrease in compensation shall become effective at the
commencement of the next subsequent terms of office. [Ord. 3508
§ 1, 2004].
10.80.070 Open meetings.
All meetings, actions, hearings, and business of the commission shall
be subject to the Open Public Meetings Act as set forth in Chapter
42.30 RCW. Prior to the filing of any compensation schedule, the
commission shall hold no fewer than two public hearings thereon
within the two months immediately preceding the filing of its
schedulerecommendation. [Ord. 3508 § 1, 2004].
10.80.080 Referendum.
Compensation increases and decreases shall be subject to
referendum petition by the people of the city in the same manner as a
city ordinance upon filing of such petition with the city clerk within
thirty days after filing of the compensation schedule. Any ordinance
enacting change in compensation shall be subject to referendum
petition by the citizens in accordance with city ordinance. Any
ordinance which enacts a commission recommendation shall be
subject to Article XXX, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution
regarding increases in elected officials’ compensation during their
term of office. [Ord. 3508 § 1, 2004].
Packet Page 410 of 488
ATTACHMENT A to Ordinance _______.
10.80.090 Reimbursement unaffected.
The mayor and councilmembers shall receive reimbursement for their
action and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of the
duties of their office, or the council by ordinance may provide for a
per diem allowance. Procedure for approval of claims for expenses
shall be as provided by ordinance, consistent with state law. [Ord.
3508 § 1, 2004]. Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 14 pt,
Underline color: Custom Color(RGB(0,29,141))
Packet Page 411 of 488
AM-5092 10. C.
City Council Meeting & Committee Meetings
Meeting Date:09/11/2012
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted For:Councilwoman Bloom Submitted By:Jana Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Public Safety/Personnel Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Discussion regarding taking minutes/notes during executive sessions.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
During the July 17, 2007 Council Meeting there was a discussion regarding Executive Sessions (minutes attached). During
that meeting Resolution 1150 (attached) was approved and placed on the August 8, 2007 consent agenda and approved.
This agenda item was discussed during the 2012 City Council Retreat (minutes attached). It was discussed again at the March
20, 2012 Council Meeting (minutes attached). It was then discussed during the Public Safety and Personnel Committee on
June 12, 2012 (minutes attached).
This item was again discussed at the August 28, 2012 Council Meeting and referred back to the Public Safety and Personnel
Committe for further discussion and clarification (minutes attached).
Narrative
The Public Safety and Personnel Committee has placed this item on the agenda as directed by Council during the full City
Council Meeting of August 28, 2012.
Attachments: Mr. Nixon's power point presentation.
July 5, 2007 Approved Council Minutes
Attachments
7-5-2007 Approved Council Minutes
7-17-2007 Approved Council Minutes
2012 Council Retreat Minutes
3-20-12 Approved Council Minutes
Resolution No. 853
Resolution 1150
6-12-2012 Public Safety/Personnel Committee Minutes
8-28-2012 Draft Council Minutes
Mr. Nixon's Presentation
Form Review
Packet Page 412 of 488
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/04/2012 10:16 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/04/2012 11:01 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/04/2012 11:16 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 08/31/2012 10:44 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/04/2012
Packet Page 413 of 488
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES
June 5,2007
Following a Special Meeting at 6:30 p.rn. for an Executive Session regarditrg a legal matter, the Edmonds Citv
Council meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.nr- by Mayor Haakenson in the Council Chambers,250 5'r'
Avenue Nofth, Edmonds. The rneeting was opened u,ith the flag salute.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Gary Haakenson, Mayor
Peggy Pritchard Olson. Council President
Michael PIunkett. Councilmernber larrivcd 7:21 p.m.)
Richard Marin. Counciltnember
Mauri Moore, Coulcilmetnber
Deanna Dawson. Councilrnember
Dave Orvis, Councilmernber
Ron Warrbolt, Councilrnernber
ALSO PRESENT
2
Gerry Gannon, Assistant Police Chief
Tom Tomberg, Fire Chief
John Westfall. Fire Marshal
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Stephen Clifton, Comrnunity Services Director
Brian Mclntosh, Parks & Recreation Direclor
Noel Miller'. Public Works Director
Rob Chave, Plann ing Manager
Rich Lindsay. Parks Maintenance Manager
Dave Gebeft, City Engineer
Jeannine Graf. Building Official
Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer
Don Fiene, Assistant City Engineer
Scott Snyder, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, Ciry Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines. Recorder
Shaun Callahan, Student Representative
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE
THE AGENDA tN CONTENT AND ORDER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember
Plunkett ryas not present for the vote.)
RollC^ll
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE
THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Plunkett was not
present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINC MINUTES OF MAY 22,2007.
AppRovAL oF CLAIM CHECKS #96460 THROUCH #96614 FOR MAY 24,2007 IN THE
AMOUNT OF 5440,499.08 AND #96615 THROUGH #9675I FOR MAY 3I, 2OO7 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $234,953.60.
ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FROM CLIFF SANDERLIN
(AMOUNT UNDETERMINED), AND PHILIP LAUE (AMOUNT UNDETERMINED).
511)t01
Clrnn
B
c
Clai,irs lbr
Darnagcs D
Ednrcnds Cit) Council Approvcd Minulcs
June 5. 200?
Page I
Packet Page 414 of 488
shcll
vrllc\
Enrcrgcnc)
Condidflc
(iuid.Lnes
AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH SELECTION OF A CONSULTANT TO DESIGN
THE SHELL VALLEY EMERCENCY ACCESS AND PRELIMINARY SHORT SUBDIVISION.
E
Ord. *i617
Srh A\c l'\
Itight ol
Ord #i648
Nlrssage
Sist.)r CiL)
F.
G
H
DRAFT GUIDELINES - CANDIDATE FORUMS AND USE OF CITY FACILITIES.
ORDINANCE NO. 3647 . VACATING CERTAIN UNOPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 8TH
AVENUE NORTH, NORTH OF SPRAGUE STREET, AND RDSERVING AN EASEMENT,
ORDINANCE NO, 3648 _ AMENDING THE PROVISIONS OF EDMONDS CITY CODE,
SECTION 4,50.040 FEES - DISBURSEMENTS, PARAGRAPH (D), RELATING TO THE
RECISTRATION OF LICENSED MASSAGE THERAPISTS.
3 2006 ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE EDMONDS SISTER CITY COMMISSION.
Shiva Riddell, Ednronds Sister City Commission Chair, explained each year the twelve nrenrber Comrnission
strives to fulfill the Commission's mission, "to promote international communication and understanding through
excJranges of people, ideas, and culture" by providing activities and exchanges that foster understanding and
friendship between Edmonds and its Sister City, Hekinan, Japan. She relayed the Commission's sincere thanks
to the many individuals, families, businesses, schools and organizations that have provided time and resources to
help make these programs successful. She introduced the Executive members of the Board, Felix de Mello,
Vice Chair; Jeanne Mazzoni, Secretary; and Rita Bailey lkeda, Treasurer. She introduced Comrnissioners Bryan
Bechler, Jim Corbett, Lawrence Cretin, I-lolly Guentz, Grant Linden, lyoko Okano, Vera Papageorgiou, and
Karen Towey. She noted 2006 saw the departure of Cornrnissioners Consuelo Kinahan and Karen Towey and
the addition of Commissioners Grant Linden and Holly Guentz. She extended the Commission's thanks to
Brian Mclntosh, Director of Parks and Recreation, for his supporl and guidance.
Ms. Riddell described community outreach including a visit by the Commission to the Shinto Slrrine in eastem
Snohorrish County, an inforr.nation booth at the Ednronds Summer Market, presentation to the Senior Kiwanis
Meeting, artist Jolrn Vanderbrooke working with wax medium with the visiting Japanese students, and a major
Japanese calligraphy exhibit at the Seattle Center by Meito Shodokai attended by several Cornmissioners.
Ms. Riddell reported on the Student Delegation to Hekinan in July where fifteen 4- I 7 year old students and their
chaperones traveled for l5 days and stayed with host farrilies. She reported on the Student Delegation from
Hekinan where the Commission arranged home stays for l5 students and two chaperones frorr Hekinan for trvo
weeks in early August and described activities they enjoyed. She reported or a l2 rrember adult delegation
lrom Ilekinan who visited Ednionds in October and described activities during the delegates stay.
Ms. Riddell recognized Comrnissioner Jim Corbett for preparing the quarterly Sister City newsletler. Next, she
described the Hekinan/Edmonds Cooperative Student Art Project. The theme was an "east meets west" and
collages were created using small iterns and objects representing the northwest and the Hekinan region.
Ms. Riddell explained Mariko Watts and Michael Hopkins were interviewed and selected from a pool of l4
applicants to work as assistant English teachers in junior high schools in Hekinan for a period of two years,
Further, she relayed 2008 rvill rnark the 20th Anniversary ofthe Edmonds-Hekinan Sister City relationship. The
Cornnrission is planning an adult delegation to Japan in April 2008.
Ms. Riddell extended the Commission's appreciation to Mayor Haakenson, the City Council, the Edmonds Arts
Cominission and all City Departrnents for the continued support of the Commission's cultural programs and
activities. Councilmember Marin extended the Council's appreciation to the Sister City Commission.
PRESENTATION REGARDING PROPOSED 76TH AVENUE WEST/75TH PLACE WEST WALKWAY4i 75rlr PIW
'llrll,\r\:l6lnd S(
trdnronds CiL! Council Approvcd Minutes
.lunc 5.200?
Pagc 2
AND I62ND STREET SW PARK,
Assistant City Engineer Don Fiene introduced the City's new Transportation Engineer, Beftrand Hauss. Mr.
Fiene then provided background on the project, explaining it was the highest priority walkway in the current
Packet Page 415 of 488
Walkway Complehensive PIan that has not yet been consftucted- The I62"d Street Park was identified as a mini-
park in the current Park Comprehensive PIan. The 2007 -2008 capital budget allocated $945,000 for 76'r'Avenue
West/75'l' Place West u'alkrvay and $325,000 for the 162"d Street Park.
Mr. Fiene explained the City contracted with Gray & Osborne and their sub-consultant for the 162"d Slrcct Park,
SBA Associates, in Septernber 2005: the first phase of the contract was preliminary design and deterrnining a
prefered altenrative. A public rneeting was held in April 2007 to solicit public feedback which will be
incorporated into the final design.
Tani Stafford, Gray & Osborne, displayed a site map identifing the project on 76'r'Averrue West from
Meadowdale Beach Road to 75'l'Place West to Meadowdale County Park. She described Iimited space between
the existing pavement and the east side of the righlof-way north of 162"'r which lirnited the location of the
waikway to the west side. Because a significant portion of the project was rvithin a landslide prone area. LIWA
Geosciences was hired to investigate the best techniques for widening a roadway in an area prone to landslide.
Their recornmendation was to build the walkway on the east side if at all possible as cutting into the
embankment and rernoving cxisting soil made the slope more stable. Because much of the walkway was lirnited
to the west side, they recornnrended a pile supported struclure on the wcst.
Ms. Stafford displayed and reviewed Concept l. identif,ing sections with curb, gutter and 5-foot asphalt
rvalkway: a piJe-supported boardwalk at 162"d; and the 5-foot asphalt walkway u,ith a soldier pile wall. She
advised the walkway would be on the east side on the south end ofthe projcct adjoining the existing sidewalk on
the east side and shift to the west side at 162''d. She displayed renderings of the existing conditions and
proposed inrproverrenls lor eaclr sectiort.
Ms. Stafford displayed and reviewed Concept 2, explaining the primary difference was the entire walkway was
on the west side in Concept 2. She identified areas of asphalt walkway and pile suppofied walkway. She
pointed out the section of the road where there was ir.rsufficient right-of-rvay on the west side for a walkway
which would require shiliing the road slightly to the east, requiring a soldier pile wall which made Concept 2
more expensive than Concept L Because cost estinrates for both concepts were over the City's budget, they
considered phasing the project.
Ms. Stafford staled they recomnrended Concept I, Phase l, which would eud north of the 162"'r park. She
reviewed pros and cons for both concepts:
Concept 1
Pros: lmproves slope stability in landslide zone; improves sight distance a1 horizontal curve at south end
of project; better connection to existing waJkway at south end; less expensive to construct.
Cons: More right-of-way acquisition required; nrore crosswalks needed at l62nd.
Concept 2
Pros: Less right-of-way acquisition required; fewer crosswalks needed at 162nd.
Cons: More expensive to construct; more driveway crossings; not a desirable connection to existing
u'alkway a1 south end.
Susan Black, SBA Associates, described site conditions of the I 62"d Street Park including the approximate half
acre size. west orientatioll, 4:l slope, Puget Sound and regional mountain/island views, and location rnidway on
the walkway project. She described views from tlre site, oppoftunities for passive recreation, active play, and
trail linkages. She highlighted steep slopes on tl're east and west arrd more usable space in the center. She
displayed the proposed site plan and described play opportunities such as an interpretive overlook, ship galleon
slide, hillside slide/clirnb. and play structure. She described opponunities for iuterpretive signs ofthe Olympic
Mountains, regional island views and ship stack identification systerr- She corntnented on the oppofiunity for a
sailboat flect structure. swings. walking path. and open lawn. She sumnarized site amenities could include
picnic areas- open lawr for unstructured play, picnic and BBQ areas, restroolll, benches, and drinking fourrtains.
Edmonds Clil), Clouncil Approvcd Minutes
Junc 5.2007
pagc j
Packet Page 416 of 488
llczone
Propcrlies
Srdc ol'
Mr. Fiene relayed staff,s reconrnrendation of Concept I for the walkway and concurrence with the 162"d Street
Park concept. He pointed out the walkway on the east provided better slope stability and cost $292,000 less
than Concept 2. Staff reconrmends proceeding with design for Concept I walkrvay lor the Meadowdale Beach
Road to 162"d section (cost estirnate $671,000) and along tlre frontage of I62"d Street Park (cost estimate
S237,000). Staff recommends a separate schedule for the 162"d Street Park to North Meadowdale Beach Road
section as it was likeiy too expensive and provided less benefit (cost estimate $523,000), and recommends not
designing the Nonh Meadowdale Road to County Park section as the $514,000 cost estimate was well beyond
the budget and provides limited benefit. Staff recommends designiug low cost safety improvernents for the
North Meadowdale Road to Countv Park section.
Councilrrember Moore inquired about the feedback frorn the public rneeting and how it was incorporated into
the design. Mr. Fiene answered there wele corrments about amenities at tlie park; attendees liked the walkway
concept and alerted staff to another safety issue near 158'l'street that staff plans to investigate in fiDal design.
Councilmember Moore asked if at the tirne the rneeting was held the public was inforrned both projects rnay not
be possible. Mr, Fiene answered yes,
Councilmember Marin expressed suppoft for the design, particularly the elevated walkway and the sailboat fleet
in the park. He noted his original understanding was there would be an asphalt walkway; he preferred the
proposed design, finding it would enhance the area and nimic the beauty ofthe downtown waterfront.
Responding to Councilmember Moore, Mr. Feine advised the Council rvould have an opportunity to approve the
bid at a later date. Councilmember Moore asked when the engineer's estimate would be available. Mr. Fiene
advised there rvere engineer's estimates for the concept stagei estimates would inrprove as design progressed.
Councilmember Moore was concerned the project could become proh;bitively expensive due to increases in
construction materials ifthe design took too long.
Ms. Stafford acknowledged constructiou costs continued to increase, although because the City completed all
the surveys and the base map models, moving from preliminary design to final design would not take very long
and the project could go to construction during next summer. She noted there could be delays if a great deal of
rightof-way was needed, however, the concept they proposed only required acquisition of right-of-way lrom
one parcel and could be compJeted without that right-of-way if rrecessary. Projects could be delayed by utility
locating, however. staff intends to involve the utilities early in the design to allow them to move facilities early
in the process. She advised their cost estirnates were based on bids received in the past two years plus an
additional cushion and a l0o% escalation. Councilrnember Moole rernarked two years was a long time in vieu
ofrecent increases in construction costs. Ms. Stafford replied the City could also bid the project in segments.
Councilmernber Moore expressed her support for the project, noting it was a project the City had rvarted to
construct for a long time. She wanted the pLrblic to be aware that pieces of the project may not be constructed
due to budgetary constrairts.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. MOTION CARRIED
TJNAN I MOIJS LY.
CLOSED RECORD REVIEW ON THf, REZONE FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS-6) TO
OFFICE RESIDENTIAL (OR) FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SUNSET AVE.
N. AND SOUTH OF BELL ST. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REZONE INITIATED BY THE CITY
OF EDMONDS TO BRING THE ZONING OF THESE PROPERTIES INTO CONFORMITY WITH THtr
COMPREHINSIVE PLAN. (FILE NO. R-07-I4)
As this u'as a quasi judicial rnatter, under the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Mayor Haakenson asked
whether any Councilmember had any ex parte communications or conflicts to disclose,
Iidnronds Cit) Colrcil Approvcd Minutes
Junc 5 2007
I']ase 4
Packet Page 417 of 488
)006
Couucihnenrber Marin disclosed he was friends with Mr. Huston from the VFW and had received a campaign
confibution from Mr. Drerv. He advised neither would irnpact his decision in the matter.
Councilrnember Orvis disclosed he received a campaign contribution frorn Mr. I{uston aud possibly from
auother pafly of record in an amount below $250.
Counciltnember Wambolt disclosed he received a srrrall campaign contribution from Mr. Jacobsen
Counciltnember Dawsotr advised she received similar campaign contributions which would not impact her
ability to participale.
Counciimember Plunkett disclosed he received a $100 contribution frorn Mr. Jacobsen and Sl00 frorn Mr
I-luston-
Mayor Haakensotr asked whether any of the parties of record objected to any Councilnrembers' parlicipation
There were no objections voiced and Mayor Haakenson advised all Councilrnenrbers would participate.
Planniug Manager Rob Chave recalled the Council's extensive process to change the Conrprehensive Plan
designation for these properties on the west side of Sunset Avenue south of Bell Street. Following the
Cotnprehensive Plan arrendment, the Council arnended the Developmenl Code to add a new OR (Office
Residential) zone. Staff has proposed an administrative rezone due to the Comprehensive Plan designation and
creatiolt ofthe OR zone. 'fhe Planning Board held a public hearing and received no corrtlent opposed to the
proposed action. The Planning Board recomtnends the Council approve the rezone.
Mayor Haakensotl invited parties of record to provide comment. There were no pafties of record present wlto
wished to comlneut and Mayor Haakenson closed the opponunity for comment by pafiies of record.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, TO APPROVE
THE REZONE REQUEST AND DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE
FOR COUNCIL ADOPTION.
Councilmetnber Dawson expressed her pleasure at tlre work done by the Planning Board ou this matter. She
recalled instances in the past when there was Iittle opposition and the record was somewhat incornplete. She
appreciated Planring Board Member Freeman in particular for the record created supporting the Planning
Board's recornmendation. She urged the Planning Board to create a similar record for future matters.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ADOPTION OF THE 2006 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING. FIRE AND
SUPPLEMENTAL CODE
Building Official Jeannine Graf explained every three years the revised International Building, Fire, Plumbing,
Mechanical and Supplernental Code rvas presented to the Council for adoption. She referred to Exhibit 2, a
redlined version of I'itle l9 of the Edmonds Communigr Developrnent Code, and relayed stafl-s
recommendation that the City Council direct the City Attomey to prepare an ordinance adopting the 2006
International Building, Fire, and Supplernental Code-
Fire Marshal John Westfall was also present to ansu,er questions.
Mayol I-laakenson opened the public pafticipation portion ofthe public hearing.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds. expressed support for adoption of the International Building, Fire and Suppletnental
Code.
Idnronds Ci1] Council Approvcd Minutcs
Junc 5..1007
Page 5
Packet Page 418 of 488
Hearing no further public corrrnent, Mayor Haakenson closed the public hcaring and renranded the matter to
Council for action
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORE, THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING
THE 2006 INTEIINATIONAL FIRE, BUILDING AND SUPPLEMENTAL CODES. MOTION CARRIED
UN ANIMOUSLY,
PIJBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT UNDER RCW'l
)01 5rh ,{\c
i {Old
U,llu\ n )
36.708-170 TO PROVIDtr VESTING TO CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2OI 5TH
AVENUE SOUTH.EDMONDS. WASHINGTON (OLD MILLTOWN). THE AGREEMENT COVERS
LOTS t. 2, 3, 4. 5, 6, 37.38.39 AND 40, INCLUDING BOTH OLD MILLTOWN AND THE ADJACENT
ITE
City Attorney Scott Snydel advised the developmenl agreement was proposed by Gregg Developnrent
Associates as part of a comprehensive setllement of a Land Use Petition Action and danrage suit brought by
Gregg Productions Associates. Although the matter had been discussed by the Council in ExecLrtive Session,
the Council could not reach a decision in Executive Session and because the primary considerations for the
settlement agreenent was the development agreenrent, the Council could not make a commitment ur'rtil there
had been a public hearing. This was the public hearing and opportunity for discussion.
Mr. Snyder explained a developrnent agreement was a tool created by the Glorvth Managenrent Act (GMA) to
establish development requirements for pafiicular propefy. While development agreements could cover a wide
variety of subjects, all that was proposed in this agrcement was that the propefty described in the agreernent, Old
Milltown and adjacent properties, be vested undel the City Codes in effect on April 15, 2007, the date oftheir
proposal. The date takes into account newly enacted BD zone requirements as well as changes to the City's
Architectural Design Boald process. While this was a contractual obligation, a development agreernent was
appealable under LUPA if it related to development approval. The Council must find the development
agreement was consistent with the City's development regulations. The proposed developrnent agreement
requests no variations or changes in the development requiremenls established by City ordinance, only that the
current provisions not be arnended until January 15, 2008.
Mr. Snyder explained the development agreement had been subject to negotiation between Mr. Gregg's legal
counsel and him to insert the language that reserues the City's right to amend its codes if required by public
health and safety, a requirement under CMA, and limit tlie period ofvesting to January 15. 2008. He explained
January 15,2008 was the first Council meeting at which a new City Council could take action as ne\\'
Councilmembers would be srvom in on Janualy 8, 2008. Further, it was practically the soonest the current
discussiolrs with the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), Planning Board and Architectural Design Board
(ADB) regarding new design standards for the BDI zonelHeritage Center could be implemented. He explained
the public benefit was determined by the City Council following public input. From his perspective, the
proposal was a reasonable solution to the existing situation.
Councilrnember Moore asked Mr. Snyder to expand on the existing situation. He responded the
rightness/wrongness and public benefit was for the Council to decide. From a cos/benefit point-of-view, the
arnounts proposed in the seftlernent agreement were equivalent to what tlie City would spend on a successful,
quick defense. The development agreement has only one condition - assurance that the development rules with
regard to Mr. Gregg's property would not clrange for a period of time, a period of time that was collsistent with
the length of tirne for the Council to receive a recommendation and hold public hearings on tlre changes uuder
consideration. Councilmember Moore summarized the Council rvould be agreeing in the development
agreement not to change the rules even though it was unlikely they rvould be changed before January 2008 and
in exchange Mr. Gregg would drop his lawsuit. Mr. Snyder agreed.
s
udnronds Ci1! Counciln pproved Minu(cs
lunc 5.2007
Pogc 6
Packet Page 419 of 488
Mr. Snyder suggested Mr. Gregg and lris attorney be provided an opportunity to make comment prior to the
public hearing. Mr. Cregg advised he would answer questions at the conclusion if necessary.
Mayor Haakenson opened the public padicipatioll pofiion of the public hearing
Joan Bloom, Edmonds. referred to Mr. Gregg's building at 5'r'& Walnut, the Gregory. calling it a "greedy
building" because it occupied nearly the entire lot, partially or totally blockcd rnany residents' views, provided
no open space in spite of Mr. Gregg's pronrises to provide open space, was unwelcorning and uninviting and did
not reflect the clraracter and small towr feel of Edmonds that citizens want preserved. She was concerned with
the City giving Mr'. Gregg carte blanche to do wlratever he rvanted with OId Milltown based on the current
design guidefines, particularly the boardwalk. She recalled aquoteof Mr. Gregg in the Edrnonds Beacon thathe
rvould withdraw his lawsuit if the Council reached agreement on design guidelines, yet now he did not want to
be sub.jected to the design guidelines. The design ofthe Gregory dernonstrated Mr. Gregg did not understand or
care w.hat citizens rvanted. She cited the importance of the boardrvalk as a gathering place, comrnenling if Mr.
Gregg were allowed to build under the currerlt design guidelines, the building could extend to the sidewalk,
elirnirratirrg the boardwaik. She encouraged Council not to approve the agreement. She referred to Mayor
Haakenson's editorial regarding a citizen who filed a lawsuit against the City at a cost of $20,000 and asking
citizens if they wanted their laxes spent in that manner and stating no good deed goes unpunished. She
surrmarized if Council approved the development agreement, no bad deed would go unrewarded. She was
concerned with the City paying Mr. Glegg $30.000 to drop tlie Iawsuit in addition to legal costs.
Elisabeth Larman, Edmonds, expressed her thanks to Mr. Snyder and the Building & Planning Departlnent for
answering hcr questions regarding the proposed developrnent agreernent for Old Milltowu. She rvas
disheartened by Mr. Gregg's lawsuit. recalling his stated desire to work with the City. She noted Mr. Hertrich
and her families' lives and the entire city had been disturbed by Mr. Gregg's lawsuit against all of them. She
understood the desire to setlle the dispute with Mr. G|egg but did not \\'ant it to be at the expense of the City's
patrimony. She viewed Old Milltown as a quinte sse ntial parl of Edmonds. citing the importance of preservation
and restoration to many residents including over 1,000 who signed a petition to save the building and have Mr.
Gregg adhere to the City's codes and ordinances. She questioned why Old Milltown was included in the
proposed development agreement when it was already vested and recornmended the Council require Mr. Gregg
provide additional infolnration and plans for the proposed buildings on the ad-jacent Iots to tlre east and south.
She surnmarized only then could the Council make a proper decisiorr regarding settling the lawsuit and ensuring
Old Milltown would be refurbished as approved-
Alan MacFarlane, Edmonds, voiced his concern with the area of Old Milltown in the southwest corner
bordered by 5'r' Avenue South on tl're west and Maple Street on the south, the boardwalk area. He noted this
wonderful, open space area \\,as a syrnbol of historic Edrlonds and needed to be retained as it currently exists.
He cited the importance of the boardwalk area because it drew people to tlre downtowl'l area, people drawn
downtown spend rnoney il downtown stores, and removing the boardlvalk area would result in lost revenue and
otller negative impacts. Pointing out the City did not have a City Square. he urged the Council to retain "this
little park" to draw people to downtown Edmonds.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, provided copies of plan review documents for the present Old Milltown project,
pointing out the Engineering Department had 34 questions and the Building Department had 44 questions. He
referred to the Building Official's statement that the project u,as corsidered a redesign, noting what originally
was presented to the Council was being changed. l-le cited several questions/requests for information posed by
staff includilg information on demolition phases 2 and 3, site plan difficult to read, prints difficult to read,
alternate design for gluelarr beams and the need for height calculations, parking requirements, floor plan of the
basement, and details ofthe east wall and rooftop mechanical equipment. He noted the number ofquestions,
changes and issues raised question with how Mr. Gregg operated. He recommended omitting Old Milltown
from the agreement as it rvas already vested and requiring Mr. Gregg submit a concept of his plans for the
Ldnronds Cily Council Approvcd Mirutcs
.lunc 5 2007
Page 7
Packet Page 420 of 488
remainder ofthe site. He referred to an Engineering Departmeut colnment that it appeared the building was set
up for a third floor ofresidential. In his view the City was giving away more than it got rvith the agreenleut. He
recommended holding another public hearing alier Mr. Gregg subrnitted a concept of his plans for the site. I-le
was concerned Council was doing planning in Executive Session, noting tlre development agreement $,as
scheduled for a public hearing long before any information was available to the public.
AI Rutledge, f,dmonds, agreed discussions should have been held in open rneeting. He commented the City's
concern was cost but another consideration was the character of downtown. He referred to higher building
heights and increasing retail activity on Hwy. 99.
Finis Tupper, Edmonds, questioned whether this was a quasi judicial healing, remarking if it was, Mayor
I-laakenson had not asked for Council disclosures. He found the use of a developrnent agreement in this
circumstance inappropriate, pointing out the number of criteria provided in the RCW, yet the development
agreernent was only Lrsed for one - to allow Mr. Gregg to vest the properly, He expressed concern with the City
Attorney allowing the State legislature to usurp local land use rules; questioning the opportunity for public
participation to adopt this land use tool in Ednronds. He noted there were nurnerous land use tools in the RCW
that the City had not adoptcd, for example the Cily adopted the Hearing Examiner method but had eliminated
the Board of Adjustrnent. He found it inappropriate not to include the public in the process and for the Council
to make decisions in Executive Session that changed land use laws.
I-learing no furthel public colnnlent, Mayor Haakenson closed the public participation portion of the public
hearing. Mr. Gregg was again provided an opportunity to speak which he declined.
ln response to Ms. Bloom's and Mr. Hefirich's assertions that the deveJopment agreement gave Mr. Gregg carte
blanche to do whatever he wanted, Mr. Snyder assured the only thing the development agreelnent provided was
that Mr. Gregg had until January 15,2008 to subrnit plans under the codes that exist in the City. He was
receiving no waivers, no variances, and must follow the same process to develop the property. In regard to Mr.
Hertrich's suggestion that Mr. Gregg be required to present plans, Mr'. Snyder advised if Mr. Gregg could
present plans, he could vest under the code and did not need the development agreenlent. He reiterated January
15, 2008 was apploximately the same period of tirne it would take to adopt new development regulatiolls.
ln response to Ms. Bloom's comment that the City was paying Mr. Gregg $30,000 in addition to legal costs, Mr.
Snyder explained the amount proposed to be paid was approximately the amount to win the lawsuit. With
regard to Ms. Larman's desire to preserve patrimony, he explained settling the lawsuit would ensure Mr.
Gregg's design as approved and underway, that Ms. Larman fought for, r,r,ould be buih. With regald to Mr.
MacFarlane's desire to preserve the open space, Mr. Snyder explained under current Ciry oldinance,
development in the downtown area was lot line to lot line. If the City attempted to regulate and prohibit
developrnent lot line to lot line, it must purchase the propefy via a direct purchase or inverse condemnation.
With regard to Mr. Hertrich's cornments about questions raised by Engineering and Building Departments
regarding the design under construction, Mr. Snyder advised to his knorvledge there had been no revisions to the
design approved by the ADB. I-le noted OId Milltown was a very old building and things were discovered as
construction got underway. He suggested the Council direct questions with regard to the building permit to
Development Services Director Duane Bowman.
With regard to the allegation that something occurred in Executive Session, Mr. Snyder advised once the
process was concluded, all Executive Session minutes would be available to the public. As the minutes would
reveal, he was very clear to the Council when this was discussed that a settlement proposal had been presented
to the Council; the settlement proposal depended upon passage ofthe development agreement. LIe assured he
had not polled the Council and only sought reactions and feedback regarding negotiating the terus. He had
advised tlre Council they could not make a decision in Executive Session and that they should not give direction
l-idmonds Cit] Con cil Approvcd Minulcs
.lunc i.2007
I'agc 8
Packet Page 421 of 488
regarding the developrnent agreement. The Council was not asked their opinion regarding the developrnent
agreement in Executive Session as that could only be done in open session after a publiJ heari"ng.
Mr. Snyder referred to Mr. Henrich's assertion that the Council was taking action in Executive Session,explaining as soon as the Executive Session was complete the City CJerk showei a deveiopment agreernent andsettlemelt agreernellt on the extended agenda and notice of the public hearing was provided to propeny owners.published and posted on the City's website. The development agreement and settlement agreement telns were
being negotiated between Mr. Gregg's attorney and hirn; as soon he received a final de,rjopment agreemelt.within ten minutes it was provided erectronically to Mr. Henrich's attorney, Ms. Larmar, tie ciq, -lerk. theEnterprise- and was posted on thc City's website. Within an lrour it was avaiiable for public review.
With regard to amending by statute, Mr. Snyder explained the Hearing Examiner statute specifically provides
that if the City Council adopts a Hearing Examiner system, it is done via ordinance. fne CV,q. provides for a
developrnent agreelnent which is a legislative decision unless the agreement addresses a development approval.
He acknorvledged the developrnent agreement contained only one of the 8-9 issues that could be addresied by adevelopment agreement. He reiterated Mr. Gregg received no waivers. variances, lee reductions. etc. via theagreement, only assurance that the rules related to his developrnent ofthe properly would not clrange.
Developlllent Services Director Duane Bowman advised the comments the Council u,as provided were plan
revierv comments for a building permit which was not a quasijudicial matter but a rnatter between the Building
and Planniug Departrnent with a perrnit applicant as they proposed a project. The City's review conrments drewfrom the permit subrnittal; the applicant was required to iespond to ensure when the permit was finalized theywere compliant with adopted codes. The comments had notliing to do with the deveiopment agreement. The
developer was required to comply with all City Codes and the ADB's review.
Councilmetnber Wanlbolt asked Mr. Snyder to claril! that this was not a quasi judicial hearing. Mr. Snyder
advised
-a developrnent agreemenl coulifix specific requirements and address siecific approvals. When that
occurred- it was subject to LUPA. review. In this instance. a permit would follow the d"u"loprr1"nt agreernentwhich would be quasijudicial. The proposed development agreement rvas a legislative decision on a proposed
contractual element.
Courrcihrember Wambolt referred to Mr- Hertrich's suggestiol') that the development agreemert only cover theportion of the property to the south and not the portion for rvhich a pennit was being so-ught. He asked whether
that would be advantageous to the City. Mr. Snyder responded tv,ti. Gregg could a-pply io, u n"* approval butrvould do so ullder the new code provisions which were more restrictive than the oli toOe provisiols. He noted
one ofthe advantages of settling the lawsuit was citizens would be assured the second plan which Ms. Larman
and Mr. Hertrich fought for would be constructed. He acknowledged Mr. Gregg could stop at any tine and file
a nerv application but did not view tltat as a good business practice.
Councilmernber Orvis asked wiether the development agreement would preclude the Council from purchasing
any section ofthese properties to preserve open space. Mr. Snyder answeied no, commenting if the iity wanteJto preserve open space on a lot line to Iot line project or create a public meeting place/square, the Ciq,,sobligatron u'ould be to condemtr or purchase it via negotiation; anltiing else *,oJIi be an u;constitutional
taking of property.
Councilmember Dawson cornmented the development agreement provided some degree of assuralce that the
second plan that tlle citizens fought for would be built. She noted the current plan vlas still somewhat in pJaylegally speaking due to the lawsuit: if Mr. Gregg rvere to prevail in that lawsuit, presumably he could proieei
with the first plan. She asked what assurance tlre development agreement provided that the second plan would
be built? She inquired rvhether there was anything in the agreemint that piecluded Mr. Gregg from taking the
money in the settlement and reappiying for the first plan again or if that was precluded due tJt-he dismissal with
Ildnronds City Council npproved Milrutcs
.tunc i. 2007
pase 9
Packet Page 422 of 488
prejudice provision? Mr. Snyder stated the lawsuit and damage clairns lelating to the first process would be at
an end. Mr. Cregg, like any other applicant, could stop work on the project although that would be questionable
frorn a bLrsiness point of view as tl're new process would take at least 120 days during wtich tirne the building
would need to be preserved or demolished. He advised there was no Iegal reason why Mr. Gregg could not
abandon the design and start over although there were matty practical reasons.
Councilmember Dawson asked Mr. Gregg why the portion of the property that was already vested and in the
process of construction was included in the development agreemeDt. Bob Gregg stated that question was not
raised by any of the attorneys during negotiation and he objected to revising the developrneut agreement at this
point due [o concern with unintended col]sequences of making last minute revisions. He assured he had not
asked for anything in the developrrent agreement that was not already provided on April 15. The City, via a
very public process, took several years including 2-3 years of building moratoriulns to develop the code. His
request was that the code uot be changed for a period of time to allow him sufficicnt time to develop plans under
stable, unchanging rules. He noted they originally requested l2-18 months and Mr. Snydel asked for seven
months. He conmented that he was unaware that the appeal of an appeal was litigationi thelefore, although he
was being accused of suing, he was only exercising his right to an appeal of an appeal. He commented the
settlemerlt agreement was a windfall to the City. He concluded lre was not ir'lterested in reopening/renegotiating
the developurent agreement due to concern with unintended conseqllences. Mr. Gregg stated if he wanted to
withdrarv and resubmit Plan l, he would have every right to do so, sLLbject to appeal. He assured they had
absolutely no intention of doing so.
If the answer was it was unintentional that the portion of the property that was already vested was included in
tlte developntent agreement and he had no intension of resubmitting plans for Old Milltown. Councih.nentber
Dawson was unclcar why Mr. Cregg would not agree to str;ke that portion of the agreement, particularly as he
had every right to resubmit notwithstanding a development agreement. She asked Mr. Gregg why he would uot
agree to strike that portion ofthe development agreement if it would make everyone more comfortable and ifthe
Council's purpose was to ensure the second building plan was built rather than another version the public may
not approve of. Mr. Gregg asked why the Council did not assure him the rules would not change for six or telt
months.
Councihnember Dalson answered assuming the Council could assure him the developrnent rules would not
change for six montlrs which she noted was unlikely anyway, would he then agree to strike that portion of the
agreement. Mr. Gregg answered no, not during an election year. Councihnernber Darvson clarified Mr. Gregg
rvould not assure he would not submit a different plan than the one that had been approved. Mr. Gregg
answered he would give the same assurance if the City would not change the rules in the rneantime.
Councilniember Dawson clarifled the Council was agreeing to one thing but he was not agreeing to the otlier by
not agreeing to strike it from the development agreeInertt.
Councihnember Plunkett did not understand the applicant's concern about the rules changing, cor'llnenting the
point of vesting was once an application was made, the Council could change the rules and the applicant
continued to build under the code that was in place when the project vested. He asked whether the applicant
rvas vested regardless of changes that may be made to the code, Mr. Snyder explained under State law an
applicant was vested when a fully completed building penlit application was submitted. The City Code also
provides for vesting of the design via the ADB process and in this case a design had been vested. Mr. Gregg
could file an ADB or building permit application to vest the other poftions ofthe project at any time.
Councihnember Moore asked Mayor Haakenson his recommendation with regard to the developmetlt
agreement. Mayor I'laakenson read stafl and his recommendation from the Agenda Memo, "This development
agreernent is associated with the proposed settlelnent agreement. If the City Council, after taking public
testimony, js inclined to approve the agreement then the Mayor should be authorized to sign the developmerlt
agreement," summarizing it was a poJicy decision fol the Council to make. He noted it appeared based on this
Edmonds CiLy Council Approvcd Minutcs
Junc 5. 2007
Pa-sc l0
Packet Page 423 of 488
Council's history ol legislative deliberation, the Council would not approve any nerv codes between now and
January 2008 and it appeared Mr. Cregg rvas concerned about the rules changing before January 2008. He
referred to Mr. Snyder's indication that this was a fair settlernent, it protected Mr. Hertrich and Ms. Larman's
desire for.the building to be built as tliey fought for, it was a win for the City froln a financial standpoint and the
City did not give up anything to Mr. Gregg that he did not already have.
Councilmernber Plunkett referred to Mayor Haakenson's staternent that the building would be constructed based
on the second plan, yet although Mr. Gregg stated that was his intent. he rvould not conrmit to that in the
development agreernent. Mr. Gregg advised the building perrnit application was subject to design revierv that
rvas approved. Plan 2 was wtat they were cunently proceeding rvith. He noted any tinre an applicant submitted
an application, various City departrnents conducted due diligence over an approximately 28 day review period.
In his experience in Edmonds and other j urisd ictions, the result was not a permit but a list ofquestions about the
application that was submitted. in this instance a list of I l7 questions. He noted the HPC, ADB and Planning
Board when proposing code revisions needed to consult with staff as there were numerous iterns that those
groups wanted that could not be done.
Councilmember Plunkett stated Mr. Gregg's intent was to build the second plan but in his discussion with
Councilmember Dawson he was uuwilJiug to commit to that in the developrnent agreemert. Mr. Gregg agreed,
commenting he rvas not happy with Plan l, feeling it was rushed. He noted Plan 2 resulted in arr extreme
conflict - the ADB and the approved process did not allow the storefronts to be extended to the sidewalk. His
intent was to leave it because they could not remodel it to make it functional and practical. He noted many of
the 117 questions were in regard to the unused portion to the east which he noted could not be Ieft alone and
needed to be brought up to code. He expressed frustratiou that despite the fact they could not remodel it, it had
to be brought up to code. The reason he did not want to commit was because they did not have Plan 2 flushed
out yet and needed time to do so, He noted the voluntary pre-conference with the ADB had been replaced by a
two-stage process. If they carre with their plans "on the back of an envelope" in an effort to get a great deal of
public input and then have rnore specific plans developed. he envisioned emergency Council meetings to arnend
the code. He concluded they were moving forward with the plan that was approved under the old code; if he
rvere to withdraw it and change it and return to PIan l, it would be under the new code. He commented if he
resubmitted Plan l. it would likely be approved as it was approved by stafltu,ice, approved by the ADB twice,
remanded by Council once and rejected by Councii once in a decision that he felt was in error. Without the
graciousness ofthe settlernent agreement. Plan 1 rvould be approved and the City rvould be paying $250,000.
Mr. Snyder summarized the appeal of the rejection of Plan I rvould be dropped under the settlement agreement.
Mr. Cregg agreed "Plan I is dead:" if he wanted to reactivate PIan I he would have to go back thlough the entire
process and under the curent code. Mr. Snyder sunrnrarized PIan 2 would remain vested and Mr. Cregg was
reserving the right to stop construction and reapply and go through the entire process again-
Councilmernber Warnbolt asked whelher a project was vested when the building perrnit was applied for or when
it u'as approved. Mr. Snyder described how projects could vest includirrg when a fully conrpleted buiJding
perrnit application with a fee was filed rvith the City, via multiple approval processes, via an alternative vest;ng
provision for ADB applications and via a development agreement under CMA. He noted Old Milltown Plan 2
desigrr uas vested by application.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
Councilrnember Marin relayed his experience as a general coltractor building new homes in l3 jurisdictions and
his frustration with inspections that differed in each jurisdiction. The development agreement was an
opportunity to provide certainty that the rules would remain the sarne, an oppofiunity for Mr. Gregg to withdrarv
lidmonds Cit) Council Approvcd Minules
J une 5.2007
Pagc I I
Packet Page 424 of 488
gracefuliy from the lawsuit and an oppoftunify to conclude the lawsuit in a rnanner that was equitable to the
Cily. He expressed his support for the development agreement.
Council Presiderrt Olsorr erpressed her suppon lor the de"elopmerl agreemert. comrnenting irt a negotiation
both parties need to feel they are getting sonrething. She liked that PIan I would be dead and tlie building would
be built in accordance u,ith Plan 2. Further, the City was not giving anything arvay and the rnatter u,ould lot go
to court with both sides spending a great deal of money. She viewed the development agreernent as a good
compromise.
Councilmember Warnbolt agreed with Ms. Bloom's aversion to giving arvay $30,000, noting the alternative as
described by Mr. Snyder was worse! possibly losing the lawsuit which would cost the City a great deal more
than legal fees. Although there were pros and cons, in view ofthe recommendation fron the City Attorney, he
would support approval ofthe developrrent agreement.
Councilrnernber Dawson agreed it was unlikely the development rules would be changed between now and the
tirne period referenced in tlre developnrent agreement. She acknowledged even if the Council agreed now, it
would be difficult to adopt thern by January 2008 based on past practice, the Planning Board's schedule. etc.
She commented when she first reviewed this matter she felt the City was not giving up anything because there
were no plans to change the rules and slre could appreciate Mr. Gregg's desire for certainty with regard to the
portion ofthe building that was not currently in process. Although she originally planned to vote in lavor of the
development agreement, Mr. Gregg Irad convinced her otherwise tonight. She was no longer persuaded the City
was getting anything from the development agreement because she was no longer convinced based ou Mr.
Gregg's comments that the second plan would be built. She was coucemed that if the Council approved the
development agreement and the settlement agreement, this particular lawsuit could be dropped, the Cily would
pay $30,000 and Mr. Gregg could institute another plan and tlie City could not preclude it. She acknowledged
Mr. Gregg could do that regardless of whether the Council approved the development agreement. She rvas
concemed with Mr. Glegg's unwillingness to exempt Old Milltown frorn the development agreement. She was
willing to refer the maner for further negotiations and could agree to the development agreement if the portion
of tlre site that was already vested were removed but could not approve the development agreement as proposed-
Councilmember Moore commented she did not attend the Executive Session where this was discussed and noted
apparently during the Executive Sessiou there was some direction frorn the Council to the City Attomcy to craft
the developrnent agreement. As she did not attend the Executive Session and did not know ufiat had transpired,
slre planned to abstain from the vote.
Councilmember Dawson assured there was no decision made by the Council in Executive Session. There was
direction given to the City Attonley to negotiate a developrnent agreement and return for a public hearing. Once
this matter was concluded, the minutes would clearly indicate that that rvas all the CoLrncil, as appropriate Lrnder
the law, had done. Councilmernber Moore responded she did not intend to imply a decision was rnade but that
some direction was given to the City Attorney. Mr. Snyder cautioned the Council against discussing what had
occurred in Executive Session. He explained he had an ethical obligation to present a settlement agreernent
made to him to the Council as his client. The proposal was rrade by Mr. Glegg and lris attorney and discussed
with the Council in Executive Session. He assured uo mernber of thc Council indicated a position on the
development agreement because from the first Executive Session, the Council lvas informed they could not do
so in EKecutive Session. He urged Councilmember Moore to consider voting, advising that she, like all
Councilmembers, must make a decision based on the public hearing and the documents provided. He assured
no member ofthe Council had anv infonnatioll that Councilmerrber Moole did not.
Councilmember Dawson noted it was a Councilmember's prerogative to vote yes, no or abstain. She supported
Councilmember Moore obtaining additional legal advice from Mr. Snyder if necessary prior to tlre vote.
Councihnember Moore answered that was unnecessary.
Ldnonds Cir)' Council Approlcd Minutcs
June 5- 2007
Pagc 12
Packet Page 425 of 488
Councilmernber Plunkett commerted the orly way a Councilmember could abstain was if he/slie did not have
sufficient information. He asked whether Mayor I'laakenson could vote if Ms. Moore did not. Mr. Snyder
ansu'ered Mayor Haakenson could vote on the deveiopment agreement: he could not vote on the passage of an
ordinance, letling of a franchise or appropriation offunds. I-le clarified Mayor Haakensor could not vote on the
settlement agreement.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE, PLUNKETT, MARIN, AND WAMBOLT IN
COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND DAWSON OPPOSED.
OLSON
FAVOR;
AND
AND
.rrcgg \
ScrLlcrncnt
Councrl
SW
Ldinonds
Ncighbor-
I APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - GREGG PRODUCTIONS, INC. V. CITY OF
EDMONDS CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 7.
City Attorney Scott Snyder advised the tenns of the settlement agreement were in the record. The settlemerlt
agreerneut was presented rvith his and Washington Cities Insurance Authority's recomrnendation. Thc $30,000
payment was approximately equivalent to the cost of winning a LUPA and avoided darnage claims on summary
judgment in a best case scenario. In his view it was a waslr with regard to cost. He noted the third item in the
settlement agreelnent was the Cily would treat Mr. Gregg fairly in the permit process as was the City's
obligation with respect to every applicant.
COUNCILMEMBER MOORE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO APPROVE
THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Councihnember Plunkett advised the reason he voted in favor of the development agreernert was the rnoney and
the code. Fle noted the code w.as vague and he was not confident it would stand up to a challenge. He explained
the reaso:r historic design standards for downtown were being created was to be able to require future projects to
meet historic design standards.
MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT OLSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS MOORE,
PLUNKETT, MARIN, AND WAMBOLT lN FAVOR; AND COUNCILMEMBERS ORVIS AND
DAWSON OPPOSED.
9 AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jesse Scott, Edmonds, urged the Council to favorably consider the uext agenda item, award of the contract for
the sidewalk on I 64'r' Street. He explained the project was actually a rework of the roadway in an attempt to
resolve a safety issue. He pointed out recently an Ed:ronds fire engine was unable to negotiate the turu, the only
access to an area of 150 homes, wedging itselfon the hili. A Lvnnwood fire truck approached from the opposite
direction and responded. His major concern was children walking on the street on their way to school,
colnmenting it was only a matter of tirne before a child was injured. He recalled engineering work for the
project was approved three years ago but a contract was not approved. Last year he appeared before the Council
with a petition from homeowners urging the Council to take action. At that time the Council approved it but no
contract was approved. He noted the Council's inaction had cosl citizens approxirnately $300,000 as the cost of
the project was now $525,000. I'le rvas unconcerned about the funding as it lvas from the same source for a
$945.000 sidcwalk that led to the North Meadowdale County Park. He expressed concern with the $345,000 the
Council approved for the 162''d Street park, only four blocks frorn the Coul'lty Park. I'le urged the Council to use
common sense and favorably corrsider the 164't' Street sidewalk project-
David Page, Edmonds, expressed concern with rnembers ofthe public who complained about tlre Council in
the press rvhere the Council had little ability to respond. Although he disagreed with the Council on occasiolr
and acknowledged the Council sometimes made mistakes, he appreciated their hard work and dedication.
Al Rutledgc, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Marin for attending the Kiwanis CJub rneeting. I{e provided
an update regarding the Snohomish County Superior Cor:rt decision on the SW Edmonds Neighborhood Park
Edmonds CiLy Council Approrcd Minulcs
.lune 5 2007
rdc$oLk
I'jacc l3
Packet Page 426 of 488
0td
\lrllLo\1r
Councrl
otd
Crcgg r
lidmonds
Sclrlcmcnl
l6.rrh sl
sw
$'olk\o\'/
Tlrh Plw
and the 2l day appeal process. Next, he inquired about the fence around the old Woodway Elementary School
playfields and recommended it be removed immediately. FIe also referred to a Hearing Examiner meetirg
regarding a new 2Tlrome development.
Elisabeth Larman, Edmonds, thanked Councilmember Darvson and Councihnernber Orvis for their courage
lvith regard to their vote orr the development agreement and settlement agreement. Next, she pointed out the
proposed park in front of the boardwalk rvas not City property and was concerned the City could lose that
property. She challenged Councihnember Moore to spearhead the efTort to preserve that park.
Gary Humiston, trdmonds, cornrnented on the fence alound the fields at the old Woodway Elementary School
playfields. As it appeared people continued to use the fields, he and others should be allowed access. He
inquired about the location of the gate to access the field and whether the Interlocal Agreement for the fields
remained in effect,
Kevin Clarke, Edmonds, recalled the oppofiunity to serve on a Commission with a great deal of controversy,
the Citizens Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials, commenting rnuch could be learned from the Pirates
Council in Pirates of the Caribbean 111. He noted the Council addressed many difficult issues, yet were often
crucified in the press for those decisions. He comnented on his experience driving behind the procession for
Police Chief Stern and his pride at being a lesident of Edmonds. He expressed his thanks to the Council fol all
they do.
Steve Bernheim, Edmonds, stated no one impugned the rnotives ofthe Council but they wer-e not excused from
making gross errors. He recalled being the victini ofthe erroneous application ofa law for the construction ofa
building illegally approved contrary to the unarnbiguous lvords of the code. He asserted the Ciry attempted to
create a sense of ambiguity to allow construction of 3-story buildings. Next, he recalled hearing that the cost of
the old Woodway EJenrentary school property was $ I 6 million when in reality the cost for the entire site was $8
rnillion and only $4 million for the property the City did not purchase. He then colnmented on the fence at the
old Woodway Elementary school, pointing out that area was still listed as a park in the Chamber of Cornrnerce
publication- LIe summarized additional density and elimination of open space was a formula that did not
increase the residents' well being. lle concluded not purclrasing the entire parcel was a mistake.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, thanked Councilrnember Dawson for her reaction to Mr. Gregg's comments. He
expressed concern with Mr. Gregg's unwillingness to negotiate and the Council's decision not to try to get mole
from Mr. Gregg. He refered to the current empty condition of OId Milltown, asserting it was arvaiting rnore
changes by Mr. Gregg. l-le noted Mr. Gregg never described his plans for the south end and he anticipated the
current parking would be third story condominiums in the future with excavation below for palking. He
anticipated the project would continue to grow and change.
IO. REPORT OF BIDS OPENED ON MAY 8,2OO7 FOR THE 164TH STREET SW WALKWAY AND THE
74TH PI,ACE WEST DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT TO
TRIMAXX CONSTITIJCTION INC 545 565.00
City Engineer Dave Gebeft explained due to the proxinity of these projects in the Meadowdale area aud
sirnilarities in the u'ork, they were combined into one project. Bids rvere opened on May 8; three bids were
submitted, all above estimates. The low bid was $545,646; the engineer's estimate was $318,878. The
invitation for bids included two projects: Schedule A - 164'r'street SW walkway and Scheduled B - 74'r'Place
West drainage improvements.
l64tl' Street SW Walkwav
Mr. Geberl explained lhis had become a more expensive project than originally anticipated '12-18 months ago
and in 2002-2003 rvhen the project was designed. The lorv bid for Schedule A, the walkway portion of the bid,
Ednronds Cit)' Council Approrcd Minutes
June i.2007
Pagc 1.1
Packet Page 427 of 488
was $412,686, the engiueer's estjmate was $255,135 and the budget in Fund 125 Parks Improvement was
$270,000. 'fhe reason the project had become so expensive was the cuffent bidding clirnate as well as project
scope. With regard to tlre current construction industry bidding climate, he explained the construction industry
was experiencing rapidly escalating bids, especially on public pro.jects. He recalled a recent Sound Trans;t
station that received one bid lor $90 million and the engineer's estimate was $50 rnillion. He noted before
advertising for bids the engineer's estimate was reviewed and updated. however. it appeared the amount did llot
accuralelv account for the malket conditions and degree of difficuJty anticipated by bidders.
With regard to project scope. Mr. Geberl explained the site of this project has very challenging topography;
164'r' Street SW is a steep. narrow, curving road, with steep slopes on both sides and there is insufficient space
to install a sideu,alk that would meet current safety standards. He displayed several photographs that illustrated
the topography on the site. He surnnrarized that although this was a walkway project, installation of the
sidewalk required major road reconstruction including significant excavat;on, reconstruction. w.idening of the
road, relocation of a water main, and installation of a retaining wall. In addition, construction of sidewalks
requires compliance rvith current Federal standards for ADA curb ramps, which requires additional
reconstructiol'l at tl're intersection of 16411' Str-eet SW and North Meadowdale Road. where tlre current
configuration is a very sharp and steep turn.
Because 164'l'Stleet SW is the only public road providing access to this neighborhood of approxirnately 150
hornes, traffic flow lnust be maintained during constructio|- This results in significant traffic control costs. He
concluded this walkway project in essence had become a road reconstruction projcct. He displayed a drawing
illustrating the sidewalk. retaining wall. excavation and reconstruction, guardrail, and ADA curb ramps.
Mr. Gebert reviewed options considered by staff:
. Adjustments to the scope or design to reduce the cost by change order - staff was not able to identify
any significant cost reductiols rvithin the current design
o Reevaluate other design alternatives previously rejected - any significant redesign rvould require
deferring the construction a year (due to the steep slopes and the need to perform construction in this
location during dry summer months) and rebidding the project, and rvould involve additional design
costs. with no assurance at this point ofa less expensive project.
e Defer the project and advertise for bids again next year - no basis for expecting a better bidding climate
next year.
o Install the sidervalk orrlv - staff concluded a safe sidewalk could not be constructed without all the
roadwav reconstruction
After careful review by staff. Mr. Gebert advised the following practical options were identified:
l. Appropriate additional funds and award the contract
2. Cancel the project for this year, review redesign alternatives, redesign as appropriate, and advertise for
bids again next year
3. Cancel the project cornpletely
He explained to award a contract to the low bidder for Schedule A (164'r'street SW Walkway) would require
approxinrately $495.500 which includes the bid amount and continSency, elgineering, material testing, public
art. etc. The budget for the walkway pofiion was $270,000: an additional $225,500 was necessary 1o award the
project- He described funding sources considered and staffs conclusion that the road was seriously deteriorated
and needed to be repaved soon, wirether or not a sidewalk was constructed. He displayed several photographs
illustrating the poor condition of the roadway. For that reason and because the project included a number of
road reconstruction items. if Council wants to proceed with the l64rr' Street SW Walkway project. staff
recornmends rnoving forward $225.500 ofthe $550,000 budgeted in 2008 in Fund 125 (REET2 Transportatiol
Projects) to 2007 to fund the I 64'r' Street SW Walkway pro.ject instead of cityrvide street overlays.
Edmonds Cit!' Council npprolcd MiDUtcs
Jrnc 5- 2007
Pa-qc 15
Packet Page 428 of 488
74th Place West Drainage lrnprovernenls
Mr. Geberl explained this was an emergent drainage problem identified subsequent to preparation of the 2007-
2008 capital budget. The funds required to award the contract are S158,000 which includes the contract bid
amount as well as contingency, construclion engineering, ctc. There is $70,000 included in the 2007 capital
budget for general Meadowdale drainage projects. An additional $88,000 is required to award Schedule B for
the 74(r' Place West Drainage Improvements project. There is sufficient cash balance in Fund 4i2 for utilities
capital projects.
Mr. Gebert relayed stafls reconrmendation that the Council appropriate the additional $225,500 from Fund 125
(REET 2 'l'ranspoftation Projects) for tlie walkway and appropriate an additional $88,000 in Fund 4l 2 200 and
award the contract to Trimaxx Construction. Inc. in the amount of $545,565.
Councilmember Wambolt asked whether it would be impractical to award the two contracts to two diffelent
contractors. Mr. Gebert answeled that would not be ethical; the City's procedure was the lower bid was based
on the total ofthe schedules. Councilmember Wambolt questioned why the projects were bid separately if they
could not be awarded separately. City Attonrey Scott Snyder explained the schedules were bid as one project
and the project would need to be rebjd to separate the schedules.
Councilmember Wambolt reiterated this was two differcnt projects. Mr. Geberl expiained it was bid as one
contract and one bid invitation. Councilmember Warnbolt noted Trirnaxx was tlre lowest in total but not tl're
lowest on either schedule. Mr. Gebert explained the projects were bid together as they rvere in close proximity
and due to the need to coordinate the traffic control between projects. Councilmenrber Wambolt asked whether
the bidders' understanding was tlrey would be awarded the entire project or nothing. Mr. Gebert ansrvered yes,
rloting another option lvould be to award only one schedule.
Councilmember Moore stated although she understood the construction industry climate, staff knew the
difficulty with regard to the scope ofthe project. She asked why tlre engineer's estimate was far below the bids.
Mr. Gebert stated staff considered the scope in the estilnate but underestimated the unit prices for the quantities.
Councilmember Moore pointed out the difference between the bid and the engineer's estimate for traffic control,
recalling the traffic control was under-estimated in another project. Mr. Gebert advised the ellgineer's estirnate
of $20,000 for traf'fic control would lypically be a very large amount; the bid was 538,000. Because this was an
isolated location and trucking costs were expensive, the bidders vierved it as a more difficult and complex
project. He noted the Council would soon be provided a bid for the 100'l' Avenue slope stabilization where the
lorv bids again were considerably higher than the engineer's estimate. He noted sorne of the engineer's
estimates were developed by staff and others were developed by consultants. Staff met today with the low
bidder on the 100'r' Avenue slope stabilization project to determine if there were ways to reduce the cost. The
cortractor informed hirn they no longer take into account tlre engineer's estimates wlien bidding a project.
Councilmember Moore asked what would be sacrificed by reallocating these funds. Mr. Gebert answered
overlays in other areas. The rationale for the funding source was much of the project \\,as road repair and road
reconstruction. Councilrnember Moore asked what other roads would not receive an overlay if this project were
financed fiom that funding source. Mr. Gebert answered that had not yet been determined.
Councilmember Plunkett asked why staff did not recornmend review of design alternatives. Mr. Geberl
answered redesign would result in a one year delay as the work must be done during summer months, thele was
no assurance the project costs would be less, and there would be additional costs to redesign the project. He
explained during the design process in 2002-2003 several design altematives were considered and rejected.
Councilmember Plunkett asked if there were other design alternatives that could be reviewed. Mr- Gebert
explained factors considered in rejecting the otl.rer altematives included geotechnical issues due to unstable soils,
degree of difficuJty transitioning a sidewalk to North Meadowdale Road, safety issues and cost factors. He
Ednlonds Citl Council ADprovcd Minutcs
Junc i.200?
l'age l6
Packet Page 429 of 488
summarized the result of reviewing design alternatives was additional cost for redesign arrd advertising. a one-
rear delay- and onl; possibll a lcss expensire project.
Councilmenrber Warnbolt recalled RE.ET 2 collections in excess of $750.000 rvere allocated to Fund 125 and
those funds had generally been stronger than projected. Therefore other overlays may not need to be delayed.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WAMBOLT, THAT THE
COUNCIL APPROPRIATE AN ADDITIONAL $225,000 IN FUND I25 (REET 2 TRANSPORTATION)
AND AN ADDITIONAL $88,OOO IN FUND 4I2-2OO (DRAINAGE PROJECTS), AND AWARD A
CONTRACT TO TRIMAXX CONSTRUCTION., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF S54s,s65.00 FOR THE
164,I.', STREET sw WALKWAY AND THE ?4TIT PLACE wEsT DRAINAGE IMPRoVEMEN'I.
PROJECTS.
Councilrnember Orvis expressed support for the motion, comlnenting althougir it was a difficult decision, this
roadway served an entire neighborhood and he did not envision the project getting less expensive.
Council President Olson acknowledged these were cxpensive projects but sJre supported tirem. She noted it was
the Council's responsibility to ensure neighborhoods were accessible.
Councilmernber Moore agreed tltis rvas a necessaD irnprovernent and was a high priority. She was concented
the engirreer's estinlates would ueed to be doubled or tripled in the future, an issue tl'rat needed to be considered
during preparation ofthe budget. She pointed out the imponance ofdeveioping a strategic plan to identify the
source of funds in the future.
Councihnember Marin commented it was difficult for the engirreer to estimate staging and sequencing. He
anticipated the contractor rvould have difficulty identifl,ing a staging area nearby to store materials and
equiplnent as rvell as have difficulty sequencing tlte project.
Councilmember Wainbolt commented the eslimate for dernolition of Lhe old Woodway Elernetrtary was a
fraction ofthe estimate. and thr: City was saving several hundred thousand dollars.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
I I. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Haakenson cornrnented that although the Council would always be asked to do due diligence to reduce
costs, ;t was apparent costs would continue to increase and the Council rnust consider the source of funds to
cover these increasing costs.
12. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Council President Olson rvished Councilmember Warnbolt a belayed Happy Bifthday on June l. She also
comrnended the Noon Rotary for the Waterfront Festival. remarking events such as the Festival are a great way
to prornole Edmonds.
Councilmember Warnbolt referred to Mr. Bernheim's comrrents regarding the elirrination of opcn space.
explaining the City rvas elirninating buildings. not open space. With regard to Mr. Hertrich's assertion that the
Council did not gain anything frorn settling the lawsuit witli Mr. Gregg, he pointed out tlie benefit to the City
was tlte la\\,suit was dropped. Although he had some ofthe sarne reservations about Mr. Cregg due to his past
perfonrance, he believed the dcvelopmeDt agreernent and settlement agreement made the best ofthe situation.
Edmonds Cit) Colncil Approvcd Minutcs
.lune 5.2007
Pagc I ?
Packet Page 430 of 488
ll.alrh
Drsrrict
Councihnember Dawson relayed that her lrusband and she played tennis at Seaview Park and took a walk on the
Edmonds beach this weekend wlrich rrade her feel like she was on vacation in her own town. She remarked on
what a wonderful place Edmonds was and felt blessed to live here
Councilmer.nber Marin reported flu season was winding down and the West Nile Virus season was beginning.
He described the Health District's program that included the collection of dead birds that were inspected for
West Nile Virus infection as well as the trapping of mosquitoes to determine whether they were the variety that
carried West Nile Virus. He explained onJy the fenale of one variely carried the virus. He advised when the
Health District identified a Iocatiorl that was a vector for the virus, the city was contacted and infolmed rvhere
larvaeside may need to be placed.
Councilmenrber Moore inquired about the fence on the old Woodway Elementary School site. Mr. Clarke
advised it was on the deveJoper's property.
Studeut Representative Callahan reported Special Olympics Washington concluded this weekend. He
volunteered for the Edmonds School District Special Olympics team and urged tlie public to volunteet. Next, lte
remarked rnuch of high school literature was intended to teach students that doing the right thing was always
right in the long run. He commented people visited Edmonds because of its uniqueness - a srnall, friendly town
with a true downtown with buildings frorn a bygone era. I-le feared tliat faced with a difficult decision tonight,
the rnajority ofthe Council disregarded the opportuniry to do the light thing. He urged the Council not to lose
sight ofwhat Edmonds meant to the regioll.
I3. AD.IOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 10:l I p.m
0ld
lllcmenm^
Sp.cLal
Ol! pics
Iidnronds Cit,v Council Approved Minutcs
Junc 5.2007
I)asc 18
Packet Page 431 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 17, 2007
Page 15
proposal adhered to GMA policies, met the GMA housing goals, fit within the surrounding uses, was
suitable and met the value criteria.
Councilmember Orvis spoke against the motion, commenting if allowing additional units on a site was
required to get buildings upgraded, the entire City would be rezoned eventually which was contradictory
to the changes, suitability and surrounding area criteria.
Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion, noting there were many requirements a developer
must meet currently. He supported having the Planning Board consider the multi family zoning but
cautioned against requiring sustainability as he was hesitant to mandate sustainability in private buildings.
Councilmember Wambolt spoke in support of the motion. In response to Mr. Bernheim, he noted the
benefit of the rezone and subsequent new construction which would be more energy efficient than the
existing homes that were constructed in 1946 and 1966.
Councilmember Plunkett commented in a quasi judicial hearing the Council could not consider what
should be, only whether the applicant met the criteria with their proposal. He found the applicant met the
criteria under the existing code, zoning and Comprehensive Plan.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS OPPOSED.
10. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, requested the Council consider term limits for Boards and Commissions as
well as the City Council and the Mayor. Council President Olson cautioned him to avoid campaign
issues. Next, Mr. Hertrich commented he could not recall a Council meeting being cancelled when he
was on the Council and he objected to giving the Council President that power.
11. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE INCLUDING: (1)
CANCELLATION OF MEETINGS, (2) EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, (3) GOVERNMENT ACCESS
CHANNEL 21, AND (4) COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS.
Council President Olson explained these issues were discussed at the recent Council retreat.
Cancellation of Meetings
Council President Olson did not envision this occurring very often, noting it occurred in the past due to
the loss of the Police Chief. As it was not possible to talk to each Councilmember because that was
considered a rolling quorum, there needed to be a way to cancel Council meetings.
Councilmember Marin was satisfied with delegating that authority to the Council President.
Councilmember Plunkett agreed.
Councilmember Dawson envisioned it would be a rare occurrence for the Council President to exercise
his/her authority to cancel a meeting. She acknowledged two meetings were cancelled earlier this year
due to Police Chief Stern’s sudden illness and subsequent memorial service. She found it inappropriate to
require staff and/or Council to attend a meeting under those circumstances. She remarked it was a waste
of public resources to schedule a meeting if there was no business as each Councilmember was paid,
some staff members were paid, etc. She concluded it was appropriate to delegate that authority to the
Council President.
Councilmember Moore commented the proposed method was more efficient. She noted a Council
President who cancelled meetings that the Council did not want to have cancelled would answer to the
Council.
Term Limits
Meeting
Cancellations
Council Rules
of Procedure
Packet Page 432 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
July 17, 2007
Page 16
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 3656. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The ordinance reads as
follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE
PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS CITY CODE, CHAPTER 1.04 COUNCIL MEETINGS TO
ADD A NEW SECTION 1.04.140 CANCELLATION OF MEETINGS, AND FIXING A TIME
WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
Executive Session
Councilmember Plunkett advised he requested a resolution be prepared regarding Executive Sessions. He
recalled during the discussions of the park in south Edmonds over the past year, there was some confusion
regarding what information was and was not Executive Session, whether the Council should discuss
certain issues in Executive Session and in at least one instance the confidentially of an Executive Session
was broken. The intent of the resolution was to identify a way for the Council to reach a consensus
regarding when to break the confidentially of an Executive Session. He advised this resolution would
accomplish two purposes, 1) if a Councilmember believed an Executive Session was taking place that
should not, they could propose a motion to end the Executive Session and the Council could have
discussion and make a determination during the public meeting, and 2) prevent any one member from
revealing information that other Councilmembers believed was protected by Executive Session.
Councilmember Dawson commented the resolution did not appear to address Councilmembers
questioning whether the Council should be in Executive Session; she agreed it was appropriate for
Councilmembers to have the ability to question whether a topic should be discussed in Executive Session.
She noted the draft resolution also addressed the dissatisfaction expressed at the retreat with the way
meetings were handled, the way Councilmembers were recognized and the number of times each
Councilmembers could speak.
Councilmember Moore agreed the resolution did not appear to provide Councilmembers a way to
question an inappropriate Executive Session. City Attorney Scott Snyder advised a Councilmember
could always leave an Executive Session that they felt was inappropriate. He noted the City kept minutes
of Executive Session to satisfy the public at a future date that the Council discussed the appropriate issue.
He explained the Council could reach consensus in Executive Session. If the Council agreed to discuss an
issue in the open meeting, they could come out of Executive Session and make a motion to have the issue
placed on a future agenda and/or request information be released. In the absence of a motion, the
confidence of the Executive Session would be observed. He noted the resolution did not address the
appropriateness of a subject for Executive Session because that was addressed in state law.
Councilmember Plunkett recalled there were Councilmembers who revealed information that the Council
had agreed should not be disclosed. His intent was to develop rules so that all Councilmembers had the
same understanding. Mr. Snyder agreed, noting release of confidential Executive Session information
was a crime and a potential basis for forfeiture of office. The resolution was intended to establish an
orderly way to decide when Executive Session privilege ended. He concluded Executive Session
information remained confidential as long as the Council felt it should remain confidential.
COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARIN, TO
SCHEDULE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 1150 ON A FUTURE CONSENT AGENDA.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCILMEMBER MARIN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PLUNKETT, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING TEN MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Committee Assignments
Council President Olson explained in the past some Council committee meetings were paid and others
were not; in assigning committees, it seemed more prudent to simply pay Councilmembers for a
Ord# 3656
Cancellation of
Council
Meetings
Packet Page 433 of 488
Edmonds City Council Retreat Approved Minutes
February 2-3, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
APPROVED MINUTES
February 2-3, 2012
The Edmonds City Council retreat was called to order at 10:04 a.m. on Thursday, February 2, 2012 in the
Brackett Meeting Room, City Hall, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Thursday, February 2
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Michael Plunkett, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
PUBLIC PRESENT
Thursday, February 2
Bruce Witenberg
Darrol Haug
Ron Wambolt
Harry Gatjens
Al Rutledge
Roger Hertrich
Evan Pierce
Ken Reidy
Bruce Faires
Jim Orvis
STAFF PRESENT
Thursday, February 2
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director/Interim
Human Resources Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Carl Nelson, CIO
Jerry Shuster, Stormwater Eng. Program Mgr.
Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
Rob English, City Engineer
Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
Tod Moles, Street Operations Manager
Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager
Cindi Cruz, Executive Assistant
Kody McConnell, Executive Assistant
Carolyn LaFave, Executive Assistant
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2012 – CALL TO ORDER
Council President Peterson called the meeting to order at 10:04 a.m.
• Introduction/Brief Preview of Retreat Agenda
Council President Peterson explained in preparation for the retreat he asked the Council, Mayor and staff to
identify issues important for 2012. Most of the issues were included on the retreat agenda; some will be on
future Council agendas throughout the year. Mike Bailey, Redmond’s Finance Director, is ill and unable to
make the presentation regarding budgeting by priorities. Finance Director Shawn Hunstock will introduce the
topic today. Mr. Bailey will be invited to provide a workshop to the Council in the next few weeks to explore
the concept in detail.
Packet Page 434 of 488
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 2-3, 2010
Page 2
Council President Peterson explained because this is a relatively young City Council with the majority of
Councilmembers in their first term, roles and responsibilities of the Council was a topic that many identified. A
consultant recommended by AWC will make a presentation tomorrow to review the relationship between City
Council and Mayor in a strong Mayor/Council form of government. Council President Peterson briefly reviewed
other topics on the retreat agenda.
Councilmembers and staff introduced themselves.
Audience Comments
Darrol Haug, Edmonds, thanked the Council for their efforts. This is the third retreat he has attended and he
enjoys the open, candid dialogue that occurs at retreats that does not happen at City Council meetings. Today is
Groundhog Day; in this case the shadow looming is the budget issue. Because 2012 is not an election year, he
suggested it would be a good time for the Council to continue the spirit of the retreat and establish a policy to
solve the budget gap. Budgeting by priorities was studied by the levy committee and he urged the Council to
consider that concept as a way to help the City. He looked forward to a concerted effort to identify policies early
in the process and was hopeful the shadow of the budget gap would not be quite as looming next year.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, acknowledged the City did its best during the snow. He reported there was no mail
delivery on SR 104/205th or on 76th for four days due to snow which could have been a problem for someone
expecting medical supplies via mail. On the fifth day of the snow, a car hit a pole causing a power outage in the
Lake Ballinger area. He suggested the situation be reviewed by the Police Chief. Next, he suggested the Council
discuss the sale of Robin Hood Lanes and hold a public hearing.
Council President Peterson referred to an email from Ken Reidy, Edmonds, regarding executive sessions. Mr.
Reidy’s email cited the preamble to the Washington State Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) which states in
part, the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in
delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know
and what is not good for them to know. In Mr. Reidy’s opinion, state law requires the eventual release of
executive session meeting minutes to the citizens such as after real estate has been purchased, after publically
bid contracts are finalized or after pending litigation has been settled and/or all appeal rights related to the
litigation have been exhausted. He supported the keeping of detailed minutes of all executive sessions and
offered to work with elected officials to clearly establish the point in time that executive session meeting
minutes will be made available to the citizens.
Discussion about Executive Sessions and the Consequences of Minutes/Notes
Council President Peterson explained there has been some question about what other cities in Washington
do/not do with regard to executive session minutes/notes, when those minutes/notes are made available to
public, pros and cons regarding attorney/client privilege and the concept of executive sessions.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday provided the following introductory comments: first, there is a clear distinction
between notes and minutes. Minutes may begin as notes but become minutes when the City Council has an
opportunity to review and vote to approve their accuracy and in some cases make revisions which may include
reviewing the audio of the meeting. Currently in executive session the City Clerk takes notes but those notes are
never reviewed/approved by the City Council so they do not have the status of minutes. Second, Mr. Taraday
was not aware of any other city in Washington that keeps notes of executive session. Municipal Research
Service Center (MRSC) recommends against that practice. Edmonds began keeping notes of executive sessions
in 1996 when Resolution 853 was adopted. Mr. Taraday read Resolution 853, Establishing a Procedure for
Keeping and Retaining Minutes of City Council Executive Sessions.
Packet Page 435 of 488
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 2-3, 2010
Page 3
Mr. Taraday pointed out that although the resolution uses the term “minutes,” he does not consider the Council’s
practice to be generating minutes. To the extent the Council deems that there is a public interest for making a
record of what takes place in executive session, that record should be as accurate as possible. If there is a desire
for a record, there should be an audio recording of executive sessions. Alternatively, the Council goes into
executive session for a reason; the reason is stated before the Council goes into executive session and it is an
executive session because it is a discussion that should not be public and no record should be made. Mr. Taraday
recommended the Council either make a full record or make no record; to do what the Council is doing now is
potentially misleading in that it is not possible to take down on paper everything that takes place in executive
session.
The Council raised the following suggestions/questions/topics (City Attorney’s response in italics):
• As an alternative to recording, keep notes of executive sessions and the Council review the notes and
possibly in the future call them minutes. The resolution seems to state the Council wants to ensure there
is a record stating the Council was in executive session for the right reason. There is no way to know
that an accurate record exists unless there is a recording to back up the notes. The Council also needs
to vote to approve minutes; the Council cannot vote in executive session. The Council could review the
minutes privately and then vote in open session to approve them. If there is an interest in a fully
accurate record of what takes place in executive session, the only way to ensure that is to record it.
• Why not record executive sessions? The City has always asserted that if the executive session is for the
purpose of discussing pending/potential litigation and the City Attorney is present, the notes taken
during executive session are attorney/client privilege protected and therefore are not subject to public
disclosure. However, there is no case law and there is no guarantee the court would rule that way.
Therefore in the absence of a more clear statute about note taking/minute taking/recording of executive
sessions, there is some risk that a court could rule that whatever record was made should be made
public. He would, of course, vehemently object to that effort and would argue that any record of a
discussion regarding pending/potential litigation should be treated as attorney work product or
attorney/client privilege and not subject to public disclosure.
• What topics are permissible for Executive Session and why don’t other cities take notes? The reason
other cities do not take notes is out of concern that the record cannot be protected from public
disclosure. Mr. Taraday reviewed the permissible bases for executive sessions contained in RCW
42.30.1101(1).
• The Council could continue its current practice but revise the resolution to conform to the current
practice. If the current practice is continued, Councilmembers have some protection because they do not
review or approve the notes taken of executive sessions. Mr. Taraday did not recommend continuing the
current practice because if the goal is an accurate, complete record, it should be a record that can be
verified later.
• There are some issues on the list of bases for an executive session that should not have any record kept;
the philosophy behind an executive session is to have an open discussion about sensitive issues such as
personnel, potential litigation, and those should never be revealed to the public. The Council could
record discussions regarding real estate matters; the Council could review and approve minutes in open
session and possibly release them in the future. The Council would not record or take notes of all other
executive session topics. The City Council could establish a policy to record certain types of executive
sessions. With regard to the approval of minutes, there is no exemption from the OPMA for approval of
executive session minutes; the City Council cannot go into executive session to discuss a change to
executive session minutes. MRSC recommends that minutes not be kept of executive sessions because a
public records request could be made for the minutes and there is no automatic exemption from
disclosure that applies.
• RCW 42.30.010 cited by Mr. Reidy states that the people of the state do not yield their sovereignty to
the agencies which serve them. The Council should take full and complete minutes and record executive
sessions and determine what can/cannot be revealed in the future. The risk of that approach is the
Packet Page 436 of 488
Edmonds City Council Retreat Draft Minutes
February 2-3, 2010
Page 4
executive session list of topics does not clearly say that a record of the executive session is not
disclosable under the Public Records Act.
• Why does Edmonds keep notes of executive sessions? MRSC recommends notes not be kept and most
cities do not. There is no legal need to takes notes to comply with state law; it is up to the Council
whether to preserve a record of executive sessions. It can be helpful in the future to check on topics the
Council has discussed in the past.
• Executive sessions give the Council an opportunity to have an open dialogue with staff. The philosophy
of executive sessions is to have a frank dialogue, a recording would minimize that.
• There may be short term reasons not to disclose executive session notes but not in the long term. If
Councilmembers know what they say could eventually be disclosed, they may be more thoughtful in
their questions and discussion. All executive session conversations should be disclosed in the future.
The public has a right to know the information unless it is confidential and private.
• Need to determine why other cities are not taking notes of executive sessions. The reason other cities do
not take notes is clear in the statement on MRSC’s website; there is no automatic exemption from
disclosure. There is the possibility even in the short term that a court could require disclosure of a
record the City Council thought would not be disclosed. A potential option would be to have the City
Attorney take notes. His notes would be easier to protect as they are an attorney work product.
• It would be unpractical to have discussion in executive session if Councilmembers have to think about
what could be released. Recording or taking minutes for only some topics would also be difficult. There
is the potential for a lawsuit with regard to any executive session topic and the Council has the fiduciary
responsibility to limit/reduce lawsuits. Prefer no minutes be kept of executive sessions.
It was the consensus of the Council to clarify, revise, rewrite the resolution. Council President Peterson will
schedule it for consideration by the full Council during the first half of the year and take public comment. He
asked Councilmembers to provide him their suggestions.
Budgeting by Priorities Presentation (working lunch)
Community Services/Economic Development Director Clifton explained one of the topics at an Association of
Washington Cities budget workshop was budgeting by priorities/budgeting for outcomes. Councilmember
Buckshnis, Citizen Darrol Haug and he and a few others then met with Redmond Finance Director Mike Bailey
who reinforced their interest in the concept and determining whether it would be an appropriate budgeting
process for Edmonds. Mr. Bailey, who is ill today, will be invited to conduct a workshop with the Council in the
future to describe what it was like for Redmond to implement budgeting by priorities, and how it was received
by the directors, elected officials and citizens.
Mr. Hunstock explained Redmond spent 1-2 years and $160,000 on consultants to put a budgeting by priorities
process in place. He referred to a handout from the Government Finance Officers Association regarding a
priority-driven budget process that is similar to budgeting by priorities. He provided an overview of budgeting
for outcomes:
1. Determine the “price of government” (total resources)
2. Determine priorities
a) Example: one of Redmond’s priorities was a safe place to work, play and live
3. Assign a portion of the “price” to each priority
4. Determine best way to delivery results by priority
a) Results Team develop strategies/RFOs
b) Program staff submits “offer (attempt to address goal), may be multi-department offer
c) Results teams rank/scale offers
5. Results budgeting is focused on strategies to accomplish priorities
Packet Page 437 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 20, 2012
Page 7
Association of Washington Cities and the District Municipal Court Judges Association are also working
on this.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked Judge Fair’s opinion about the recent Supreme Court decision to uphold
the use of red light cameras. Judge Fair answered he was not surprised because the legislature gave that
authority to the governing bodies in their enacting legislation. The dissenting opinion was that it was a
moot point because it has been resolved by the City Councils. In reality it was a good issue to resolve
because it has become a concern in many cities.
8. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no members of the public who wished to provide comment.
9. FLOWER BASKET DONATION PROGRAM
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite announced a new program, Adopt a Flower Basket. She thanked
Councilmember Buckshnis for her assistance with launching the program and credited Jack Bevan for the
idea.
Ms. Hite distributed an Adopt a Flower Basket brochure. The program allows community members to
donate $100 in support of each of the City’s flower baskets. Each basket will have a name tag stating who
this basket was donated by or in memory of. Councilmember Buckshnis donated the first $100 in memory
of her dog, Buddy.
Ms. Hite also thanked Recreation Manager Renee McRae who worked closely with Councilmember
Buckshnis on this program.
10. DISCUSSION REGARDING TAKING MINUTES/NOTES DURING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.
Council President Peterson explained this issue was discussed at the Council retreat. He explained there
are limited reasons under RCW for the Council to meet in executive session. There is legislation under
consideration regarding the recording of executive sessions and limiting what must be provided via a
Public Records Request.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday provided an overview of the issue. The Council adopted Resolution 853 in
1996 which is when the Council began taking notes during executive sessions. He emphasized the notes
that are currently taken are notes, rather than minutes. The distinction is minutes are reviewed and
approved at a subsequent meeting by the body conducting the meeting. While the notes taken of executive
sessions are generally accurate, they do not have a review and approval process. That is significant
because it does not provide an opportunity for a Councilmember to review them or request a change.
Mr. Taraday explained he has been uncomfortable with the current practice because in his opinion if the
Council records the meeting, it should be recorded completely with an audio recording so there would not
be any question regarding what really happened. The Council could then discontinue the practice of note
taking. He pointed out Edmonds is one of the few if not the only city in Washington who keeps notes of
executive sessions. It is up to the Council to decide whether to continue or change the current practice.
Council President Peterson commented his intent was to have a discussion; he did not foresee any action
tonight other than scheduling it on a future meeting agenda for public comment/public hearing and
potential action.
Packet Page 438 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 20, 2012
Page 8
Councilmember Bloom referred to SB 6109, recently passed by the Senate 39-9, exempting video and
audio recordings of executive sessions. She recognized the bill had not yet been finalized. Mr. Taraday
offered to research the progress of SB 6109 and comment later in the discussion. His understanding of SB
6109 was it may give Public Records Act protection from disclosure of executive session records. One of
his concerns with taking notes is that although an argument can be made that the notes are attorney-client
privileged or work product protected or both, there is not a clear exemption in the Public Records Act for
executive session notes.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested amending Resolution 853 because the current practice creates
notes, not minutes. Mr. Taraday agreed the Council either needed to change its practices to conform with
the resolution or change the resolution to conform to the practice. Councilmember Buckshnis advised she
was ready to do that tonight. Councilmember Bloom advised she was ready to begin recording executive
sessions now. Mayor Earling pointed out Council President Peterson’s intent that this item was for
discussion only.
Council President Peterson commented his discomfort with note taking, minute taking or recording
executive sessions was because an executive session was an opportunity for the Council and Mayor with
the City Attorney and preferably not the City Clerk to have a free flow of ideas and discussion on a
limited number of sensitive topics including litigation, personnel, and real estate. He understood citizens’
concerns that things might happen behind closed doors or that deals are being struck; the Council, Mayor
and City Attorney keep each other in check should the discussion drift off topic. He recognized there is
distrust in government, pointing out Washington was one of the first states to have a Public Records Act.
The topics that can be discussed in executive session are not intended for the public and that is one of the
reasons Councilmembers are elected. The ability for Councilmembers, Mayor and City Attorney to keep
each other in check ensures the system works.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out the RCWs address everything Council President Peterson said. The
RCW identifies when the Council can have an executive session rather than a public meeting. The
advantage of recording executive sessions is it would provide proof in the event of challenge. A judge
would then review the recording and determine whether the Open Public Meetings Act was violated. It
was her opinion that recording executive sessions would instill more trust. She concluded it was very
important for the Council to “show our work.”
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she was undecided about this issue but in light of the personnel
issues that occurred last year, feels note taking is the appropriate way to proceed in the future as they
provide a record. Audio recording may be problematic because some Councilmembers prefer to speak
less professionally in an executive session; that candor would not be possible if executive sessions are
recorded. She did not support recording executive sessions unless only notes could be taken for executive
session regarding personnel matters.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas agreed recording executive sessions would reflect positively on
Councilmembers for the purposes of openness and transparency. Conversely, she questioned why
Edmonds is the only city currently taking notes. This may be a moot point depending on what the
legislature does.
Mr. Taraday explained SB 6109 has not yet passed the House. If it were signed into law it would exempt
video and audio recordings of executive sessions from disclosure under the Public Records Act. If
someone made a request for an audio recording of an executive session, under this exemption the City
would not be required to provide it. Currently if someone requests notes of an executive session, a
roundabout argument has to be made regarding why the notes should be exempt from disclosure. The bill
would provide an exemption for audio recordings but not for notes.
Packet Page 439 of 488
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
March 20, 2012
Page 9
Councilmember Yamamoto commented for each executive session he has attended, Councilmembers
know the topic in advance. The Council discusses only that topic and if anyone gets off track, another
Councilmember, the Mayor or the City Attorney brings them in check. He appreciated the opportunity for
Councilmembers to have a frank discussion; recording executive sessions could hamper that ability. He
clarified the Council only has discussions in executive session and does not make decisions.
Council President Peterson suggested the Council wait to see what the legislature does. There is currently
no hard and fast laws regarding what can be exempted under the Public Records Act with regard to
executive sessions. Until protection was provided, he was concerned that a Public Records Request could
require release of sensitive information. If SB 6109 is not passed into law, the Council can consider
amendments to the resolution.
11. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING EDMONDS CITY
CODE SECTION 10.75.030(A)(2), EXTENSION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION SUNSET DATE, AND OTHER ITEMS RELATED TO THE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained the Council packet
contains a draft ordinance and attachment which, if approved by the City Council, would amend ECC
Chapter 10.75 regarding the Economic Development Commission (EDC). The Council discussed
potential amendments on December 20, 2011, January 23, 2012 and March 6, 2012. During the March 6
meeting, the Council discussed four amendments:
• Section 10.75.030(A)(2): insert language that the EDC would focus primarily on economic
development related activities
• Section 10.75.030(A): extension of the sunset date of the EDC approximately 4 years to
December 31, 2015
• Section 10.75.010(B)(d): elected officials shall not be allowed to serve on the EDC but may serve
as non-voting ex-officio members. This would also apply to elected Port Commissioners.
• 10.750.030(C): staggering commission terms. Existing Commission members would be allowed
to serve through the end of the year. Commissioners have indicated their interest in continuing to
serve; approximately two-thirds expressed interest in remaining on the Commission. This will
ensure some continuity and institutional memory on the EDC. Staff will advertise immediately to
fill the remaining positions; terms filled this year would expire in 2014. Staff would re-advertise
at the end of the year and either new Commissioners or existing Commissioners could be
appointed. Appointments made in 2013 would expire at the end of 2015.
Mr. Clifton explained another option related to staggering is to have terms expire at the end of the
Councilmember’s term who appointed the Commissioner. City Attorney Jeff Taraday clarified in addition
to the ordinance, the Council needs to provide direction regarding staggering of Commissioners’ terms.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, Mr. Clifton explained approximately 5-6 Commissioners have stated they
do not plan to continue serving on the EDC. Upon confirming existing members’ desire to continue
serving on the Commission, staff will advertise to fill the vacant positions. As the former Council liaison
on the EDC, Councilmember Buckshnis commented there are often less than a handful of Commissioner
present at EDC meetings. She suggested each Councilmember have an opportunity to appoint at least one
Commissioner.
As Chair of the former EDC, Councilmember Yamamoto clarified there was always a quorum present at
EDC meetings. Most Commissioners informed staff when they would be absent and the absences were
for legitimate reasons. He agreed there were a couple Commissioners who did not attend meetings
regularly or notify of their absence. He agreed with the proposal to stagger terms.
Packet Page 440 of 488
Packet Page 441 of 488
Packet Page 442 of 488
Packet Page 443 of 488
Packet Page 444 of 488
Packet Page 445 of 488
Minutes
Public Safety and Personnel Committee Meeting
June 12, 2012
Elected Officials Present: Councilmember Joan Bloom
Councilmember Kristiana Johnson
Councilmember Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
Staff Present: Assistant Police Chief Gerry Gannon
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The meeting was called to order at 6:06 p.m. by Councilmember Bloom.
A. Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force, 2012 – 2013 Interlocal
Agreement
Assistant Police Chief Gannon described the Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force
(SRDGTF) Interlocal Agreement. In addition to the SRDGTF, he pointed out that Edmonds also
participates in the South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force with the cities of Lynnwood
and Mountlake Terrace. The two task forces work closely and assist each other with staffing
and equipment. Mr. Gannon requested that the committee approve the placement of the
Interlocal Agreement on the City Council Consent Agenda.
Responding to questions from Councilmember Bloom concerning how the fees are calculated
for the Interlocal Agreement, Mr. Gannon stated the fees are based on population. Edmonds
fee is $9,939 for July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 (a decrease of $59 over last year’s fee).
Councilmember Johnson had specific questions regarding the agreement which Mr. Gannon
responded to. In particular Councilmember Johnson asked questions pertaining to the
participation of certain cities/entities and why they were listed in the agreement. Mr. Gannon
clarified that the interlocal agreement originates from the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office.
Edmonds’ participation is just the funding. He stated that he would provide additional
information following this meeting to further respond to Councilmember Johnson’s questions.
Action: Assistant Chief of Police Gannon to provide additional information to the Committee.
The Committee approved placing the agreement on the City Council Consent Agenda.
B. Discussion Regarding Taking Minutes/Notes During Executive Session
Councilmember Bloom suggested in addition to discussing whether to take minutes/notes
during executive session, the discussion include whether executive sessions should be
recorded. She acknowledged there may be some executive sessions that should never be
recorded such as those regarding personnel.
Councilmember Bloom explained Resolution 853 states the Council takes minutes of executive
sessions and at some point the minutes will be available to the public if the reason for the
Packet Page 446 of 488
executive session has expired. The issue is staff takes summary notes which are not approved
by Council so they are not technically minutes.
A discussion with the residents who were present ensued. Their comments included the
following:
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, asked whether Councilmembers Bloom and Johnson had reviewed
the materials from the Council retreat. Councilmember Johnson said she had and
Councilmember Bloom said she was present at the retreat. Mr. Wambolt pointed out Mr. Reidy
has done a great deal of research regarding this issue.
Ken Reidy, Edmonds, acknowledged this was a complicated issue; taking minutes/notes was
important to him because he believes citizens would get better representation by their elected
officials and more honest government if the City Council and Mayor knew eventually the
minutes of Executive Sessions could be released to the public in certain situations. Resolution
853 requires minutes be kept; if minutes require an audio or video recording, executive sessions
should be recorded. Resolution 853 also addresses the concept of minutes being subject to
release when the reason for the executive session expires. He acknowledged Edmonds is
unique; he was not aware of any other cities that keep executive session minutes. This is an
opportunity to build trust in local governance and for Edmonds to be a leader in transparency.
He hoped the Council would go in that direction rather than to discontinue keeping
minutes/notes.
Diane Talmadge, Edmonds, commented a resolution was non-binding, she preferred the
requirement be contained in an ordinance. She felt tensions build when elected officials know
what occurs in executive sessions and citizens do not. Recording or minutes of executive
sessions would bring tensions into balance and elected officials would be aware that the
minutes could be released at a later date. If there are no recording/notes, executive sessions
seem like secret meetings. The people’s right to know is of greater importance than elected
officials’ right to discuss it without anyone looking. Ms. Talmadge said executive session
minutes would also allow Councilmembers to refresh their memory if necessary regarding what
was discussed in executive session. She wanted the public and the Council protected because
it ultimately saved the City money.
Damon Pistulka, Edmonds, commented a Councilmember could be presented information in
an executive session that is later contradicted. Without documentation, there is nothing to
substantiate the information provided in executive session. It was beneficial for all parties to
have notes/minutes of executive sessions, especially in litigation. Current and future
Councilmembers could also review notes/minutes of an executive session.
Bruce Witenberg, Edmonds, suggested the City Attorney make a presentation at a Council
meeting similar to the presentation at the retreat, including addressing public comments that
have been made since that presentation. With regard to release of executive session
minutes/notes, he commented that although a litigation or real estate matter may have been
concluded, the City may use the same tactics and strategies in future negotiations/litigation;
having that information made public could be a disadvantage to the City. The reason for the
executive session and the passage of time are not the only criterion for releasing information.
Other issues to consider include preserving the attorney/client privilege in an executive session
and inadvertent disclosure if notes/minutes/recordings are kept of executive sessions. He
suggested the City Attorney’s presentation also clarify who is the client in executive sessions.
Packet Page 447 of 488
Mr. Reidy suggested also having a proponent of open government address the City Council in
addition to the City Attorney to provide a balanced viewpoint. Even if executive session minutes
are never released to the public, it is important to have executive sessions recorded and
detailed minutes kept.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether other cities record their executive session. City Clerk
Sandy Chase said Edmonds is the only city she knows of that takes minutes/notes of executive
sessions.
Mr. Reidy noted Resolution 853 was passed on September 16, 1996 on the Consent Agenda;
he asked whether there was any previous discussion. Ms. Chase recalled the City Council was
holding a number of executive sessions at the time and there were similar concerns expressed;
Resolution 853 was a response to the concerns at that time.
Councilmember Bloom referred to SB 6109 which would have required a judge to review the
audio recording if there was a public record request of an executive session to determine if it
was truly necessary to hold an executive session. She asked why the Senate proposed that bill
if other cities do not document their executive session. Ms. Chase stated her understanding that
it may be due to efforts by Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG) and others.
Mr. Pistulka commented executive session notes would be helpful regardless of whether they
are released. He cited the example of business board meeting notes that provide useful
information.
Councilmember Johnson observed there is a balance between the public’s right/need/desire to
know, risk assessment and the attorney/client privilege. Resolution 853 was a compromise in an
attempt to appease all parties. However, the language in the resolution does not necessarily
reflect the practice. Minutes require approval, notes do not. She suggested determining whether
to modify the resolution or the practice. She supported having a presentation from the City
Attorney on this subject at the full Council.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas suggested having a presentation from AWC and WCOG as
well. Councilmember Johnson suggested MRSC as an additional resource.
Other topics discussed included increased frequency of executive sessions this year, redaction
of information in executive session minutes, the City Attorney’s presence at executive session,
and assessing risk.
Action: At next week’s meeting the City Attorney make a presentation, to be followed by
Council discussion with the goal of a future public hearing and further input from AWC, WCOG,
etc.
C. Public Comments
Public comment occurred during Agenda Item B.
Adjourn: 8:21 p.m.
Packet Page 448 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 5
distributed to different groups around the county. The ESSP is studying a standardized permitting
process. Because this is new technology, many jurisdictions do not have a permitting process to address
it. The ESSP will likely make a recommendation regarding fees, but each jurisdiction will establish its
own fees.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out without a permit, the City would not know how many residences
have solar systems. She supported lowering the permit fee to provide incentive for solar installations. She
asked about Exhibit 1 in the packet, Community Solar Fee Comparison. Mr. Yarberry advised the
numbers were provided by Mr. Bernheim and were used by staff to calculate a baseline fee for Phase 1 of
the Frances Anderson Center project.
Councilmember Johnson suggested evaluating the amount of time spent on plan review and inspection in
determining the fee for a commercial solar installation.
Council President Peterson observed if the Council took no action, staff would continue with the fee
structure for residential installations as described. Mr. Yarberry agreed. Council President Peterson
observed waiving fees would require Council action. Mr. Yarberry agreed.
Council President Peterson disclosed he owns a slice of the solar installation on the Frances Anderson
Center and has promised to donate any profits from it to Sustainable Edmonds.
The Council took no action with regard to this item.
7. DISCUSSION REGARDING TAKING MINUTES/NOTES DURING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS.
Council President Peterson explained the Council began discussing the taking of minutes/notes during
executive sessions at the 2012 Council retreat. Upon further Council and Committee direction, he was
asked to schedule a broader discussion along with presentations from outside interested parties.
Jim Doherty, Legal Consultant, Municipal Research Service Center (MRSC), explained MRSC has
functioned in Washington for over 75 years as an advisory group to cities, counties and special purpose
districts on a wide range of issues. MRSC has 25 staff members including 6 attorneys, 2 planners, a
finance consultant, policy consultants and has the most extensive local government library in the State.
MRSC’s website, www.MRSC.org, is open to the public. He has been with MRSC for over 19 years and
authors and updates the Public Records Act (PRA) publication as well as has addressed many questions
over the years regarding Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) issues.
Mr. Doherty relayed he had reviewed Council minutes where the issue of taking minutes/notes during
executive session had been discussed and City Attorney Taraday’s input regarding the pattern in
Washington cities. He was also provided an email from Ken Reidy that contained a blog post and
responses regarding this issue.
Mr. Doherty relayed MRSC is not aware of any cities in the State of Washington that take minutes of
executive sessions or record executive sessions. He found a reference that was confirmed by Mr. Nixon
that the Port of Seattle records their executive sessions because of scrutiny by the State Auditor’s Office
due to past problems. MRSC’s advice to cities over the last 20 years is that cities not take minutes of
executive sessions. He clarified it was not that MRSC was for or against open government, as a practical
matter there is some uncertainty regarding the status of minutes of executive sessions because they
usually are not taken; there is no specific exemption in the PRA for minutes of executive sessions.
MRSC’s position is cautious; their advice is why create a problem that cities do not need.
Packet Page 449 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 6
Mr. Doherty explained the purpose of minutes is an official record of action taken by the Council.
Executive sessions are discussion and not final action; any action is taken during open session. Thus the
purpose of minutes of an executive session is not clear because no action is taken.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed her appreciation for the work MRSC does for city officials,
recalling she utilized their resources regarding financial transparency. She asked about taking notes of
executive session rather than minutes. Mr. Doherty asked who would take the notes. If a Councilmember
takes notes in executive session for their own use, they are similar to notes taken during an open Council
meeting. There is case law that supports the view that those are public records, they are a
Councilmember’s own personal notes, not taken at the request of the City, and not used by the City. He
cited Jacobellis v. Bellingham where the court found personal notes are not a public record.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked about notes taken by the City Clerk. Mr. Doherty answered if those
notes are minutes, a record of the executive session, under one statute they are not open to public
inspection. He noted it is unclear as the statute was written long before the PRA was adopted.
Councilmember Petso asked about the statute that distinguishes Clerk’s notes from a public record. Mr.
Doherty answered RCW 42.32.030 which was passed in 1953 and has never been amended.
Councilmember Johnson observed one question is whether a written record should be kept of executive
sessions. She asked what should be done with the records maintained of executive sessions over the past
seven years if the Council decided to stop keeping a written record; should they be destroyed or were they
subject to public record requests. Mr. Doherty answered their destruction would depend on how the
records retention schedule applied to those records. The retention schedule for minutes of regular Council
meeting minutes requires they be kept permanently. He was uncertain whether that would apply to notes
of an executive session. With regard to public records requests for those notes, he referred the Council to
the City Attorney. He recognized many of the notes are related to attorney-client privilege where
exemptions clearly apply.
Councilmember Johnson commented if the Council chose to stop taking minutes of executive sessions,
the Council could audio record executive sessions. She asked whether Mr. Doherty knew of any other
cities, other than the Port of Seattle, that audio record their executive sessions. Mr. Doherty answered he
did not. He pointed out there is no exemption that applies to an audio recording, whether video or voice,
and if no exemption applies, it must be disclosed. If the City made an audio recording of an executive
session and someone requested it, the City would need to provide it. That could be problematic if the
Council was discussing a real estate purchase or other sensitive issues. Councilmember Johnson
commented she had not heard that before; it was a key point. Mr. Doherty commented there was
legislation pending this year and in past years regarding recording of executive sessions but it included a
provision that any challenge would require a judge review the recording in chambers and exemptions
would apply. That legislation did not pass and there is currently no exemption in the law for a recording
of an executive session. Unless that is clarified, he recommended cities not record executive sessions.
Councilmember Johnson asked whether any legislation regarding recording of executive sessions was
anticipated in the next legislative session. Mr. Doherty answered that was difficult to anticipate; it has
been raised in the past and has not been passed. It may be introduced again as the Coalition for Open
Government and other groups believe it is an important issue.
Councilmember Johnson summarized Mr. Doherty’s recommendation was that the City do not maintain
written records or audio recordings of executive sessions and whatever records of executive sessions the
City has created would be maintained in accordance with the records retention schedule. Mr. Doherty
agreed with her summary.
Packet Page 450 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 7
Toby Nixon, President, Washington Coalition for Open Government (WCOG), explained he is a
former member of the State Legislature, served as ranking member on a Committee of the House that had
responsibility for the open government laws of Washington, and is currently a City of Kirkland
Councilmember, elected in November 2011.
Mr. Nixon commented this has been one of WCOG’s highest priority issues for several years. WCOG is a
statewide non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to defending and extending the people’s right to
know what their government is doing. WCOG focuses most of its energy on the PRA and OPMA but also
works on open courts, open legislative process, open rule-making processes, follows the workings of the
Public Disclosure Commission, disclosure of campaign finance and lobbyist information, whistle-blower
laws, ethics laws, and anything related to transparency and accountability in government. This is
accomplished via four programs: education, litigation, legislation and recognition.
He relayed language from RCW 42.30.010, “The legislature finds and declares that all public
commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other
public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It
is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted
openly. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The
people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the
people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that
they may retain control over the instruments they have created.”
Mr. Nixon provided a definition of executive session: “Executive sessions are meetings allowed (but not
required) to be closed to the public because the people, through their legislative representatives, have
determined that it is more in the public interest than not that the specific information to be discussed be
kept secret for some period of time.”
To the question of whether recordings should be made, Mr. Nixon said yes. Agencies can choose today to
make audio or video recordings, or to keep notes or minutes, of executive sessions. There is no
prohibition of such recordings. Recordings can be useful for a number of agency purposes:
• To resolve disagreements over what transpired or was said
• To hold attorneys and others accountable for advice given or information provided in closed
meetings
• To allow newly-appointed or newly-elected members of the body to catch up on previous
executive session discussions
• To improve the ability of the agency to defend itself if it is accused of having an inappropriate
discussion in an executive session
Mr. Nixon relayed reasons some many do not want executive sessions recorded:
• Would interfere with frank, honest, free-flowing conversations. He emphasized that is the point,
executive sessions should be limited to only the allowed topic and nothing more. Members should
not need to be behind closed doors to have a frank and honest discussion.
• Recording is expensive. He cited the reasonable cost of a digital audio recorder. Operation is
trivial. The recorder can be plugged into a PC via USB cable and recordings transferred to a
secure server, and be as well protected as any other confidential electronic city records. No need
for expensive safes, locked file cabinets, or large amounts of storage space.
• Risk of disclosure under the Public Records Act. Mr. Nixon relayed information from RCW
42.56.010 Definitions, of “public record” and “writing,” agreeing that audio recordings are
records, including voicemails. He acknowledged recordings are not automatically exempt.
Recordings of several of the allowed topics for executive sessions would be exempt from
disclosure, but not all.
Packet Page 451 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 8
Mr. Nixon explained the Port of Seattle Digitally records all executive sessions. They submit records to
outside counsel for periodic review for compliance. They have not had many requests for disclosure
although who knows what will happen with current controversy.
Mr. Nixon described the allowable topics for executive session (RCW 42.30.110) and his response to
each (in italics):
(a) To consider matters affecting national security.
Rarely applies to cities. Some topics covered under 42.56.420 (security plans and vulnerabilities,
prevention of terrorist acts).
(b) To consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real estate by lease or purchase when
public knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased price.
(c) To consider the minimum price at which real estate will be offered for sale or lease when public
knowledge regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of decreased price. However,
final action selling or leasing public property shall be taken in a meeting open to the public.
Real estate appraisals are covered by 42.56.260, but not discussion of price willing to pay or sell
for, or the fact that the city is interested in the property.
(d) To review negotiations on the performance of publicly bid contracts when public knowledge
regarding such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased costs.
Not covered by any known PRA exemption.
(f) To receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public officer or employee.
However, upon the request of such officer or employee, a public hearing or a meeting open to the
public shall be conducted upon such complaint or charge.
Records of complaints against public employees are disclosable unless determined to be
unsubstantiated or false. 42.56.230(3), Bellevue John Does v. Bellevue School District.
Some records may be exempt under the investigatory records exemption, 42.56.240(1).
Identity of persons filing complaints may be exempt under 42.56.240(2) if their life, safety, or
property may be endangered by disclosure, and they request non-disclosure.
(g) To evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public employment or to review the
performance of a public employee. However, subject to RCW 42.30.140(4), discussion by a
governing body of salaries, wages, and other conditions of employment to be generally applied
within the agency shall occur in a meeting open to the public, and when a governing body elects
to take final action hiring, setting the salary of an individual employee or class of employees, or
discharging or disciplining an employee, that action shall be taken in a meeting open to the
public;
Names, resumes, other application materials are exempt from disclosure under 42.56.250(2). No
exemption for other content of discussion.
(h) To evaluate the qualifications of a candidate for appointment to elective office. However, any
interview of such candidate and final action appointing a candidate to elective office shall be in a
meeting open to the public;
Not exempt under PRA.
(i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters relating to agency enforcement
actions, or to discuss with legal counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation to
which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to
become, a party, when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse
legal or financial consequence to the agency.
All materials are likely exempt under RCW 42.56.290 or 5.60.060(2)(a), which are broader than
the allowed purposes for executive sessions for attorney-client communication, and include all
“attorney work product”.
Topics for executive session not applicable to cities include:
(e) …export trading company…;
(j) …state library…;
Packet Page 452 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 9
(k) …state investment board…;
(l) …state purchased health care services…;
(m) …life sciences discovery fund authority…;
(n) …health sciences and services authority…;
(o) …innovate Washington…
Mr. Nixon referred to RCW 42.30.140 that describes meetings that are not technically “executive
sessions,” in that they do not require the agency to first convene in an announced public meeting, declare
the purpose and duration of the closed meeting, and then return to public session to adjourn. He explained
“140” meetings can be entirely secret, although many agencies treat them the same as “110” executive
sessions. Mr. Nixon reviewed the four types of meetings described in RCW 42.30.140 and his response to
each (in italics):
(1) The proceedings concerned with the formal issuance of an order granting, suspending,
revoking, or denying any license, permit, or certificate to engage in any business,
occupation, or profession or to any disciplinary proceedings involving a member of such
business, occupation, or profession, or to receive a license for a sports activity or to
operate any mechanical device or motor vehicle where a license or registration is
necessary; or
Business license proceedings occur in cities, but are not exempt under the PRA.
(2) That portion of a meeting of a quasi-judicial body which relates to a quasi-judicial matter
between named parties as distinguished from a matter having general effect on the public
or on a class or group; or
Cities have quasi-judicial discussions for permitting, etc. Not exempt under the PRA.
(3) Matters governed by chapter 34.05 RCW, the Administrative Procedure Act; or
Does not apply to cities.
(4)(a) Collective bargaining sessions with employee organizations, including contract
negotiations, grievance meetings, and discussions relating to the interpretation or
application of a labor agreement; or (b) that portion of a meeting during which the
governing body is planning or adopting the strategy or position to be taken by the
governing body during the course of any collective bargaining, professional negotiations,
or grievance or mediation proceedings, or reviewing the proposals made in the
negotiations or proceedings while in progress.
Information regarding unfair practices exempt under 42.56.250(4) and (5). Otherwise,
not exempt under PRA.
Mr. Nixon relayed WCOG’s support for enactment of additional PRA exemptions:
• Specific public records exemptions to cover each of the executive session topics, even if the
material is discussed in writing rather than in an executive session.
• Blanket public records exemption for all recordings, minutes, and notes of executive sessions.
This would also cover materials prepared by staff for review during executive sessions. Materials
provided in executive session today are not exempt from disclosure under the PRA unless
communications from the City Attorney protected by attorney-client privilege.
In the meantime, WCOG recommends Council’s be selective; have a policy to not record executive
sessions when the discussion would not be exempt from the PRA, or retain only a high-level summary of
the nature of the discussion without the key details. They recommend cities consider the benefits of
recordings or notes on key topics that would be exempt from disclosure. For example because there is a
broad exemption for attorney-client privilege communications and since attorney-client communications
are the most frequent purpose for executive sessions, the Council may decide to record those executive
sessions.
Mr. Nixon provided WCOG’s contact information: Washington Coalition for Open Government, 6351
Seaview Avenue NW, Seattle, WA 98107; (206) 782-0393; info@washingtoncog.org;
www.washingtoncog.org.
Packet Page 453 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 10
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why no cities in the State kept minutes or record executive
sessions. Mr. Nixon answered it is due to the concern about possible disclosure if a member of the public
submitted a properly worded public records request. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether
Kirkland keeps minutes or records executive sessions. Mr. Nixon answered Kirkland does not.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked why Councils have executive sessions. Mr. Nixon answered it
was because the legislature decided it was more in the public interest than not to have that discussion in
secret and to keep the content secret for at least some period of time. For example if the Council were to
discuss the most they were willing to pay for property and that information became public and known to
the property owners, that would become the price of the property and the City’s ability to negotiate a
lower price would be extremely limited.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked about executive session for labor negotiations. Mr. Nixon
responded when he was in the legislature, he advocated for removing labor negotiations as an allowed
topic for executive session; he personally believes labor negotiations should occur in public as they do in
many other states.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if one of the legislature’s responsibilities was to be risk managers. Mr.
Nixon answered one would hope they had that exposure in mind when they passed bills. In his
experience, that did not always happen because the analysis has not been deep enough. Councilmember
Buckshnis asked as risk managers, shouldn’t the goal be to prevent litigation; recordings of executive
session could expose Councilmembers and the City to liability. Mr. Nixon answered it was unlikely to
expose Councilmembers individually. There could be scenarios for liability based on the content of the
recording such as inappropriate statements or incorrect information made in executive session that could
be considered libel. His focus was the purpose of the executive session; attorney-client privilege is
obvious, the Council does not want to expose its courtroom strategy to the opposition in a lawsuit.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented if executive sessions were recorded, Councilmembers would need
to be more careful about what they said. Mr. Nixon answered that was a good thing; people in leadership
positions should think carefully before they speak. As a Councilmember himself, before saying or
emailing anything, he assumes it will be printed on the front page of the Seattle Times the next day.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she did not object to disclosing information discussed in
executive sessions regarding real estate once the transaction had been completed. She recognized
confidentiality must be maintained for some other topics. Mr. Nixon referred to the fundamental
principles of the PRA and OPMA, the people are sovereign, they have a right to know what their
government is doing, and it is up to them to decide what is good for them to know, not for elected
officials to decide what is good for them to know.
Rather than determining what topics were exempt from the PRA, Councilmember Yamamoto suggested it
would be simpler not to record executive sessions. He suggested that was why no other cities recorded
executive sessions. Mr. Nixon agreed without a blanket exemption for recordings of executive sessions,
cities are unwilling to determine what executive session topics should and should not be recorded. If the
idea of recording executive sessions for its own use is something the Edmonds City Council would like,
he urged them to request that AWC support legislation that would allow it.
Councilmember Yamamoto referred to Mr. Nixon’s comment about handouts provided during executive
sessions. Mr. Nixon explained if a document is produced by City staff and distributed in executive
session, it does not become a protected document because it was viewed in executive session. It is a
public record like any other City document. Unless there is an exemption covering the content of the
document, it must be released if a member of the public requested it. Councilmember Yamamoto asked
what documents would be protected. Mr. Nixon answered it would depend on the nature of the document;
Packet Page 454 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 11
a memo from the attorney regarding a case and strategies would be exempt from disclosure. Other
documents may not be exempt. For example in the case of real estate, there is an exemption in the PRA
for an appraisal but there is no exemption for other types of information such as a staff analysis of the
property, how a facility would fit on the property, etc., unless it was protected by the generic deliberative
process exemption. Simply collecting documents distributed in executive session and shredding them is
not enough; the original is still on someone’s computer and required to be retained under the records
retention schedule. If a member of the public requested it, the City Attorney would need to determine how
to prevent its disclosure.
Councilmember Yamamoto summarized his understanding was that every document and handout
provided at executive session should be processed accordingly. Mr. Nixon answered similar to any
document handled by the Council in its official role it is considered a public record and unless a specific
exemption applies, someone could request it. Councilmember Yamamoto asked Mr. Doherty’s opinion.
Mr. Doherty agreed with Mr. Nixon’s statement; just because something is looked at in executive session
does not create an automatic exemption for it.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether comparisons provided by staff in executive session regarding
labor negotiations would be subject to a public records request. Mr. Nixon answered he was not aware of
any exemption for that. Mr. Doherty referred to a case, ACLU v. Seattle, where strategy papers reviewed
in executive session were not exempt under the PRA.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether the attorney should check everything that staff provided prior
to an executive session. City Attorney Jeff Taraday pointed out it was not sufficient for him to check
something; it would need to be advice from him in order to be attorney-client privilege exempt. It was not
enough for a director to have the City Attorney review it for it to become attorney-client privilege exempt.
Mr. Nixon agreed having the City Attorney in the room does not make a conversation attorney-client
privilege nor does the City Attorney reading a document make it attorney-client privilege. Mr. Nixon
suggested the Council could ask the City Attorney whether a document would be exempt from disclosure.
Councilmember Bloom recalled Mr. Nixon said the Council could choose to record some executive
sessions. If the Council made a decision to record all executive sessions regarding attorney-client
privilege, would they be exempt from disclosure under the PRA? Mr. Nixon answered yes, as long as the
executive session followed the guidelines in the OPMA.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether those recordings would be exempt forever from public disclosure?
Mr. Nixon answered according to a Supreme Court decision, there is no timeout on attorney-client
communication, particularly related to litigation. Even though one lawsuit completes, there is nothing to
stop someone else from suing on a similar topic; therefore, privileged information should not be released
and benefit the next person filing a lawsuit.
Councilmember Bloom asked for clarification whether notes taken by the City Clerk or any record kept of
executive sessions related to attorney-client privilege would be subject to public disclosure. Mr. Nixon
answered the portion of the notes related to questions asked of the attorney and the attorney’s responses
could be redacted. Anything else would be disclosable. Councilmember Bloom asked who made the
decision regarding what was exempt and what was not if a public records request was submitted. Mr.
Nixon answered the Public Records Officer; if he/she had any questions, he/she would seek direction
from the City Attorney. Ultimately the State Supreme Court decides what is exempt or not exempt. Even
if staff makes a decision they believe is correct with regard to disclosure, someone could still sue the City.
Councilmember Bloom commented Edmonds is in the unique position of having taken summary minutes
of executive sessions for several years in accordance with direction provided by resolution. She
commented it would be difficult to go backward when that practice was started for a legitimate reason.
Packet Page 455 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 12
There was also discussion at a Council meeting that certain executive session meetings could be disclosed
when the issue was resolved. She questioned how the City should proceed when it was “already more
advanced in some ways in terms of open government than other cities are.” Mr. Nixon answered
according to the law, if someone made a public records request for them, the non-exempt portions would
need to be disclosed. If they meet the legal definition of minutes, they must be retained forever. If they are
only notes, their retention is determined by the records retention schedule.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the question she asked previously, should the City maintain a paper
record; if the answer is yes, it is important to know the retention schedule. Although the ordinance refers
to them as minutes, the City Attorney has advised they do not meet the legal definition of minutes
because they are not voted upon and are actually notes kept by the City Clerk. Given the current laws, she
asked for Mr. Nixon’s recommendation whether a paper record should be kept. Mr. Nixon clarified under
the PRA, all types of records are the same, whether paper, electronic or an audio recording, the content of
the record is what is important. It is easier to redact paper records. With regard to a recommendation, he
has not loudly demanded that Kirkland start recording executive sessions because he recognizes the value
of their being exempt. He has encouraged Kirkland to urge AWC not to oppose legislation regarding
executive sessions.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding that it made a difference who took the notes. She
asked if an audio recording or notes taken by the City Attorney would be exempt. Mr. Nixon answered it
would depend whether it was an attorney-client privileged discussion. The City Attorney’s record of
questions asked and responses he gave would be exempt as an attorney-client work product. If the City
Attorney was simply being used as a clerk to take notes about something other than an attorney-client
privilege discussion, the fact that he was the City Attorney would make no difference with regard to
whether the notes were disclosable.
Councilmember Johnson relayed her understanding that there was no exemption for audio recordings
other than regarding an assessed valuation of a real estate transaction and would need to be made
available upon a public records request. Mr. Nixon answered audio recordings are included in the
definition of public records. Whether a recording was disclosable would depend on the content of the
recording; portions of the recording for which there is an exemption could be redacted, the rest of the
recording would have to be disclosed.
With regard to minutes versus notes, Council President Peterson asked if there could be such a thing as
executive session minutes when the Council did not vote on the minutes in executive session or in public
session. And if they are just cursory notes that are not reviewed by the Council, who outside the City
Clerk has the ability to verify their authenticity/accuracy if they become a public record upon a public
records request. Mr. Nixon answered that is why the Port of Seattle is recording their executive sessions.
He asked if the executive session minutes/notes the City currently maintains are distributed to Council
following executive session. Council President Peterson answered they are not. Mr. Nixon agreed the
Council was very dependent upon the accuracy of the person taking notes during executive session. If
there were a dispute in the future regarding an executive session, he envisioned a judge and jury would
ultimately make a decision regarding the accuracy of the record. Council President Peterson summarized
the Council was in a very nebulous situation with any kind of recording device, whether pen or audio
recording.
Mr. Nixon clarified he is not an attorney and urged the Council not to act on anything he said without first
checking with the City Attorney.
Councilmember Petso asked how confident Mr. Nixon was in his statement that a Councilmember’s
personal notes made in executive session were not a public record. Mr. Nixon answered that was
established in the case Jacobellis v. Bellingham which is summarized on the MRSC website. As long as a
Packet Page 456 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 13
Councilmember does not share their notes with others, it is a personal record and not a City record.
Councilmember Petso asked whether that applied to notes typed into her city-provided iPad. Mr. Nixon
answered yes; he sends emails to himself and was told by Kirkland’s City Attorney that emails he sends
to himself as personal notes and not shared with anyone else were exempt from disclosure. If the emails
are forwarded to someone else, they become a public record. Mr. Taraday stated he was unsure about that
interpretation.
Council President Peterson asked for Council direction regarding recording executive sessions.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to wait to see what action the legislature took.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
YAMAMOTO, TO RESCIND RESOLUTION 853 BECAUSE MINUTES ARE IN FACT NOT
BEING TAKEN.
Councilmember Petso pointed out this was listed on the agenda as a discussion item. She preferred to
rescind the resolution at a future meeting when the item is on the agenda for action.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Petso. She suggested holding a public hearing.
Councilmember Petso suggested the Council consider keeping a record of attorney-client privileged
discussions as they would be exempt under the PRA.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF
THE SECOND.
Council President Peterson asked whether this issue should go back through the committee process.
Councilmember Bloom commented it would be prudent to have it discussed at committee as
Councilmember Johnson was not on the Committee at that time and new information has been provided
that warrants further discussion.
Council President Peterson explained the purpose of committee discussion was so staff could update the
committee. There is no City staff person in that role for this item. He did not want it to be a discussion
between two Councilmembers and members of the public that excluded the other five Councilmembers.
He preferred any further discussion occur at a regular Council meeting.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented discussions at committee should only be with the two
Councilmembers on the committee; the public is not included in discussion other than by providing input
during public comment.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether the City Attorney can participate at the committee level. The
discussion at committee could include attorney-client privilege, recording, which executive sessions could
be recorded, etc. Mr. Taraday responded he is happy to attend a committee meeting if there is meaningful
discussion he needs to participate in. His advice on this matter is straight-forward and remains the same.
The vast majority of executive sessions are attorney-client privileged. Any recording of executive
sessions regarding potential litigation is in all likelihood protected under the PRA and it is up to the City
Council to decide whether to record those. With regard to other types of executive sessions, they should
not be recorded because there is no clear exemption from disclosure. He summarized it is an
administrative, logistical question; whether the City wants to deal with the hassle of turning on and off a
recording device or having the City Clerk enter and leave the room for the portion of the executive
session the Council wants a written record maintained. He was unsure he needed to attend the committee
Packet Page 457 of 488
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
August 28, 2012
Page 14
meeting to have that discussion. The presentations by Mr. Doherty and Mr. Nixon were excellent; he
would broaden what Mr. Nixon said would be included under the potential litigation exemption.
Councilmember Yamamoto commented this was a work session and presentations were made by two
parties. He was unclear what sending it to committee would accomplish. He preferred the full Council
participate in any further discussions.
For Council President Peterson, Councilmember Johnson said she was present when the committee last
discussed this matter. Council President Peterson asked whether Councilmember Johnson preferred to
have it discussed at committee. Councilmember Johnson suggested the committee could discuss it at the
September 11 meeting and it could be scheduled for full Council discussion on September 18. She was
uncertain Councilmember Bloom and she were of like minds but they could narrow the issues to facilitate
Council discussion.
Council President Peterson concluded since both committee members asked for this issue to be scheduled,
he will schedule it on the September 11 Committee agenda. He echoed Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’
comments that committee meetings are not open discussions with the public. He will discuss with Mr.
Taraday whether his presence at the committee meeting is necessary.
Councilmember Johnson requested staff determine the records retention for notes.
8. REPORT ON OUTSIDE COMMITTEE/BOARD MEETINGS
Councilmember Yamamoto reported SnoCom is working to resolve issues with the New World system.
The Port of Edmonds is in the process of presenting the Harbor Square Master Plan to the Planning
Board. The Citizens Technology Advisory Committee (CTAC) did not meet this month.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the Snohomish County Health District Program Policy
Committee discussed fluoride in the water and agreed to send the matter to the full Board with a
recommendation not to change the current policy regarding fluoride in water. The Committee has
requested that testimony be limited to recent data and not old data from the 1950s and 1960s.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported WRIA 8 is having a Cedar River Watershed event. She reported
Governor Gregoire gave each Snohomish County Tomorrow (SCT) member a merit award for
intergovernmental collaboration in the preparation of the Countywide Planning Policies. SCT is also
discussing dispute resolution for municipal urban growth areas (MUGA).
Council President Peterson reported the Council will be provided an update on the Regional Fire
Authority (RFA) discussion at the September 18 meeting. Mayor Earling, Councilmember Petso and he
participate on the planning committee as well as individual subcommittees.
Mayor Earling requested Council President Peterson and Councilmember Petso meet with him after the
meeting regarding the RFA.
Councilmember Bloom reported staff provided updates to the Economic Development Commission
regarding Highway 99, the Harbor Square Master Plan, Main Street project, etc. Evan Pierce and Bruce
Witenberg were elected co-chairs.
Councilmember Johnson reported there will be a formal dedication of the Allen House on the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places on August 29 at 3:00 p.m.
Packet Page 458 of 488
To Record
or Not to Record?
Toby Nixon
President
Washington Coalition for Open Government
president@washingtoncog.org
Packet Page 459 of 488
Independent, Non-partisan, Non-profit
“Dedicated to promoting and defending the
people’s right to know in matters of public
interest and in the conduct of the public’s
business. The Coalition’s driving vision is to
help foster open government processes,
supervised by an informed and engaged
citizenry, which is the cornerstone of
democracy.”
Packet Page 460 of 488
What does WCOG do?
Education
Forums, speakers, CLEs,
Web Site, Help Line, Op-Eds
Litigation
Amicus briefs and public
interest lawsuits
Legislation
Legislative Agenda, Bill
Tracking, Testimony
Recognition
Madison, Andersen, Key,
and Ballard-Thompson Awards
WCOG
Packet Page 461 of 488
“The legislature finds and declares that all
public commissions, boards, councils,
committees, subcommittees, departments,
divisions, offices, and all other public
agencies of this state and subdivisions
thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the
people's business. It is the intent of this
chapter that their actions be taken openly
and that their deliberations be conducted
openly.”
RCW 42.30.010
Packet Page 462 of 488
“The people of this state do not yield their
sovereignty to the agencies which serve
them. The people, in delegating authority, do
not give their public servants the right to
decide what is good for the people to
know and what is not good for them to
know. The people insist on remaining
informed so that they may retain control over
the instruments they have created.”
RCW 42.30.010
Packet Page 463 of 488
Executive Sessions
Executive sessions are meetings allowed
(but not required) to be closed to the
public because the people, through the
legislature, have determined that it is more
in the public interest than not that the
specific information to be discussed be
kept secret for some period of time.
Packet Page 464 of 488
Can Recordings Be Made?
Yes. Agencies can choose today to
make audio or video recordings, or to
keep notes or minutes, of executive
sessions. There is no prohibition of
such recordings.
Packet Page 465 of 488
Why Make Recordings?
Recordings can be useful for a number of agency
purposes:
•To resolve disagreements over what transpired or was said
•To hold attorneys and others accountable for advice given or
information provided in closed meetings
•To allow newly-appointed or newly-elected members of the
body to catch up on previous executive session discussions
•To improve the ability of the agency to defend itself if it is
accused of having an inappropriate discussion in an executive
session
Packet Page 466 of 488
Why Not Record?
Some argue that recordings would interfere with
frank, honest, free-flowing conversations.
•But that’s the point – executive sessions
should be limited to only the allowed topic
and nothing more.
•You shouldn’t have to be behind closed doors
to have a frank and honest discussion.
Packet Page 467 of 488
Why Not Record?
Some argue that making and securely
storing recordings would be expensive.
We’re not talking about a full recording studio with racks
of tapes. A digital audio recorder that can keep hundreds
of hours of audio can be purchased at Radio Shack for
under $50. Operation is trivial. The recorder can be
plugged into a PC via USB cable and recordings
transferred to a secure server, and be as well protected as
any other confidential electronic city records. No need for
expensive safes, locked file cabinets, or large amounts of
storage space.
Packet Page 468 of 488
Port of Seattle
•Digitally records all executive sessions
•Submits records to outside counsel for
periodic review for compliance
•Has not had many requests for disclosure
–but who knows what will happen with current
controversy
Packet Page 469 of 488
So Why Not Record?
Risk of disclosure under the Public Records Act.
Packet Page 470 of 488
Audio Recordings are Public Records
42.56.010 Definitions.
(3) "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of
government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned,
used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. For
the office of the secretary of the senate and the office of the chief clerk of the house of
representatives, public records means legislative records as defined in RCW 40.14.100 and also
means the following: All budget and financial records; personnel leave, travel, and payroll
records; records of legislative sessions; reports submitted to the legislature; and any other record
designated a public record by any official action of the senate or the house of representatives.
(4) "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and
every other means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not
limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers,
maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video
recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other
documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or
translated.
And that includes voicemails.
Packet Page 471 of 488
Not Automatically Exempt
Recordings of several of the allowed topics for
executive sessions would be exempt from
disclosure, but not all.
Packet Page 472 of 488
National Security
(a) To consider matters affecting national
security;
Rarely applies to cities. Some topics covered
under 42.56.420 (security plans and
vulnerabilities, prevention of terrorist acts).
Packet Page 473 of 488
Real Estate Transactions
(b) To consider the selection of a site or the acquisition of real
estate by lease or purchase when public knowledge regarding
such consideration would cause a likelihood of increased price;
(c) To consider the minimum price at which real estate will be
offered for sale or lease when public knowledge regarding such
consideration would cause a likelihood of decreased price.
However, final action selling or leasing public property shall be
taken in a meeting open to the public;
Real estate appraisals are covered by 42.56.260, but not
discussion of price willing to pay or sell for, or the fact that the
city is interested in the property.
Packet Page 474 of 488
Contract Performance
(d) To review negotiations on the performance
of publicly bid contracts when public knowledge
regarding such consideration would cause a
likelihood of increased costs;
Not covered by any known PRA exemption.
Packet Page 475 of 488
Complaints or Charges
(f) To receive and evaluate complaints or charges brought against a public
officer or employee. However, upon the request of such officer or employee,
a public hearing or a meeting open to the public shall be conducted upon
such complaint or charge;
Records of complaints against public employees are disclosable unless
determined to be unsubstantiated or false. 42.56.230(3), Bellevue John Does
v. Bellevue School District.
Some records may be exempt under the investigatory records exemption,
42.56.240(1).
Identity of persons filing complaints may be exempt under 42.56.240(2) if
their life, safety, or property may be endangered by disclosure, and they
request non-disclosure.
Packet Page 476 of 488
Evaluating Employment Applicants
(g) To evaluate the qualifications of an applicant for public
employment or to review the performance of a public employee.
However, subject to RCW 42.30.140(4), discussion by a governing body
of salaries, wages, and other conditions of employment to be generally
applied within the agency shall occur in a meeting open to the public,
and when a governing body elects to take final action hiring, setting
the salary of an individual employee or class of employees, or
discharging or disciplining an employee, that action shall be taken in a
meeting open to the public;
Names, resumes, other application materials are exempt from
disclosure under 42.56.250(2). No exemption for other content of
discussion.
Packet Page 477 of 488
Filing Vacancies on Council
(h) To evaluate the qualifications of a candidate
for appointment to elective office. However, any
interview of such candidate and final action
appointing a candidate to elective office shall be
in a meeting open to the public;
Not exempt under PRA.
Packet Page 478 of 488
Attorney-Client Communication
(i) To discuss with legal counsel representing the agency matters
relating to agency enforcement actions, or to discuss with legal
counsel representing the agency litigation or potential litigation
to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in
an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party, when public
knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an
adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency. …
All materials are likely exempt under RCW 42.56.290 or
5.60.060(2)(a), which are broader than the allowed purposes
for executive sessions for attorney-client communication, and
include all “attorney work product”.
Packet Page 479 of 488
Not Applicable to Cities
(e) …export trading company…;
(j) …state library…;
(k) …state investment board…;
(l) …state purchased health care services…;
(m) …life sciences discovery fund authority…;
(n) …health sciences and services authority…;
(o) …innovate Washington….
Packet Page 480 of 488
RCW 42.30.140
Meetings described in RCW 42.30.140 are
technically not “executive sessions”, in that they
do not require the agency to first convene in an
announced public meeting, declare the purpose
and duration of the closed meeting, and then
return to public session to adjourn. “140”
meetings can be entirely secret, although many
agencies treat them the same as “110”
executive sessions.
Packet Page 481 of 488
License Proceedings
(1) The proceedings concerned with the formal issuance of an
order granting, suspending, revoking, or denying any license,
permit, or certificate to engage in any business, occupation, or
profession or to any disciplinary proceedings involving a member
of such business, occupation, or profession, or to receive a
license for a sports activity or to operate any mechanical device
or motor vehicle where a license or registration is necessary; or
Business license proceedings occur in cities, but are not exempt
under the PRA.
Packet Page 482 of 488
Quasi-Judicial Proceedings
(2) That portion of a meeting of a quasi-judicial
body which relates to a quasi-judicial matter
between named parties as distinguished from a
matter having general effect on the public or on
a class or group; or
Cities have quasi-judicial discussions for
permitting, etc. Not exempt under the PRA.
Packet Page 483 of 488
APA Proceedings
(3) Matters governed by chapter 34.05 RCW, the
Administrative Procedure Act; or
Does not apply to cities.
Packet Page 484 of 488
Labor Negotiations, etc.
(4)(a) Collective bargaining sessions with employee organizations,
including contract negotiations, grievance meetings, and discussions
relating to the interpretation or application of a labor agreement; or
(b) that portion of a meeting during which the governing body is
planning or adopting the strategy or position to be taken by the
governing body during the course of any collective bargaining,
professional negotiations, or grievance or mediation proceedings, or
reviewing the proposals made in the negotiations or proceedings while
in progress.
Information regarding unfair practices exempt under 42.56.250(4)
and (5). Otherwise, not exempt under PRA.
Packet Page 485 of 488
So, What to Do?
WCOG supports enactment of additional PRA
exemptions:
•Specific public records exemptions to cover
each of the executive session topics, even if
the material is discussed in writing rather than
in an executive session.
•Blanket public records exemption for all
recordings, minutes, and notes of executive
sessions.
Packet Page 486 of 488
In the Meantime…
Be selective. Have a policy to not record
executive sessions when the discussion would
not be exempt from the PRA, or retain only a
high-level summary of the nature of the
discussion without the key details. But do
consider the benefits of recordings or notes on
key topics that would be exempt from
disclosure.
Packet Page 487 of 488
Washington Coalition for Open Government
6351 Seaview Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98107
(206) 782-0393
info@washingtoncog.org
www.washingtoncog.org
Packet Page 488 of 488