2012.10.02 CC Agenda Packet
AGENDA
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL
Council Chambers ~ Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds
OCTOBER 2, 2012
6:15 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
1.(45 Minutes)Convene in executive session regarding labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b).
7:00 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.AM-5147 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2012.
C.AM-5149 Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 25, 2012.
D.AM-5150 Approval of claim checks #134435 through #134555 dated September 27, 2012 for
$291,678.16.
E.AM-5142 Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Hilary Renee Schnell (amount
undertermined).
F.AM-5155 Grant Agreement for Historic Preservation.
G.AM-5144 2012 Law Enforcement Support Service Employees' collective bargaining agreement.
H.AM-5148 Approval of updated represented (union) job descriptions.
4.(5 Minutes)
AM-5088
Proclamation in honor of Sno-Isle Libraries 50th Year Celebration.
5.(5 Minutes)
AM-5135
National Arts & Humanities Month Proclamation
Packet Page 1 of 413
6.(5 Minutes)
AM-5134
National Community Planning Month Proclamation
7.(15 Minutes)
AM-5146
Public Hearing: Acceptance of a gift of artwork from the Edmonds Arts Festival
Foundation.
8.(30 Minutes)
AM-5141
Public Hearing regarding taking minutes/notes during City Council executive sessions.
9.Audience Comments (3 minute limit per person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public
Hearings
10.(20 Minutes)
AM-5151
Report: Edmonds Center for the Arts
11.(15 Minutes)
AM-5154
Update from the Planning Board.
12.(45 Minutes)
AM-5124
Presentation on the Capital Facilities Plan (2013-2018) and the Capital Improvement
Program (2013-2018).
13.(45 Minutes)
AM-5153
Continued discussion regarding step-backs.
14.(5 Minutes)Mayor's Comments
15.(15 Minutes)Council Comments
ADJOURN
Packet Page 2 of 413
AM-5147 3. B.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2012.
Recommendation
Review and approval.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
09-18-12 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 09:26 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/27/2012 11:03 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/26/2012 01:39 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/27/2012
Packet Page 3 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 18, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers,
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember*
(*participated by phone for Agenda Item 6)
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Interim Development Serv. Dir.
Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Executive Session Regarding Labor Negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b)
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding labor
negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately
30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was
anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session
were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom.
Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Finance Director
Shawn Hunstock and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 7:04 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:07 p.m. and led the flag salute.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER, MOVING ITEM 6 TO FOLLOW AGENDA
ITEM 3 AND AGENDA ITEM 10 TO FOLLOW AGENDA ITEM 6.
Councilmember Bloom requested an opportunity to address Agenda Item 10.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO.
10. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING TAKING MINUTES/NOTES DURING
EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
Councilmember Bloom read from the minutes of the Council retreat, “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
Packet Page 4 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 2
their suggestions.” She acknowledged this subject has been on the Council agenda twice before and on Council
committee agendas twice but the Council has never taken public comment. The resolutions referenced in this
agenda item are very important and have been in place since 1996. Mayor Earling was the Council President at
that time; it was felt at that time that it was in the citizens’ best interest that minutes be taken of executive
sessions. She recommended no action be taken with regard to taking minutes/notes during executive session
until a public hearing has been held.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO PULL
ITEM 10, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING TAKING MINUTES/NOTES DURING
EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE FIRST POSSIBILITY.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Bloom advised she planned to make revisions to the minutes of the Public Safety and Personnel
Committee meeting.
2. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Item H be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Buckshnis
requested Item G be removed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, 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 SEPTEMBER 11, 2012.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #134142 THROUGH #134306 DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 2012
FOR $600,875.09.
D. APPROVAL OF THE LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR
LIQUOR LICENSE WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD FOR
THE MONTHS OF JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER.
E. JULY 2012 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A $500,000 GRANT CONTRACT WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR THE MAIN ST. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BETWEEN 5TH AND 6TH AVENUES.
I. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 2010 WATERMAIN
REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
J. 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.
ITEM H: 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.
Councilmember Petso stated she pulled this item so that she could abstain from the vote.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ITEM G. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO
ABSTAINING.
Packet Page 5 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 3
ITEM G: AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN AGREEMENTS WITH BLUE STAR GAS
SEATTLE CO. AND CARBURETOR CONNECTION INC. RE: VEHICLE FLEET PROPANE
CONVERSION.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the conversions will be funded via the General Fund and payback will
occur within 24 months. She requested Public Works Director Phil Williams make a brief presentation. Mr.
Williams introduced Brett Flanagan, Director of Sales, Blue Gas Seattle Co. and Dave Brazil, Auto Gas Fleet
Specialist. He explained this item involves the approval of two contracts, the first with Blue Star Gas Seattle Co.
which will result in the conversion of 17 City vehicles to propane as their primary fuel source. Sixteen of the
seventeen vehicles are police cars currently in the City’s fleet. The kit works very well on Crown Victoria police
cars and because they are high mileage vehicles, the payback is much faster than any other City vehicle. The
other vehicle to be converted via this contract is a Ford F-350 truck, which when delivered, will be owned by the
City’s Street Department.
Mr. Williams explained the conversion does not replace the vehicle’s existing fuel system. All the vehicles will
retain their approximately 21 gallon gas tank for regular unleaded gasoline as well as the propane tank which
will dramatically extend the range and flexibility of the vehicles. It provides a backup fuel source in an
emergency and gives the Police Department more flexibility with regard to response time and time on the street
without refueling.
The propane conversion is a very safe installation. Propane is a much safer fuel than the unleaded regular gas the
vehicles currently use today. The cost of the conversion is $5,095 plus tax per vehicle. The cost of propane
today via the City’s contract with Blue Start Gas is approximately $1.61/gallon compared with the cost of
regular gas which is $3.59/gallon, a $1.98/gallon difference. There is an approximately 8% difference in
efficiency between unleaded regular gas and propane. The total contract is $111,000 including tax to convert the
17 vehicles; the vendor guarantees a minimum of a $1.25 difference in price between propane and regular gas
for the first 24 months. For the last 3 years of the 5 year contract, the vendor guarantees a $1.00 difference per
gallon. Regardless of the market for propane and unleaded gas, the City has a built in, guaranteed savings. The
result is an approximately 45% return on investment over the 5 year contract. If the current $1.98/gallon cost of
propane continues for the next 5 years, the payback is even better; the difference in price would exceed
$111,000 plus an additional $310,000 over the 5 years. Either way, it is an extremely good City investment.
Councilmember Johnson asked if the propane conversion could be moved to a newer vehicle when the existing
vehicles are retired. Mr. Williams replied yes, the kits are highly mobile. The cost of installation by a third party
is $1400; it is hoped in the future that the City’s shop will be able to install the conversions in new vehicles.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if there was any change in the vehicle’s power. Mr. Williams answered staff
did acceleration tests in a demo vehicle with the dual fuel system that was provided by the vendor. The
consensus of those in the car was it seemed to be smoother and quieter and run a little better on propane than on
unleaded regular gas.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the conversion kit could be moved to a smaller vehicle such as if the Police
Department decided to use Ford Mustangs. Mr. Williams answered there could be some issues with moving the
kit into a very small vehicle. He doubted the Police Department would change to a patrol vehicle that was as
small as a Mustang as a larger vehicle is required to accommodate the equipment and electronics required in the
modern police patrol vehicle. Some modifications in the geometry of the vehicles were required to make room
for the propane tank but staff is satisfied those compromises are worthwhile and there is little loss of space in the
vehicle’s interior.
Councilmember Buckshnis inquired about the federal and state taxes for gas and propane. Mr. Williams
commented since propane is an alternative fuel, the City will save 42 tons/year in greenhouse gas emissions via
these conversions. The conversion is good for the environment as well as financially. To stimulate the
Packet Page 6 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 4
environmental benefits, the state provides a waiver of the state fuel tax on propane if the vehicle is registered.
The cost to register the vehicle is $147/year. The $147/year registration fee is cost effective for these high
mileage vehicles.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO
APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM G.
Councilmember Johnson observed funding for the conversion for the police vehicle is from the General Fund;
funding for the conversion for the Street Department’s Ford F-350 is proposed to be from the Street Fund.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO AMEND THE MOTION SO THAT FUNDING FOR ALL CONVERSIONS BE FROM
THE GENERAL FUND TO PRESERVE THE STREET FUND FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS.
Mr. Williams explained the proposal was to fund the capital cost of the conversion from the fund that will
benefit from the cost savings. The Street Fund will benefit from the fuel savings from conversion of the Ford
F350 and the General Fund will benefit via fuel savings from conversion of the police vehicles. He envisioned
utility vehicles would be converted in the future and expected the cost to convert those vehicles to come from
the Utility Fund, an enterprise fund, and the savings to accrue to the Utility Fund.
Councilmember Johnson observed the source of those funds is TBD and gas tax. Because there are so little
funds devoted to street improvements, she preferred to retain those funds in the Street Fund. To her it was the
principle rather than a cost savings.
Mayor Earling commented the General Fund needs help this year as well. He encouraged the Council to keep
costs related to the fund that the savings will benefit.
In response to Councilmember Bloom’s request for clarification, Councilmember Buckshnis explained
Councilmember Johnson’s motion was that the cost of the conversion be funded by the General Fund. Mr.
Williams’ proposal was that future conversions be funded from the fund that would benefit from the cost
savings. Councilmember Buckshnis understood Councilmember Johnson’s intent because the City has not been
paving streets but she preferred to keep funding related to the cost in the fund that would benefit from the cost
savings. She did not support the amendment.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (1-5), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON VOTING YES.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director, thanked the Council, the Mayor and members of the community
who helped with the first, inaugural Edmonds half marathon on Sunday, September 16. It was a very successful
event with over 330 runners. The community answered her plea for help when Councilmember Yamamoto was
unable to continue his lead role in the event. She also thanked the four police officers and parks staff who helped
on Sunday. There are plans to hold the half marathon again next year. She provided each Councilmember a
finisher’s medallion and plaque.
Rita Miller, Edmonds, spoke on behalf of the “murdered trees on Main Street.” She asked who authorized
removal of the trees on Main Street that she felt were not in the way of the new pipes. She asked a staff member
and was told they were removed to protect “old people like you and me” from tripping. As a walker on Main
Street daily, she has never seen any trip hazards nor anyone tripping. She has requested statistics regarding the
number of trips or falls that have occurred on Main Street. She explained the trees on Main Street were well
shaped, unobtrusive, provided shade and serenity, took carbon dioxide from the air and produced oxygen. She
Packet Page 7 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 5
requested the remaining three trees be preserved. She recalled when the previous trees were cut due to the
alleged danger of slipping on the leaves. Now the City is paying to remove those trees and replant 2½-inch
circumference trees. She requested larger trees be replanted.
Public Works Director Phil Williams responded the Council is familiar with the project as it has been discussed
for a couple of years; in presentations to the Council, grant funding agencies, businesses and property owners on
Main and at public meetings, the project description has always included removal of the current trees and
replacement with species that are better behaved as street trees. The project includes replacement of everything
from building front to building front, 60 feet of right-of-way, new wider sidewalks, curbs, and gutters; street
paving, new stormwater collection system and infiltration trench, new waterline, new mid-block crossing, new
street lights, and new wiring. It would have been virtually impossible to work around the existing large
European Hornbeams and their robust root systems without mortally wounding them. The trees are responsible
for nearly all the damage in the sidewalks. The existing trees were planted approximately 35 years ago, they
grew quickly and it is time for them to be replaced.
The European Hornbeams will be replaced with Bowhall Maples which are good street trees, more columnar in
shape which is thought to be a more successful tree in front of retail. Four October Glory Maple trees will be
planted at the intersection of 6th & Main. The October Glory Maple tree is more rounded in shape and a
different color to create contrast. The new trees will also absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen; younger,
faster growing trees do so at a higher rate. With regard to the circumference of the trees, he explained it would
be difficult to fit trees larger in this location due to the size of the root balls. The trees will grow rapidly and well
in these locations.
Mr. Williams commented any attempt to save the trees would not have saved all of them; some of them would
have been sacrificed which would have resulted in the retention of some very large European Hornbeams
interspersed with the smaller Bowhall Maples in an irregular pattern without any symmetry.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether there was any way the three remaining trees could be retained
and the work on Main Street finished. Mr. Williams answered the cost would be exorbitant and working around
three existing trees would require a very large change order. He was uncertain they could be saved even if an
effort were made.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether the remaining trees could be transplanted. Mr. William
answered he has seen the equipment that is used to transplant a tree of that size but the cost is very elaborate.
Companies that move large trees rarely guarantee the results.
Councilmember Bloom asked whether larger trees could be planted. Mr. Williams answered there is a sizable
cost associated with trees larger than 2½ inches. In addition, the root balls of 3-4 inch trees are enormous, which
results in a higher cost for the equipment to handle a larger tree as well as excavating and backfilling a larger
hole. He noted a larger tree is seldom planted in a project such as this. Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite
agreed a larger caliber tree is costly. The same analysis was done for the Hazel Miller plaza.
Councilmember Bloom asked how rapidly the trees will grow. Ms. Hite answered the trees will be fairly large in
3-5 years. Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton pointed out the trees in the
plaza of the Civic Center Building are Bowhall Maples and are approximately 10 years old.
Councilmember Petso asked how many trees were removed and planted as part of the Main Street project. Mr.
Williams answered 16 trees were removed and 18 will be planted.
Susan Phillip, Edmonds, explained she has been swimming at Yost Pool for about 15 years and has never
thanked the Council. She thanked the City for having Yost Pool open this past summer. She commented on the
incredible experience swimming outdoors, the beautiful scenery, the feel of the water, the camaraderie with
Packet Page 8 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 6
other swimmers. She summarized many children and families enjoy swimming at Yost Pool. She complimented
the staff at Yost Pool who are very accommodating. When completing a survey staff distributed at the pool, she
simply wrote FUN. She looked forward to many more summers swimming at Yost Pool. Mayor Earling assured
at this time there are no cuts anticipated for Yost Pool.
Ron Wambolt, Edmonds, referred to the police contract with the Town of Woodway. He explained the
Edmonds Police Department responded to 30,413 incidents during 2011 and 22,018 incidents not including
traffic stops. Calls to Woodway are included in the 22,018. The Police Department budget for 2012 is $9.5
million. Assuming the number of non-traffic incidents in 2012 will be the same as 2011 and applying 100% of
the Police Department’s expenses to the 22,108 incidents, equates to $431 per incident. A calculation of $431
multiplied by 10 calls as proposed in Woodway’s contract equates to $4,310/month. The charge should be
something less than that amount because Edmonds Police do not patrol Woodway for crime prevention or do
any parking enforcement. To those that think Edmonds Police Department’s time is excessively diluted by calls
to Woodway, the annual report indicates there were 822 incidents per Field Services Officer in 2012. Assuming
the same would be true in 2012, Woodway’s 120 calls are only 15% of one of those officers’ time. His
understanding was without this contract with Woodway, the City will lose revenue but not lose any expenses.
Edmonds has not been subsidizing Woodway as some have suggested. He urged the Council to make an
unemotional and objective assessment and approve the proposed contract.
Jenny Anttila, Edmonds, commented everyone loves Edmonds but there is a silent killer in Edmonds, the train.
The number of trains is increasing and a quiet zone is needed which she acknowledged is expensive. She
recalled a meeting this summer regarding problems created with access to the waterfront by the increasing
number of trains but it did not address the noise. Until the City can afford a quiet zone, she recommended the
City discuss with Burlington Northern how often the train horn is activated when traveling through Edmonds
day and night. She commented on the potential for noise from planes from Paine Field and the noise from
ferries, summarizing the train noise is particularly bothersome and getting worse.
Al Rutledge, Edmonds, referred to Agenda Item 5, Budget Schedule, commenting the budget is an important
issue to many citizens.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, commented regarding the City needing to deal with the Edmonds School District
(ESD) on several park properties. Projects listed in the CIP include a pool complex and the old Edmonds-
Woodway High School for ballfields only. He recommended combining those projects because there is space at
the old Edmonds-Woodway High School for a pool. He recommended appointing a Council representative to
the ESD Board, similar to the Council liaison to the Port in order to establish a rapport with the School District
and the Board. He also commented that he was glad to see there is a presentation on tonight’s agenda regarding
chip sealing.
6. POLICE SERVICES CONTRACT - TOWN OF WOODWAY
(Councilmember Yamamoto participated in this item by phone.)
Police Chief Al Compaan explained this matter was last before the Council on August 6. Since that time,
Council President Peterson has engaged with representatives from Woodway to reach terms acceptable to both
parties. The proposed Police Services Contract is a flat fee of $3,000/month for up to 10 police responses into
the Town of Woodway and an additional charge pro-rated every 15 minutes for a second officer on a response.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the proposed contract included a cost escalator or cost of living adjustment
after one year. Chief Compaan answered it did not. The contract has a two year term with an option for a two
year renewal.
Packet Page 9 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 7
Councilmember Petso asked for a typical escalator in department costs. Chief Compaan answered the Consumer
Price Index (CPI-W) increase June 2011 to June 2012 was 2.7%. Councilmember Petso asked whether Police
Department costs increased in line with CPI-W. Chief Compaan answered roughly they do.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT WITH THE TOWN OF
WOODWAY.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Council President Peterson for negotiating this contract with Woodway. She
ran the numbers and the proposed $3,000/month contract covers overtime and other costs. She supported the
proposed contract, pointing out there was a social equity issue that also needs to be considered.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE MOTION SO THAT THE CONTRACT RATE BE INCREASED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CPI AT THE END OF ONE YEAR.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if CPI was approximately 5%. Chief Compaan answered the CPI-W increase
2011-2012 was 2.7%. Councilmember Buckshnis observed that would be approximately an $80/month increase.
Chief Compaan relayed Woodway’s request that the City bill them on a quarterly basis if the Council approved
the proposed contract.
Councilmember Bloom recalled the comment that Edmonds would provide services to Woodway even without a
contract. Her understanding of that comment was that it would only be in an emergency, life and death situation.
Chief Compaan agreed. Councilmember Bloom asked how many emergency, life and death situations there have
been. Chief Compaan responded Priority 1 calls are approximately 10% of the total number of calls in
Woodway in a year.
Councilmember Bloom summarized her understanding was if Edmonds did not have a contract with Woodway
to provide police services, Edmonds Police would still provide service but only for a very small number of calls.
Chief Compaan agreed. Councilmember Bloom asked if that was also true of Esperance. Chief Compaan agreed
it was.
Councilmember Bloom referred to comments that the benefit of the police services contract with Woodway was
the City would get some money for services the Police Department would provide anyway. However, her
understanding was the amount of service the Edmonds Police Department would provide without a contract
would be very minimal. Chief Compaan agreed.
Councilmember Bloom recalled when this issue was last discussed there was a cost comparison of the 2012 per
capita spending on police services between Edmonds and Woodway. She supported a full service contract rather
than the previously proposed contract, because the cost of direct police services per $1000 of assessed value in
Edmonds is $1.50 versus $0.36 in Woodway. She asked Chief Compaan to comment on how a cost per call was
used to determine the proposed contract versus using assessed valuation. Chief Compaan answered there were a
myriad of ways of calculating reasonable compensation for providing police services to Woodway. What is
reasonable and fair is what both parties are willing to pay/receive. The $3,000 proposed monthly cost was
determined by the total number of calls in Edmonds in a year divided into the 2012 budget which equates to
approximately $300/call. He acknowledged it is a different calculation than was shared by Mr. Wambolt but
neither is incorrect; they are just different ways of looking at the same set of data. Council President Peterson
reached agreement with Woodway on a contract amount that he determined was a responsible amount and that
Woodway was willing to pay.
Packet Page 10 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 8
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS
BLOOM, FRALEY-MONILLAS, AND PETSO VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, AND COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, BUCKSHNIS AND JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked how the number of police were determined, whether it was based on
population or historical calls. Chief Compaan answered both, there is no magic formula; it is very dependent on
the community, the demand for services, crime rate and population.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked him to describe the L-5 population indicator that is used to determine the
number of patrol officers. Chief Compaan answered it depends on the community; the City of Seattle has a
much higher ratio of police officers per 1,000 residents than Edmonds but the nature of police activity is also
different. Edmonds currently has approximately 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents; Seattle is significantly higher.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked whether population of L-5 cities is considered for salaries and benefits.
Chief Compaan answered yes with regard to the compensation policy; that is different than the number of police
officers in a community.
Councilmember Petso recalled when she contacted the Edmonds Police Department for a breakdown between
residential and commercial burglary calls, staff indicated that data was not available at this time but would be
available with the New World system. Chief Compaan explained when the New World system is operational,
hopefully next year, the recovery of data to such inquiries would be much easier. Today it is very difficult if not
impossible to extract that data.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO STRIKE SECTION 1.3, WHICH STATES, “THIS AGREEMENT MAY BE
EXTENDED ONCE FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEAR PERIOD FROM JANUARY 1, 2015
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016 ON THE SAME TERMS OR SUCH OTHER TERMS AS THE
PARTIES MAY DEEM APPROPRIATE.”
Councilmember Johnson recognized the City is facing a budget deficit; it would be prudent to limit the City’s
commitment to two years and continue to evaluate the contract in the coming years to consider all options.
Council President Peterson indicated he would support the proposed amendment. During the next two years the
New World system will be able to provide more specific data.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented having an outstanding relationship with a neighboring city is
always important but continuing a partnership is a reciprocal relationship. The contract as proposed is a
detriment to the taxpayers of Edmonds. The Council has not done its due diligence to get cost comparisons.
Woodway has gotten estimates from surrounding police forces of the cost to provide police services; Woodway
has not provided the City those estimates but she has been told they are more than 10 times more than what
Woodway would pay under the proposed contract with Edmonds. To the question of what is the right amount to
charge Woodway, she pointed out that was unknown as the contract was based on good fiscal times when
staffing levels in the Police Department were much higher. The only cost comparison is what Woodway pays
Fire District 1 which is over $500,000/year. The money Woodway pays Fire District 1 is their insurance policy.
The cost for fire service is based on population, not number of calls as Woodway would like to pay Edmonds for
police services. Woodway had less than 30 fire calls/year which equates to approximately $17,000 per call.
Edmonds bases its number of police, types of specialists in the Edmonds Police Department such as drug
taskforce, reconstructionists, detectives, hostage teams, property managers, etc. and hard costs such as Kelly
hours, callback, leave accruals, salaries, specialty pay, etc. on population. L-5 has been the tool used for salary
and benefit costs which is based on population, not the number of calls or whether calls are residential or
commercial. The size of the City’s police force is not determined by number of calls.
Packet Page 11 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 9
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas explained the Edmonds Police Department budget is approximately $9.5
million/year; 25-33% of the City’s total budget. The 39,000 Edmonds citizens support the $9.5 million budget,
approximately $245/person/year. Woodway has approximately 1500 citizens; a cost for police services of
$360,000/year based on this population data. Less the average of 8 hours/day of Woodway’s current coverage,
means Woodway should pay approximately $240,000/year or $20,000 month to break even. When someone
purchases an insurance policy or police services for their home, it is insurance in case something happens. She
has been purchasing homeowners insurance for 25 years and has never filed a claim but if she needed to, it
would be there. She will respectfully support the citizens of Edmonds and the Edmonds Police Department and
will vote no on subsidizing Woodway.
Councilmember Petso did not support the motion as she did not feel a per call fee, a flat fee or partial service
was a reasonable way to pay for police services. She supported Chief Compaan’s earlier suggestion to offer
Woodway a full service contract and the benefits that would provide both cities. She pointed out the difficulty
pricing partial service; using the numbers Councilmember Fraley-Monillas provided, Edmonds citizens pay
$245/person; under the proposed contract, Woodway citizens would pay $24/person which is not equitable. She
referred comments that this as a backup service contract, pointing out in police service there is no backup
service; the service provided is that a citizen can call anytime something happens and police personnel will
come with the right equipment to address the situation. That is the service citizens are paying for even though
they never or rarely have the need to call the police.
Councilmember Petso explained the difficulty of a partial service contract. She used the example of Edmonds
residents living in a secure complex with alarms and fences who never call the police; should they get a partial
service contract like Woodway? They would not because citizens pay for the availability of the service, not
based on how much they personally use the service. She did not support the motion and preferred a full service
contract with Woodway for police services.
Councilmember Bloom thanked Councilmember Fraley-Monillas for her research and Councilmember Petso for
her comments. She also did not support the motion. She pointed out the per capita comparison was presented
when the Council last discussed this contract. That information indicated if Woodway paid the same
$1.50/$1000 assessed value as Edmonds, Woodway’s budget for direct police services would be $663,944/year.
If Woodway paid the same $246 per capita as Edmonds, Woodway’s budget for direct police services would be
$321,030. She could not support the proposed contract of $36,000 to provide 16 hours of service/day to
Woodway. She felt that devalued the excellent Edmonds Police force and gave away police services.
Councilmember Bloom pointed out another issue is this contract is proposed in advance of a budget that the
Council does not know whether will include cutting a police officer or more; $36,000/year does not even cover
the cost of one officer. She could possibly consider a compromise, covering the cost of one police officer. She
concluded there was no way she would put this on the back of citizens, expecting them to pay for services
provided to Woodway.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented this is not a black and white issue. There are Woodway citizens that sit
on City boards and at the Edmonds Center for the Arts, dine at restaurants in the Edmonds, and shop in
Edmonds. She acknowledged $36,000/year to some is not worth bothering with but there is a social equity issue.
Once Edmonds begins Budgeting By Priorities (approximately when this contract expires and when the New
World system will be operational) more data will be available regarding an appropriate amount. She did not
support increasing the police services contract with Woodway from $7,000, the amount they paid last year, to
$420,000 or $265,000. She summarized $36,000/year, based on hours of service plus $75 per 15 minute
increment is a fair contract amount.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas summarized she was standing for the citizens of Edmonds, not the citizens of
Woodway. Woodway should not be rewarded for sitting on boards or coming to Edmonds via a gift of public
funds.
Packet Page 12 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 10
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (4-3);
COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS, JOHNSON, YAMAMOTO, AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON VOTING YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS FRALEY-MONILLAS, BLOOM AND PETSO
VOTING NO.
(Councilmember Yamamoto discontinued his participation in the Council meeting by phone.)
4. INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FARMERS MARKETS IN BUSINESS COMMERCIAL
(BC) AND BUSINESS DOWNTOWN (BD) ZONES.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained the City has been approached
by the Edmonds Historical Museum regarding operating a produce-only farmers market on Wednesday evenings
in the BC (Commercial Business) or BD (Downtown Business) zones beginning in late September this year and
extending through approximately November. The City’s Development Code does not expressly list farmers
markets as a permitted use in the BC or BD zones. The code allows seasonal markets to operate but only during
May to September.
If approved by the City Council, the proposed interim zoning ordinance would allow farmers markets in the BC
and BD zones. In addition to the issue of farmers markets, staff looked at other areas of the code and found the
licensing section, 4.90, also needs significant revisions. If the City Council desires to extend the life of the
existing Saturday Market or create a year-round farmers market, that would not be allowed under the current
licensing provisions. For example, the licensing section only allows the market to take place on Saturday or
Sunday in public rights-of-way between the months of July and September. The current market, which operates
between May and October, does not adhere to the existing code. The City’s code references community open air
markets; a year-round market would likely need to be indoors during the winter months. The code also
references the year 1994 and a “test.” He summarized the current market is well beyond the testing phase and
has proven to be very successful. Another issue that needs to be reviewed is the possibility of allowing
community markets in the public right-of-way as well as on public and private property.
The proposed interim zoning ordinance would allow the produce-only farmers market in the BC and BD zones
through November. Within the next 60 days, staff will draft code revisions to address the issues of farmers
markets, community-oriented market, community-oriented open air market, etc. as well as how the markets
would operate on public right-of-way, public property or private property.
A question was raised at the Parks, Planning, and Public Works Committee meeting regarding operation of a
market within a densely populated area, specifically BD4 and BD5. Mr. Clifton explained the BD5 zone is
located on 4th Avenue between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts; there are no suitable locations
for the type of market the Edmonds Historical Museum wants to operate, up to 27 vendors. The Edmonds
Historical Museum likely would operate along the waterfront such as on Port property or the Antique Mall
property. The Historical Museum inquired about operating in the Public Works Maintenance Yard at 2nd &
Dayton but that is not feasible due to the existing tenants’ utilization of the parking lot on Wednesday evenings.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked where the Wednesday farmers market could be located and suggested the
atrium on the other side of Artworks on 2nd & Dayton. Mr. Clifton replied that site would not be large enough
for 27 vendors. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if streets would be closed to accommodate the Wednesday
market. Mr. Clifton explained the Wednesday market would likely be located at the Port or the Antique Mall
property. After researching the downtown area, those are the two areas that could host such an event.
Councilmember Bloom thanked Mr. Clifton for the work that was done on this. In the strategic planning
process, a year-round market was one of citizens’ highest priorities; this is a step in that direction. She relayed
her understanding that the proposed interim ordinance would allow a produce-only market but not crafts such as
the current summer market offers. Mr. Clifton agreed, explaining the produce-only market might include
Packet Page 13 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 11
produce related products such as jams. Councilmember Bloom asked whether vendors have expressed interest in
a produce-only market. Mr. Clifton answered there has been interest expressed.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding that the interim ordinance would be in effect for six months
and during that time the Planning Board will review the issues Mr. Clifton agreed.
Mr. Clifton clarified even if the Council approves the interim ordinance, it does not necessarily mean
negotiations will result in a produce-only farmers market this year. The interim ordinance was required to allow
negotiations regarding a produce-only farmers market to begin.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS,
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 3894, 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.
Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Clifton to describe the location of the BC and BD zones. Mr. Clifton
explained the BC zone is primarily the Antique Mall, the old Skipper’s property currently Vatika, and the
parking lot between the Sound Transit Station. The Port of Edmonds is zoned CW (Commercial Waterfront) and
the remainder of the downtown is zoned BD1 – BD5.
Councilmember Johnson suggested it may be appropriate to have vendors who offer arts, crafts and non-food
items in the pre-holiday months. Mr. Clifton responded the Edmonds Historical Museum’s request was for a
produce-only farmers market for a couple months. The interim zoning ordinance was intended to accommodate
that request. Councilmember Johnson pointed out there is another market that precedes the summer market. Mr.
Clifton agreed, explaining that is the garden market. The summer market begins in July. Councilmember
Johnson suggested the different markets be clarified when this matter is reviewed by the Planning Board. Mr.
Clifton assured staff plans to clarify the four different markets. The City’s code references community-oriented
open air market and the definitions section references seasonal farmers market but there is no reference to a
farmers market. The interim ordinance inserts the term “farmers market” into the BC and BD zoning.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO AMEND
THE MOTION TO REVISE SECTION 6 ON PAGE 7 TO READ, “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 AND/OR BD
ZONES WHILE THE PLANNING BOARD HOLDS A PUBLIC HEARING, GAINS PUBLIC INPUT ON
THIS ISSUE…” MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. 2013 BUDGET SCHEDULE
Finance Director Shawn Hunstock reviewed the budget schedule:
• September 25: 2013 Budget review work session (60 Minutes)
o Each department head will provide a 5-10 minute high level overview of department budget
including major changes, service level impacts of any proposed reductions, etc.
o Preview of budget charts, tables, policies, historical information, etc.
• October 9: Finance Committee - Review Property Tax Ordinance (15 Minutes)
• October 16: Presentation of Preliminary 2013 Budget (30 minutes)
o The Finance Director will give a brief overview of the exhibits, layout and changes.
o High level overview of budget assumptions, major revenue sources, expenditures by fund and
department.
• October 23: Budget Work Session (3 Hours)
Packet Page 14 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 12
o Detailed page by page review of preliminary budget.
o Q&A with Mayor, Department Heads, and Staff.
• October 30 (Fifth Tuesday): Budget Work Session (3 Hours)
o Continued detailed page by page review of preliminary budget.
o At least one Councilmember is unable to attend this meeting.
• November 5
o Public Hearing - Revenue sources including property tax increases (20 Minutes).
o Public Hearing - 2013 Budget (20 Minutes).
o Property Tax Resolution and Ordinance (20 Minutes).
• November 20
o Public Hearing - 2013 Budget (20 Minutes).
o 2013 budget adoption (20 minutes).
Mr. Hunstock explained the dates of the October 23 and 30 budget work sessions are flexible and could be
rescheduled. Between presentation of the preliminary budget on October 16 and the beginning of the required
budget public hearings, there will be at least two opportunities for the Council to review the budget in detail.
The property tax ordinance, scheduled for public hearing and review on November 5, is required to be adopted
prior to November 30. Adoption of the 2013 budget, tentatively scheduled for November 20, could be delayed
until December.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the monthly and quarterly financial reports have been revised to include
narratives and graphs. The Finance Committee discussed including that information in the budget document to
provide clarity for citizens. That information will also help citizens understand the City’s financial condition in
the event the City moves forward with a General Fund levy.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas asked when this information will be available on the City’s website. Mr.
Hunstock answered the Council agenda packet with the dates is currently on the City’s website. He offered to
update the Finance Department webpage to include these dates.
7. HEARING EXAMINER ANNUAL REPORT.
Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts explained he has been a hearing examiner since the late 1990s and has held
over 1200 hearings. He is currently the hearing examiner for ten municipalities including San Juan County, Port
Townsend, Federal Way, and Auburn and alternate examiner for Snohomish County and Lakewood. He has held
hearings for every conceivable type of land use action including the largest residential development project in
King County: a planned community in Black Diamond worth $2.5 billion, 6,000 homes and over a million
square feet of commercial space. He has worked with all the best attorneys in the State and has addressed all the
biggest issues.
As of yesterday, he had issued only nine decisions in the last year in Edmonds. The nine decisions included four
variances, two conditional use permits, two subdivisions and one administrative appeal. Today he issued a
decision on the Mengenity tree cutting code enforcement action. He was unable to discuss that decision as it was
still in the appeal period for reconsideration.
He explained the City’s tree cutting regulations provide a wide array of discretion for imposing penalties. For
example, for cutting a tree 3 inches in diameter or more the fines range from zero to $3000 and there is no
guidance regarding the imposition of the fines. Staff initially makes a recommendation on the notice of violation
and appeals come to the hearing examiner. There are a number of factors that can be considered with regard to
tree cutting; for him a very important factor is culpability of the property owner; did they act with knowledge
the act was violating the tree ordinance, or how much did they work with the City to get approval, etc. Other
factors include damage caused by cutting, impact to adjoining property owners, etc. Over time decisions will
establish precedence that will provide predictability and consistency to the decision-making but there are
Packet Page 15 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 13
currently no legislative standards. He encouraged the Council to review decisions as they are made. If the
Council felt staff and he were not headed in the right direction, he welcomed the Council’s direction such as
adding standards to the code or making tree cutting a strict liability offense where a fine is imposed for trees cut
without a permit or authorization from the City.
Mr. Olbrechts reviewed the nine decisions he issued since his last annual report in October 2011:
• Walgreens Conditional Use (6/28/12): Approved. Proposal to replace Robin Hood Lanes with a
Walgreens and a drive-through bank. The proposal generated considerable public opposition due to the
loss of the bowling alley. Numerous people wanted the project denied solely on the basis that they
didn’t want to lose the bowling alley. The decision noted that this was not a valid basis for denial and
that the City does not have the authority to force property owners to continue operating a business.
• Edmonds Variance (5/3/12): Approved. Variance to noise standards to allow nighttime rehabilitation
work at nine wastewater lift stations. Work at each lift station would take two to four weeks with noise
continuously exceeding City noise standards throughout the nighttime hours. Strict conditions imposed,
including noise studies; notice to all affected property owners of the specific hours of work and the
provision of a contact number for complaints; time limits on work and report to the City Council on
complaints.
• Kanczugowski Variance (4/27/12): Denied. After-the-fact variance require for carport that was built
7.5 feet from a street setback in the RS-8 zone, which imposes a 25-foot setback. The home already had
a garage. There was nothing unique about the property to justify a variance.
• Burnstead PRD/Plat (3/7/12): Approved. Remand from Court of Appeals 27 lot PRD Plat. Mr.
Olbrechts recused himself because a former law partner had been representing the City in litigation
against some of the parties which he felt would be a conflict.
• Key Bank Conditional Use (2/9/12): Approved. Replacement of existing gas station with Key Bank at
corner of Edmonds Way and 100th Ave W. The traffic analysis did not appear to address a couple traffic
issues and the conditions of approval required additional analysis.
• Dent Variance (1/27/12): Approved, Request for side yard setback to expand home. Lot was 42-feet
wide and side yard setbacks totaled 35 feet, leaving only 7 feet for development. The existing home had
a 928 square foot first floor and 672 square foot second floor. Proposed home expansion made size of
home more consistent with those in vicinity. Lot was grandfathered under County and was half the size
and width of lots in the applicable Edmonds zoning district.
• Classco Administrative Appeal Reconsideration (1/25/12): Determination of building official
dismissed because notice of appeal not sent to adjoining property owners. City sought reconsideration
on basis that code didn’t require notice. Examiner sustained dismissal.
• Stonebridge Court Plat Alteration (12/22/11): Approved. Ten-lot PRD/Plat approved in 2007 with
remand from hearing examiner to provide for perimeter buffers that comply with PRD standards.
Applicant instead chose to comply with setback requirements, thereby removing trigger for buffer
requirements. Applicant also removed an approved waiver of lot coverage requirements, reducing lot
coverage from 55% to 31%. Applicant also increased landscaping and tree retention.
• Stuart Variance (12/22/11): Approved. Variance to 25 foot street setback to construct a 12-foot
retaining wall to shore up rockery at a 0-foot street setback. Any attempt to remove or replace the
rockery would endanger those removing it and potentially destabilize a driveway. The retaining wall
would not be within view of any other residences.
Mr. Olbrechts commented in the 1200 causes he has heard, he has only recused himself 4 times; the other 3
times were because he was the lawyer representing the city against one of the attorneys. He advised his
decisions are posted online. He acknowledged his decisions tend to be long; he is not often reversed as he is
very thorough and addresses all the issues and concerns the public raise.
Packet Page 16 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 14
Councilmember Petso expressed her appreciation for his recognition of the quality of Edmonds’ built
environment and the quality of life in the Edmonds Variance and his ability to be tough on Public Works when
appropriate.
Councilmember Bloom relayed a response from Interim Development Services Director Rob Chave that the fine
for illegally cutting trees up to 3 inches may be an amount not to exceed $1000. For trees 3 inches or more, the
fine may be an amount not to exceed $3000. Fines for illegal tree cutting in critical areas or right-of-way shall
be tripled so the maximum fine the City would assess is $9000 per tree. She asked Mr. Olbrechts if the City
should have a flat amount rather than a range. Mr. Olbrechts responded if the Council did not like the decisions
he and staff were making, more guidelines could be added to the code including flat fee if that was what the
Council wished to do. He was comfortable with the wide discretion and creating precedence over time.
Councilmember Bloom asked the range of tree cutting fines. Mr. Olbrechts responded in a tree cutting a year
ago the fine was reduced because it was uncontested in the hearing and the City agreed the violator thought she
was complying with the code, got approval from the City to cut the trees and her contractor cut more than she
directed. Councilmember Bloom asked whether Mr. Olbrechts determined the fine based on his assessment of
the case rather than staff’s recommendation. Mr. Olbrechts assured staff’s recommendation is very important but
in that case, he assigned more weight to the fact that the violator had no culpability and reduced the fine further.
Councilmember Buckshnis advised the Tree Board will be reviewing the tree ordinance as she felt there was too
much discretion in determining the fines. She believed people who illegally cut trees should be fined more than
$3,000.
Councilmember Johnson asked about the hearing examiner’s discretion to ask for additional information. She
asked whether he could only consider the evidence before him or was he able to ask for new information. Mr.
Olbrechts explained he can ask for more information and often does. In the Edmonds Variance, he asked about
decibel levels and what the noise would be comparable to. It is a balancing act because he is not to make the
case for either side. For example if the City has not proven its case and he is asking for information to prove
their case, it may look like he is biased toward the City. There is a fine line between bias and ensuring his
decision is accurate. He tends not to ask for a lot of information unless it is a key point.
Councilmember Johnson asked who has the burden of proof. Mr. Olbrechts explained when someone is
requesting a permit approval, they have the burden of proof; they must establish the judicial review standard that
there is a substantial amount of evidence that supports their application. They are able to speak first and last. If
he is presented insufficient information, he has to deny.
8. PRESENTATION ON CHIP SEALS
Public Works Director Phil Williams wanted to dispel a rumor that he did not know what a chip seal was or had
never used it before. He assured he and the City Engineer have done many chip seal projects in their former
employment; the City’s Transportation Engineer and the Street Supervisor are both very familiar with chip seal.
He recalled whenever he has talked with the Council about pavement preservation, he has always referred to the
full toolbox of pavement preservation options that include overlay, chip seal, slurry seal, and crack sealing.
Those options are all part of a modern, robust pavement management program which Edmonds does not have
due to a lack of sufficient funding. The City does its best but is limited by available funding to pothole patching,
point repairs, and bandaiding things together until the City can afford to implement a more comprehensive
pavement program. He recognized chip seal could be an important part of a pavement program when funding
becomes available.
Mr. Williams provided a description of chip seal:
• Pavement preservation treatment
o Extends pavement life by reducing pavement degradation over time
Packet Page 17 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 15
o Considered as preventive maintenance
o Prevents water from seeping into an asphalt pavement's base course and sub-grade
o Improves skid resistance
• Multiple layers of aggregate may be placed on top of each other
• Curb ramp upgrades are not required (whereas required for overlay projects)
• Cost effective (~ 75% less expensive than street overlay)
He provided a graph that illustrates the process a street goes through during its life. Pavement preservation
interrupts that inevitable decline by applying a technique to the street, not letting it deteriorate too far. He
described the process of chip sealing:
• Step 1: Thin film of asphalt liquid sprayed on roadway
• Step 2: Small aggregates (“CHIPS”) placed on top
• Step 3: Compaction of chips, to maximize adherence to asphalt and set rock into liquid asphalt (2 to 4
passes of the roller)
• Step 4: Remove excess rock from surface
• Step 5: Application of fog sealant (optional)
Mr. Williams described the two-layer chip seal process:
a) Repeat of chip seal procedure
b) Lower application rates of asphalt binder & aggregate
c) Second aggregate smaller than the first
d) Smaller aggregate “locks in” larger one
Mr. Williams commented on other local jurisdictions that are using chip seal:
• City of Mountlake Terrace
o Program used over last 8 years, with annual budget ranging from $150,000 to $400,000
o Funding sources other than gas tax
REET (allocation based on annual budget / priority process, no pre-determined amount /
percentage going to specific department)
General fund
TBD Revenue
o Use two-layer chipped seal process (w/ fog sealant)
Recent bid was $4.70-$4.80/square yard (compared with approximately $15/square yard for a 2-
inch grind and overlay)
o Also used on arterial streets since overlay program currently not feasible due to budget
o Running 14-year chip seal cycle
o Results
Strong citizen support
Low cyclist complaints
Significant financial savings
• City of Shoreline
o $1,000,000 per year programmed for pavement preservation going forward – almost all toward chip
seals
o Overlays used only where structural defects exist
o Targeting a 10-year chip seal cycle
o Use a smaller aggregate on local streets and somewhat larger on collector and larger streets
o Street Fund receives REET, General Fund transfers, TBD revenue, and a dedicated portion of
Gambling Taxes
Mr. Williams explained chip sealing does not address any structural or road base issues. A road must be in
reasonable condition when it is chip sealed. Shoreline’s roads are in much better condition than Edmonds’ roads
Packet Page 18 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 16
and more of Shoreline’s roads would be good candidates for chip seal. There are many roads in Edmonds that
would be good candidates for chip seal as long as the compromises of chip seal are acceptable.
Advantages of chip seal include:
• Cost effective pavement life extension
• Fill in surface cracks and prevent larger cracks from forming. Eliminate water from the road base
• Good durability at low cost
• Ease of construction
• Improved skid resistance
Disadvantages of chip seal include:
• Does not address any structural problems
• Cure time: Can take several hours (depending on climatic conditions) to reach a stage where they can
tolerate unrestricted traffic.
• Flying chips: surface must be swept several times to remove excess chips, to avoid broken windshields
and vehicle damage (note: additional polymer can be added to fog sealant to help solidify)
• Noise considerations: Chip seals can be noisy to travel on.
• Performance: Chip seals create a rougher surface. Ride quality isn’t improved. They do not solve
structural problems
Mr. Williams summarized:
• A standard chip seal application costs 25% to 40% as much as a 2 inch grind and overlay and lasts half
as long
• Chip seals have improved with the advent of asphalt tack products that are quicker setting
• Edmonds has many streets with structural problems that chip seal would not be suitable for and will
need structural solutions
• Chip seals could be an important tool in a robust pavement management program for Edmonds
• Even though chip seals are cost-effective for many streets, Edmonds does not have a revenue source to
do them
• There is no shortage of knowledge, there is a shortage of funds
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas relayed she has driven nearly every chip sealed road in Shoreline. She found
them noisy; there is a constant humming sound from the road. She also noticed when driving downhill, her car
pulled somewhat when braking. She relayed that Mr. Hertrich said he did not have that problem but he drives a
much heavier car. She summarized a chip sealed road was not as smooth as a flat, paved road. Mr. Williams said
he had not experienced or heard about pulling when braking downhill.
Councilmember Petso asked if a survey of street conditions had been completed recently. Mr. Williams
answered yes. Councilmember Petso asked if that survey would identify streets that would be candidates for
chip seal. Mr. Williams answered that would be possible. Councilmember Petso asked whether staff could
identify streets with lower level of turning activity or less concern with noise. Mr. Williams answered staff
could review the inventory of street segments and identify streets that would be candidates for chip seal. He
pointed out that if funds were scraped together to chip seal a few street segments, the best candidates will be
some of the best streets that have not failed to the point that the chip seal technique is no longer applicable.
From a political standpoint, citizens who live on streets in poor condition may question applying chip seal on
those roads. Chip seal is best used on a street that may not look that bad. The streets that are in poor condition
and need to be reconstructed require a higher level of pavement preservation that is much more expensive.
Councilmember Petso asked if there is a priority list for overlays. Mr. Williams answered a detailed plan has not
been developed because there has been no reason without any funding. Consideration would need to be given to
Packet Page 19 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 17
the appropriate technique for each segment. If the City had the resources, all the tools could be used to address
the City’s streets.
Councilmember Petso observed Shoreline is prioritizing chip seal over overlays. Mr. Williams answered
Shoreline’s Public Works Director came from Colorado where the culture is slightly different and chip seals are
common. Colorado even does chip seal on their interstates. Shoreline will also pave some street segments.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
9. UPDATE ON REGIONAL FIRE AUTHORITY AND AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT.
Council President Peterson explained discussions regarding a Regional Fire Authority (RFA) have occurred
since 2011. Councilmember Petso is the senior member serving on the RFA Planning Committee since last fall;
Mayor Earling and he began serving in January 2012. The RFA Planning Committee is comprised of 27 elected
officials from Edmonds, Lynnwood, Mukilteo, Woodway, Brier, Mountlake Terrace, Mill Creek, and Fire
Districts 1 and 7. If these jurisdictions formed a RFA, it would create one taxing authority to provide fire service
to those jurisdictions. There was some discussion early in the process about hiring a consultant to do the work
for the entities but it was felt it would be cost prohibitive so the work has been done in-house. Through the
direction of the committee, primarily Fire District 1’s finance staff has been running numbers and reporting to
the Finance Subcommittee which Councilmember Petso serves on and the Level of Service Subcommittee
which he serves on. Mayor Earling serves on the Communications Subcommittee.
Edmonds took the lead in asking that a consultant be hired to check the work done to date. Fire District 1’s staff
is capable of doing the work but it is important that an independent review be done because Fire District 1
obviously “has a lot of skin in this game” and would like to see this work. He assured he was not saying Fire
District 1 is not above board in their work but for a relatively small cost, an outside agency could review the
work done to date and make a recommendation regarding how to move forward. The majority of elected
officials felt it was important to have an independent review.
There are still a lot a lot of big issues to be addressed in the next few months, including 1) the governance
structure, and 2) a fire benefit charge. He explained a finance benefit charge is a new way of taxing those who
receive fire service. Edmonds’ representatives feel a finance benefit charge is better for residential communities
because it is based on the cost of service; a fire response to a commercial building is more expensive than a
single family residence. Early models of the fire benefit charge do not reflect that.
Council President Peterson reviewed a proposed timeline, recognizing it was aggressive:
• Consultant report provided end of October
• Consultant present to committee on November 7
• Governance model discussed November and December
• Fire benefit charge reviewed by Finance Committee November and December
• Resolution of support to Councils in February 2013
• First quarter 2013:
o Work plan finalized
o Organization name selected
o Approve work plan
o Collective bargaining agreements
o Create organization chart
• RFA on ballot in May 2013
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether Edmonds could join at a later date if the City chose not to opt in at the
beginning. Council President Peterson answered Edmonds could allow the RFA to form and as long as part of
Edmonds borders touch the RFA, Edmonds could join at a later date.
Packet Page 20 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 18
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if Edmonds was agreeing to join the RFA via approving the Interlocal
Agreement. Council President Peterson responded the request is to authorize participation in a consultant
contract not to exceed $25,000. He anticipated the first part of the contract will be closer to $15,000; that
amount will be split between the 9 jurisdictions. The contract is only for a consultant to conduct an independent
review of the work done to date and hopefully make some recommendations regarding moving forward. The
remainder of the $25,000 would be used to bring the consultant back for 2-3 more meetings. He assured
tonight’s decision had no effect on whether the City joined the RFA.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked how the City’s portion of the $25,000 would be funded. Council President
Peterson answered it would be funded from the General Fund. The consultant will bill cities as work is done; at
the most it will be approximately $2700 per jurisdiction. Councilmember Buckshnis summarized this is an
independent review and will not require the City to make a decision one way or another. Council President
Peterson agreed.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas commented it was a good idea to have an independent review as a RFA will be
costly to everyone in the end. She asked for Councilmember Petso’s input.
Councilmember Petso responded it was a good piece of politicking by Mayor Earling, Council President
Peterson and her to swing the independent consultant review. There was considerable resistance at first from
some electeds who simply wanted to proceed. She apologized that this came to the Council without advance
warning but the cost is $2700 or less.
Council President Peterson commented this item did not go through Council committee as the decision to ask
for an independent review by a consultant was made at last Wednesday’s RFA meeting.
Councilmember Bloom referred to Council President Peterson’s comment that Fire District 1 has a lot of skin in
the game. She inquired about Fire District 1’s position regarding an RFA. Council President Peterson answered
in general Fire Districts 1 and 7 are in favor of regional fire authorities because they believe it is a better model
and will improve service. From a financial standpoint, because the fire districts’ only source of revenue is based
on assessed value, the decline in property values in recent years has significantly impacted their revenue stream.
In a RFA with a fire benefit charge, revenue is based on use, not just assessed value. He summarized an RFA
provides much more flexibility with regard to taxing authority.
Councilmember Bloom asked what the consultant will be asked to review. Council President Peterson answered
the work to date has been developing a preliminary budget and cost assessment of what a RFA would cost with
all nine jurisdictions participating. Those numbers have changed drastically over the months. The consultant’s
primariy task will be to look at the budget that was created and determine if it is realistic; whether a RFA can
survive on that budget.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS,
TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
11. NONREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION STUDY AND POLICY DISCUSSION.
Council President Peterson explained there are two issues before the Council, 1) nonrepresented pay for 2012
which is already budgeted, and 2) the policy moving forward.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR ONE HOUR. MOTION CARRIED (4-2), COUNCILMEMBERS
FRALEY-MONILLAS AND JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Packet Page 21 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 19
Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite explained the compensation consultant presented a final report to the
Council on July 24. After that meeting, Council requested additional time to study the materials and staff and the
consultant to return in September for a brief presentation, answer any additional questions and to take public
comment. She introduced the consultant Matt Weatherly.
Matt Weatherly, President, Public Sector Personnel Consultants reviewed the project scope and
deliverables:
• Nonrepresented Compensation Survey comparing City’s total compensation plans by benchmark job as
well as benefits offerings and salary policies, to the appropriate marketplace(s).
• Updating of compensation policies for nonrepresented job titles and development of updated pay
structure to ensure a fair, appropriate and competitive pay system.
The City’s non-represented classifications were compared to the following approved comparators: Bothell,
Bremerton, Burien, Des Moines, Issaquah, Kirkland, Lacey, Lynnwood, Olympia, Puyallup, Sammamish, and
University Place. Private sector data from published surveys for many occupations such as finance, IT,
engineering, etc. was also included.
Mr. Weatherly reviewed survey findings:
• The City’s current base pay bands are much wider than market average, making it appear that the City’s
entry rates are lower than market and top-out rates are higher than market. This can be addressed by
raising minimums to ensure the City is competitive when recruiting and lowering maximums to ensure a
long tenured employee is paid comparable to the top that is found in the marketplace.
• Using a calculated midpoint halfway between current minimum and maximum, 72% of the titles
surveyed are currently within 10% of market median. The majority of Edmonds actual salaries are much
nearer to calculated midpoint than to pay band maximum.
• The City is offering a competitive number, type and level of nonrepresented employee benefits.
• The City is slightly behind average for medical insurance premium allowances and management/admin
leave.
• A few other cities offer an employer-funded deferred compensation plan and/or
administrative/management leave; Edmonds currently does not.
• The City’s pension contributions, paid time off and other benefits are comparable to those found in the
survey cities.
Mr. Weatherly provided charts comparing monthly medical benefits amount and percentage for a single
employee and for employee and family as compared to comparator cities and represented Edmonds Police.
Edmonds is the only city that does a 90/10 split for employee only medical premiums; every other comparator
city paid 100% of employee medical premiums. The 90/10 split is more common for employee plus family.
Mr. Weatherly pointed out Edmonds’ nonrepresented positions are unionized in some comparator cities. All
positions, with the exception of those with an employment contract, have the right to create an association.
Mr. Weatherly reviewed additional findings:
• The City does not currently provide consistent salary administration for nonrepresented positions. Union
groups have been able to negotiate a more significant increase over the last several years as compared to
nonrepresented employees.
• There seems to be little internal equity* between represented and nonrepresented groups, leading to
compression** issues.
• Current comparables with the Police Department and nonrepresented positions are less than the average.
* internal equity reflects a comparison of positions in the organization that are similar in the difficulty of skill,
effort, responsibility level and working conditions in order to ensure they are paid appropriately and fairly.
Packet Page 22 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 20
** compression is when the salary difference between senior and junior level staff (such as between supervisor
and subordinate) is smaller than it should be.
Mr. Weatherly displayed a chart comparing represented and nonrepresented salary growth over the past six
years. Cost of living adjustments (COLA) for represented employees over the past six years have averaged 5-
7%; COLA for nonrepresented have averaged 2% or less. He preferred all positions be placed in a similar
relationship to market and that all positions have a similar end range opportunity for salary administration.
Mr. Weatherly reviewed components of the recommended Compensation Plan:
• A new salary range structure has been proposed that places all nonrepresented positions on a pay range
in alignment with market values.
• The proposed structure is narrower than the current pay bands and allows for merit-based step increases.
• The nonrepresented structure and nonrepresented salaries should be afforded the same annual salary
adjustment budget as is approved for union COLAs and negotiated increases to avoid compression.
• The new salary range assignments for each job contain lower, more attainable top-out values than the
current pay band structure while remaining market-competitive at entry and top-out.
• The City’s total spending for salaries and related benefits will be lower in the long term than had
employees been able to achieve the current pay band maximum pay values. Potential total salary
liability savings estimate of $250,000.
Mr. Weatherly displayed and reviewed a chart of proposed salary ranges compared to current salaries and
current ranges for all nonrepresented positions. He explained there are nonrepresented employees that are close
to midpoint, some that are below the proposed midpoint, and some that are at the top of their proposed
maximum.
Mr. Weatherly reviewed the study recommendations (made prior to the Council’s July 24 feedback):
• Adopt proposed Salary Range Table.
• Adopt a new Compensation Policy:
1. Survey comparators – model for now and future updates.
2. Application of market data – pay structure comparisons and desired competitiveness level.
3. Objective and sustainable in-range pay adjustments to assure retention and alleviate compression.
Approximately 35% salary range bands with steps built in.
4. Hiring, placement, supervisor/subordinate and merit/market guidelines have been proposed.
5. Consider employment contracts for directors.
• To avoid further compression between nonrepresented and represented positions, provide COLA, step
increases and longevity pay adjustments equitably and consistently
• Consider adding deferred compensation or other non-monetary benefit to remain competitive.
• Consider education incentive for Police nonrepresented positions.
• Freeze the salaries of those employees who are topped out, until adjustments are made.
Mr. Weatherly summarized:
• The initial cost to implement the plan is driven by employee salaries falling in between one of the steps
within the pay range proposed for their job class.
• 25 nonrepresented employees’ salaries fall between Step 1 and 7 within their job’s pay range; a total
base pay amount of $60,476 is needed to place each employee on a step.
• The initial step placement does not replace a budgeted COLA.
• The 1.5% COLA, consistent with SEIU, Teamsters, and Law Support, would cost $52,506 and is
currently in the 2012 budget.
• Longevity, consistent with represented employees benefit would cost $29,849.
• Deferred Compensation would cost $35,004 for each 1%.
• Educational incentive (4%) for Police Chief and Assistant Police Chief would cost $11,002.
Packet Page 23 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 21
Due to her position on the City’s negotiating team and her fear this discussion may compromise her position,
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recused herself. She left the dais at 10:20 p.m.
Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her understanding the 1.5% COLA budgeted for 2012 was approximately
$80,000. Ms. Hite responded there is a 1.5% COLA and 1.5% merit budgeted for nonrepresented employees in
2012; together those total approximately $88,000.
Mayor Earling opened the opportunity for public comment. There were no members of the public present who
wished to provide comment. Mayor Earling closed the opportunity for public comment.
In response to an earlier question from Councilmember Fraley-Monillas regarding job attrition, Ms. Hite
distributed a list of job vacancies and fills since 2007. There are no vacancies/fills shown after April 2012 due to
the hiring freeze that took place in April 2012.
Ms. Hite reviewed costing options:
• Amount already in budget for non-represented compensation: $88,000
• 1.5% across the board COLA: $51,761
• 1.5% COLA, to those not at top step of new salary schedule: $ 40,328
• Steps:
o Anyone between steps would go to the next step: $61,683
o Steps, then COLA’s: $89,359
o COLA’s, then steps: $91,174
• Longevity: $ 30,163 ( similar to SEIU and Teamsters)
• Deferred Comp @ 1%: $35,419
• Deferred Comp @ 2%: $70,838
• Educational Incentive ( Chief of Police, ACOP): $11,000
Ms. Hite reviewed other questions raised by the Council:
• What to do with people who are maxed out?
• Phasing steps over 2 or 3 years
• Management Leave
• Employment contracts
• Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
o The Compensation consultant determined several positions should be non-exempt according to
FLSA. The City Attorney determined those positions are not union eligible.
• Code changes
o Whatever compensation policy is adopted, there will need to be code changes.
Ms. Hite requested Council direction regarding the following:
• COLA:
o Lump sum or % combined with placing people on steps
o What to do with employees who are at top step or above?
• Steps: Phase in over 2 or 3 years
o Two years: $36,115 first year and approximately $25,000 second year
o Three years: first year $31,992, second year $20,000, third year $10,000
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to do the step increases prior to a COLA and she preferred a 2-year phase
in. She recommended distributing any remaining funds to each person because they have not received increases
in a while.
Packet Page 24 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 22
If the Council proceeded as Councilmember Buckshnis suggested, Councilmember Petso pointed out a portion
of the resources would go to nonrepresented employees who are at or beyond the top of their range. Ms. Hite
agreed. Councilmember Petso suggested doing step increases without COLA or merit increases would put the
resources in the hands of those not yet within their pay range. Ms. Hite clarified everyone is within their pay
range except for two employees who are below the pay range. The idea of putting nonrepresented employees on
steps is to progress toward adopting a compensation policy so that nonrepresented employees can progress
through those ranges.
Councilmember Petso observed by doing step increases, any nonrepresented employee above their pay range
would not share in an increase to move them to the next step. Ms. Hite agreed.
For Council President Peterson, Ms. Hite advised there is $88,000 allocated in the 2012 budget, 1.5% COLA
and 1.5% merit. Council President Peterson asked whether those funds could be used for step increases. Ms.
Hite answered it could. Council President Peterson observed a 1.5% COLA and moving nonrepresented to the
next step was fairly close to the amount budgeted in 2012. Ms. Hite agreed.
Council President Peterson observed a 2-year phase in would save some of the funds that were budgeted in
2012. Ms. Hite agreed a 2-year phase in would save approximately $25,000. Council President Peterson asked
when nonrepresented employees last received a COLA. Ms. Hite answered 2009. Council President Peterson
asked when nonrepresented employees last received a merit increase. Ms. Hite answered merit increases are
subjective and random and given at the Mayor’s discretion. She was unsure how former Mayors Haakenson or
Cooper awarded merit increases; Mayor Earling has drawn a hard line with merit increases, only giving a few.
Council President Peterson observed the Council approved the funds in the 2012 budget and use of the funds
was delayed to complete the compensation study to ensure wages were not out of line with comparator cities. He
observed the amount budgeted in the 2012 budget was close to the amount needed but some of that amount
could be saved via a 2-year phase in.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO GIVE A 1.5% COLA AUTHORIZED IN LAST YEAR’S BUDGET AND
TO BEGIN THE PHASE IN OF THE STEP PROGRAM WHICH IN YEAR ONE WOULD COST AN
ADDITIONAL $36,000 AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SPEND THE AMOUNT NECESSARY
TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.
Councilmember Petso explained she was not interested in allocating scarce resources to nonrepresented
employees already at or beyond their pay range according to the compensation study. A COLA would provide
an increase to all nonrepresented employees. She preferred to spend scarce resources putting everyone on a step
which would allocate funds to nonrepresented employees and that would position the City to implement the
salary policy next year. Although she seconded the motion, she will likely vote against it.
Councilmember Bloom explained she would not support the motion for reasons similar to Councilmember
Petso’s. She did not feel the City was in a position to award across-the-board 1.5% increases. In order of
priority, she preferred nonrepresented employees who are below the recommended range to be lifted up and a 3-
year phase in of the steps rather than a 2-year phase in. She pointed out a compensation study has never been
done and the Council is being asked to correct disparities that have formed over many years and therefore it
should be phased-in more slowly. She was inclined to support a lump sum allocation but would not support a
1.5% across-the-board increase.
Ms. Hite continued her presentation, requesting Council direction on the following:
• Longevity: $30,163
• Deferred Comp: 1% = $35,419
• Educational Incentive/Police: $11,000
Packet Page 25 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 23
• Management Leave: 24 or 32 hours
• Compression Issues: 3 positions, $10,000
• Below Range: 2 positions, $4029
• Director Contracts
• 2013 Compensation direction
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION FAILED (1-4), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO
PLACE EVERYONE ON A STEP, DO A 2-YEAR PHASE-IN, AND THE REMAINING, ABOUT $52,000,
BE DIVIDED UP IN A LUMP SUM AMONG THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE IN THEIR RANGE.
FOR THOSE ABOVE THEIR RANGE, PROVIDE MANAGEMENT LEAVE OF 24 HOURS/YEAR.
Councilmember Buckshnis estimated there are five nonrepresented employees above their range. She explained
her proposal was to distribute the $50,000 remaining after placing everyone on a step as a lump sum payment to
those who are within their range. This would allow the Council the prerogative to use this same concept next
year. She summarized the Council would need to budget the $25,000 next year to complete the 2-year phase-in.
Council President Peterson commented one of the reasons for this exercise was to limit risk management related
to labor practices that exist with a merit system. He asked IF a lump sum payment where some nonrepresented
employees receive an amount and some do not would add to the risk of either a lawsuit or a significant number
of employees who are not happy with the decision. Mr. Taraday restated the question, whether the allocation of
the remaining approximately $50,000 among nonrepresented employees within their range but not above their
range, would that allocation create legal risk? He did not see any legal risk to doing that. Human Resources
Manager Mary Ann Hardie commented issues that need to be considered from a human resources perspective is
whether an employee is adversely impacted, potential unintentional impacts on a minority protected class,
potential age discrimination, etc. The potential for unintended impacts would need further research.
Council President Peterson explained the impetus for this effort was risk management and taking the guesswork
out of the current merit system. His concern would be how the $50,000 would be divided up and ensuring it was
done in a way that minimized risk.
Councilmember Buckshnis provided the following example: if there were 5 people, the $50,000 would be
divided 5 ways and each employee would receive $10,000 regardless of their color, size, etc. She did not
understand the potential for discrimination. Ms. Hardie explained the group as a whole needs to be considered; it
seems intuitive that a policy can be applied but a deeper analysis is required to determine who potentially could
be adversely impacted.
Councilmember Petso said she will likely vote against the motion because it is getting too complicated.
Council President Peterson commented dividing an amount equally among employees did not necessarily
recognize a number of things; for example a new employee would receive the same cash bonus as a 20-year
employee. He did not agree with dividing up the amount equally.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE AGREEMENT OF THE
SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO BEGIN
A MOVE TOWARD PUTTING EVERYONE ON STEPS WITHIN THE PROPOSED PAY RANGES
WITH A 2-YEAR PHASE-IN, NO COLA, NO BONUS, NO MANAGEMENT LEAVE, AND IN
ADDITION TAKE CARE OF THE THREE POSITIONS WITH COMPRESSION ISSUES THAT HAVE
BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE STAFF.
Packet Page 26 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 24
Councilmember Petso asked whether her motion would address the three positions that are below their range.
Ms. Hite answered she would need to calculate whether a 2-year phase in would get them to the bottom step.
Councilmember Petso observed if not, they would reach the bottom step next year. Ms. Hite agreed.
Council President Peterson commented the proposed motion falls short for him. He agreed with beginning the
step increases but pointed out nonrepresented employees have not had a COLA for several years. He was
concerned that compression and other issues are not addressed without a COLA. The proposed motion was not
enough to bring equity to nonrepresented employees who have done a lot over the past few years.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD 24 HOURS OF
MANAGEMENT LEAVE. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Johnson asked the cost of implementing the step increase in one year. Ms. Hite answered about
$61,000. Councilmember Johnson inquired which three positions have compression issues. Ms. Hite answered
the Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisor, the Building Official, and the Street Stormwater Manager.
Councilmember Johnson asked whether any of the compression issues were in the Police Department. Ms. Hite
answered there are compression issues in the Police Department due to add-ins officers receive, overtime and
educational incentive. Councilmember Johnson asked whether there were any compression issues related only to
salary in the Police Department. Ms. Hite answered there were not.
Mayor Earling said he personally had an issue with not utilizing the funds set aside in the 2012 budget for
COLA for the nonrepresented employees. Many of them have been working for 2-3 years without any pay
adjustment; it is deficient not to address that issue in some way.
Council President Peterson asked whether it is imperative that the Council make a decision tonight. Ms. Hite
answered it is not imperative; there are a few more steps in the process. Once the Council makes its decisions,
staff will need to return with an ordinance as well as revise the compensation policy for Council adoption.
Council President Peterson requested staff return with information regarding how positions with compression
issues and how the nonrepresented employees under their pay range would be addressed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO
TABLE THIS ITEM. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (3-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND JOHNSON VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING NO.
Ms. Hite offered to have staff research the potential adverse impacts of a lump sum payment.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked for numbers of the following scenarios:
• 1-year, 2-year and 3-year phase-in
• Compression
• Steps
• Lump sum
• COLA
• Management leave
(Councilmember Fraley-Monillas returned to the dais.)
12. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2012.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the committee discussed:
Packet Page 27 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 25
• REET funds: will come to full Council for discussion in October.
• Artwork donation from the Edmonds Art Festival Foundation: required public hearing will be
scheduled in October.
• Propane conversion: approved by Council tonight.
• Stormwater exception: will come to full Council. The Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee
will consider a policy.
• July 2012 Monthly Financial Report
• Addition to 2013 budget document: discuss with budget presentations
• 2013 Budget Schedule: presented to Council tonight
Parks, Planning and Public Works Committee
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas reported the committee discussed the farmers market in the BC and BD zone.
Most of the other items on the committee’s agenda were approved on tonight’s Consent Agenda with the
exception of the CIP. The CIP will be presented to the full Council on October 2.
Public Safety and Personnel Committee
Councilmember Bloom reported the committee discussed:
• Taking minutes in executive session.
• Job descriptions: represented positions forwarded to Council, nonrepresented positions will be further
reviewed at a meeting later this week.
• Ordinance change for Salary Commission: neither committee member supported the change and it was
not forwarded to Council.
13. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported a resolution regarding the Paine Field issue will be presented to the Council next week.
Mayor Earling thanked Ms. Hite, Parks staff and Police staff, Councilmember Johnson and himself for helping
with the half marathon on Sunday.
14. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Petso reported the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) received a grant for the 2014
calendar. Staff requested approval of the grant go to full Council rather than through committee. Establishment
of an account for the 2013 calendar (the HPC plans to collect the funds themselves) will be reviewed by
committee and forwarded to the Council.
Councilmember Petso reported cement panels that contain the original name of the street, George, in honor of
George Brackett, were removed as part of the Main Street project. A decision apparently was made not to
incorporate the cement panels in the new work on Main Street. She is investigating whether they can be
incorporated.
Councilmember Petso suggested the Public Safety and Personnel Committee consider whether to appoint a
Council representative to attend School Board meetings. She also suggested Council consider adopting a policy
regarding the ability for a Councilmember to participate and vote via speaker phone and imposing any
reasonable conditions. Reasonable conditions may be that the Councilmember can hear, the Councilmember can
be heard and that the Councilmember has access to the packet.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported she was cheering participants of the half marathon as her house is on mile
13.
Packet Page 28 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 26
Council President Peterson also thanked Ms. Hite and staff for their efforts related to the marathon. He further
reported Councilmember Yamamoto had heart valve restructuring surgery. He is home and progressing well; his
prognosis is excellent. He relayed Councilmember Yamamoto’s appreciation for the incredible amount of
support he has received from City staff and citizens.
Councilmember Bloom reported she attended the Police Department’s Centennial Celebration on Sunday. It was
well attended, very informative and enjoyable.
15. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:07 p.m.
Packet Page 29 of 413
AM-5149 3. C.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes of September 25, 2012.
Recommendation
Review and approval.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Attached is a copy of the draft minutes.
Attachments
09-25-12 Draft City Council Minutes
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 09:30 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/27/2012 11:03 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/27/2012 08:28 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/27/2012
Packet Page 30 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 25, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember*
(*participated by phone in Agenda Item 6)
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Yaelle Kimmelman, Student Representative
STAFF PRESENT
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/Acting
Human Resources Administrator
Rob Chave, Interim Development Services Dir.
Carl Nelson, CIO
Doug Fair, Municipal Court Judge
Joan Ferebee, Court Administrator
Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
1. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER RCW
42.30.140(4)(b).
At 6:15 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding
labor negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last
approximately 45 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 Johnson, Buckshnis,
Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks and Recreation/Acting
Human Resources Administrator Carrie Hite, Police Chief Al Compaan, Otto Klein, Summit Law Group,
and City Clerk Sandy Chase. At 7:05 p.m., Mayor Earling announced to the public present in the Council
Chambers that an additional 15 minutes would be required in executive session. The executive session
concluded at 7:20 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:22 p.m. and led the flag salute.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION AS
AGENDA ITEM 11. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Packet Page 31 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 2
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
The agenda items approved are as follows:
A. ROLL CALL
B. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #134307 THROUGH #134434 DATED SEPTEMBER
20, 2012 FOR $947,518.86 (REPLACEMENT CHECKS #134324 $10.00 AND #134429
$10.35). APPROVAL OF PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSIT & CHECKS #51683 THROUGH
#51705 FOR $446,198.80, PAYROLL CHECKS #51715 THROUGH #51716 FOR $931.96,
BENEFIT CHECKS #51706 THROUGH #51714 & WIRE PAYMENTS FOR $191,623.79
FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 2012 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15, 2012.
C. ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM JUDY SALINAS,
GLAZED & AMAZED ($419.41).
Introduction of Student Representative
Council President Peterson introduced Student Representative Yaelle Kimmelman, a student at Edmonds-
Woodway High School, and described her background.
Student Representative Kimmelman said she was excited to be selected as the Council Student
Representative and looked forward to making students’ voices heard.
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Jennifer Machuga, City of Edmonds, read a letter into the record related to the continued discussion on
the non-represented employee compensation study and policy. It acknowledged the fact that the Council
has tough budget decisions to make tonight and in the following months. The letter was signed by City
employees from both non-represented and represented employee groups and noted all are dedicated
employees who have the best interests of the City. To the majority of residents as well as those who visit
and conduct business within Edmonds, employees are seen as one group and not categorized as
represented and non-represented. Everyone receives the same quality of service from staff regardless of
whether that employee falls into a represented or non-represented employee group.
There is no one person or group that makes the city function; it is a team that supports one another. The
letter acknowledged it can be discouraging for a non-represented employee to work alongside a
represented co-worker and know that even though both provide the same level of service, one has
continually received cost of living and merit salary increases, in addition to several other represented
benefits, and the other has not. This type of disparity can affect morale and gives the appearance that
certain employees are valued more than others. There should be internal equity across the board. The
letter concluded with a request that the Council’s decision shows respect for the 39 dedicated non-
represented employees and provides a result consistent with the approximately 170 represented
employees. Several employees accompanied Ms. Machuga at the microphone as she read the letter.
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, referred to the contract for police services with Woodway that was approved
by Councilmembers Peterson, Buckshnis, Johnson and Yamamoto and endorsed by Mayor Earling at last
week’s meeting. He referred to the low cost of the contract, expressing concern with the “cheap deal” the
Packet Page 32 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 3
Council gave Woodway. He recalled Councilmember Fraley-Monillas’ comments at last week’s meeting
regarding the much higher cost of a full service contract, $100,000 - $200,000. He explained the low
contract made it possible for Woodway to go out to bid for a $2 million, 6,000 square foot City Hall
building with a 500 square foot plaza. The cost of a $2 million bond would be approximately
$160,000/year. He suggested the Councilmembers who voted in favor of this giveaway of public money,
giving Woodway the ability to finance their new building, deserved a “special award.”
5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON,
OPPOSING COMMERCIAL AIR PASSENGER AND OTHER INCOMPATIBLE AIR SERVICE
AT PAINE FIELD LOCATED WITHIN SNOHOMISH COUNTY.
Mayor Earling explained he placed this on the agenda because it is an issue past Councils have spoken to
and in light of recent activities at Paine Field, he wanted to give the current Council an opportunity to
speak to it or take a vote of continued opposition.
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton explained since 1995 the Council
has passed several resolutions opposing commercial air passenger service at Paine Field. He highlighted
provisions in the resolution that are significantly different from resolutions passed as recently as 2010: the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a final National Environmental Assessment (EA) on
September 14, 2012. The EA only assessed impacts from the number of flights generated by two airlines
proposed to use Paine Field; the assessment is seriously flawed because it does not assess potential
cumulative impacts if Paine Field were opened to commercial air passenger service. Once Paine Field is
opened to commercial air passenger service, FAA laws stipulate commercial service cannot be limited
and will take precedence over existing general aviation flights. It is feared this will jeopardize the Boeing
and manufacturing emphasis and general aviation emphasis of Paine Field.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1282, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, OPPOSING COMMERCIAL AIR PASSENGER
AND OTHER INCOMPATIBLE AIR SERVICE AT PAINE FIELD LOCATED WITHIN
SNOHOMISH COUNTY. MOTION CARRIED (4-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON
ABSTAINING.
Mayor Earling said the official resolution will be provided at next week’s meeting for Councilmembers’
signature.
Mayor Earling stated it is customary for a Councilmember to state the reason he/she chose to abstain.
Councilmember Johnson responded it may be customary but she was told it is not necessary. City
Attorney Jeff Taraday agreed, explaining there was no Council procedure that required a Councilmember
to declare why they abstained. The Council could adopt such a procedure.
6. NONREPRESENTED EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION STUDY AND POLICY DISCUSSION
(CONTINUED FROM 9/18/12).
(Councilmember Yamamoto participated in this agenda item by telephone.)
Council President Peterson recalled he tabled the motion at last week’s meeting; he asked whether a
motion needed to be made to remove the item from the table. City Clerk Sandy Chase read the motion to
table made at last week’s meeting:
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON,
TO TABLE THIS ITEM. UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (3-2), COUNCIL
PRESIDENT PETERSON AND COUNCILMEMBERS BUCKSHNIS AND JOHNSON VOTING
YES; AND COUNCILMEMBERS PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING NO.
Packet Page 33 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 4
City Attorney Jeff Taraday explained the Council could also make a motion to suspend the rules.
Councilmember Petso commented the motion to table made at the last meeting was not appropriate; the
motion should have been to table to a definite time. She asked whether a motion to remove the item from
the table or to suspend the rules was preferable. Mr. Taraday answered either would be appropriate.
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON, TO
SUSPEND THE RULES AND ALLOW MS. HITE TO CONTINUE WITH HER PRESENTATION
AND TAKE UP A MOTION LATER. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Acting Human Resources Administrator Carrie Hite explained the consultant made a presentation at last
week’s meeting regarding the Nonrepresented Employee Compensation Study. The consultant is not
present tonight. She sought Council direction on the following:
• 2012 compensation: budget $88,000
• 2013 budget assumptions
• Management leave, use it or lose it, no cashout, each day represents $13,272
• Employment contracts
• Compensation policy
Councilmember Petso summarized the motion that was on the floor:
PUT EMPLOYEES ON STEPS IN A TWO-YEAR PHASE IN AND SPEND THE $11,000
NECESSARY TO PUT TWO OF THE EMPLOYEES SO THAT THEY WERE PAID MORE
THAN THEIR IMMEDIATE SUBORDINATES, NO COLA FOR 2012.
Motion from the 9/18/12 minutes:
COUNCILMEMBER PETSO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
BEGIN A MOVE TOWARD PUTTING EVERYONE ON STEPS WITHIN THE PROPOSED PAY
RANGES WITH A 2-YEAR PHASE-IN, NO COLA, NO BONUS, NO MANAGEMENT LEAVE,
AND IN ADDITION TAKE CARE OF THE THREE POSITIONS WITH COMPRESSION ISSUES
THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE STAFF.
Councilmember Petso explained she did not intend any disrespect to the employees in attendance; by
coincidence, the 2012 budgeted amount for COLAs for nonrepresented employees is approximately the
amount required to place employees to steps. The difference is which employees will receive the money;
rather than an across-the-board percentage to each employee; the proposed motion would instead address
issues that have been brought to the Council’s attention including that two employees are below the pay
range as well as employees who are not paid as much as their subordinates. In addition as employees are
moved toward the next step, there will be raises necessary to achieve that movement. The only difference
between the proposed motion and a COLA is a COLA is distributed equally via a percentage to each
employee. The proposed motion directs approximately the same amount of money to address certain
problems and inequities that the consultant identified.
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MOTION FAILED (2-4), COUNCILMEMBERS
PETSO AND BLOOM VOTING YES; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS YAMAMOTO, JOHNSON AND BUCKSHNIS VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON, TO PUT EVERYONE ON A STEP THIS YEAR WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT
$68,000.
Councilmember Buckshnis explained rather than wait two years, she preferred to place everyone on a step
now “since we have the money.” She suggested addressing the remaining money after a decision
regarding placing employees on steps has been made.
Packet Page 34 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 5
Councilmember Petso referred to Councilmember Buckshnis’ comment, “since we have the money,”
pointing out the cost to place everyone on a step costs more than the COLAs. The $88,000 in the 2012
budget included both COLAs and merit increases. She asked whether the intent was to put everyone on a
step and not have COLAs or merit increases. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to address the surplus
after the decision regarding placing employees on steps has been made. The remaining money could be
distributed via a COLA or a lump sum payment.
Responding to Councilmember Johnson’s questions, Councilmember Buckshnis explained the proposed
motion would bring everyone up to a step and those in excess of a step cannot go any higher and are
frozen. Ms. Hite agreed.
Ms. Hite further explained the two employees below the pay ranges would come up to the first step.
Placing all employees on a step would also resolve the three employees with compression issues.
Councilmember Johnson summarized the proposed motion would resolve those five positions and place
everyone on a step.
Councilmember Petso inquired about the surplus Councilmember Buckshnis referred to. Councilmember
Buckshnis explained it was the difference between the $88,000 in the 2012 budget for COLAs and merit
increases and the $68,000 cost to place everyone on a step.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked whether distribution of the surplus would affect all employees
including those at the top of their range. Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to resolve the issue of
placing employees on a step first before discussing how to handle the excess.
Councilmember Petso asked how much of the $88,000 budget in 2012 has already been appropriated for
merit increases. Ms. Hite estimated $2,000 had been allocated; merit increases have been few and far
between as Mayor Earling froze them early this year.
Council President Peterson spoke in favor of the motion. He cited the importance of creating internal
equity in the way represented and nonrepresented employees are treated, stating this was a great way to
make that happen. He agreed with placing employees on a step in one year; if it is a good idea to enact the
step policy, it should be done as soon as possible. Funds were budgeted in 2012 for an increase for
nonrepresented employees and the proposal is well within the budgeted amount.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO TAKE THE REMAINDER OF THE
UNSPENT BUDGETED MONEY FOR 2012 TO MAKE EQUITY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE
NONREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES.
Councilmember Buckshnis asked whether there were issues if the remaining $20,000 was distributed to
everyone in a lump sum payment. Ms. Hite answered there is no issue if it is spread between everyone;
there may be issues if the amount is spread between only a few. Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the
intent was for Mayor Earling to distribute the money via merit increases. Council President Peterson
suggested a 1.5% pay increase retroactive to as far back as we can go in 2012. He relayed Ms. Hite’s
determination that the 1.5% increase starting in approximately May would cost $20,000. He summarized
his intent was the same percentage would be spread between employees rather than a lump sum amount.
Council President Peterson clarified rather than everyone getting the same lump sum payment, his intent
was to authorize Mayor Earling to spend the money either as 1.5% payment as bonus pay at the end of the
year or over the next few months once the amount expended on merit increases has been determined. He
Packet Page 35 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 6
summarized Ms. Hite, Mayor Earling and Mr. Hunstock would be the best ones to determine the
allocation.
Councilmember Yamamoto asked if that would include the employees at the top of their pay scale.
Council President Peterson answered yes, noting some of the equity adjustments would be at the Mayor’s
discretion.
Councilmember Petso observed $2,000 of the $88,000 budgeted had already been allocated, leaving
$18,000 to be distributed. Ms. Hite answered she would like to confirm the amount that has been
allocated on merit increases. If the motion passes, she recommended staff work with Mayor Earling to
determine the amount that remains after everyone is moved to a step and the amount allocated to merit
increases has been determined.
Councilmember Bloom asked if Council President Peterson’s motion was a lump sum or a 1.5% increase.
Council President Peterson answered he preferred a 1.5% increase rather than a lump sum payment.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
YAMAMOTO, TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT THE EQUITY ADJUSTMENTS NOT BE A
LUMP SUM PAYMENT. AMENDMENT FAILED (2-4) COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON
AND COUNCILMEMBER YAMAMOTO VOTING YES.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
AMEND THE MOTION TO MAKE THE EQUITY ADJUSTMENTS A LUMP SUM PAYMENT
SPREAD OUT EVENLY TO EVERYONE.
Council President Peterson asked if Councilmember Buckshnis’ statement, “spread evenly to everyone”
meant everyone got the same amount or the lump sum would be calculated as a percentage of their pay.
Councilmember Yamamoto commented the most equitable way would be to distribute it as a percentage
of their base salary.
Councilmember Buckshnis clarified her intent was a lump sum payment based on length of service.
THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Hite clarified the intent was whatever was left from the $88,000 after the merit increases and the
amount necessary to put employees on steps, be distributed evenly between all nonrepresented employees
in a lump sum in a percentage based on the nonrepresented employee’s base salary.
2013 Budget Assumptions
Ms. Hite advised the Finance Department is preparing a preliminary budget. The 2013 budget discussion
is based on the 2012 decisions the Council just made and fulfilling the Compensation Policy
recommendations. She invited the Council to discuss the 2013 budget assumptions with regard to the
Compensation Policy.
Councilmember Petso commented she has a number of edits to the Compensation Policy as it was
recommended by the consultant but left the document at home tonight. She suggesting adding to the
policy that 5% step increases are not automatic because that may not be affordable.
Council President Peterson suggested whatever percentage the Council agrees on, the Council ask Mr.
Hunstock to incorporate that percentage in the preliminary budget. No final decisions regarding the
percentage in the 2013 budget will be made until the Council concludes its deliberations on the 2013
budget. Tonight’s decision is intended to provide guidance to staff regarding different scenarios, not make
Packet Page 36 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 7
an absolute decision. He did not want to limit the discussion to the low end early in the process and urged
the Council to consider the information the compensation consultant provided.
Councilmember Johnson agreed Council President Peterson’s suggestion was a prudent course of action.
Councilmember Buckshnis expressed interest in seeing dollar amounts for 0.75%, 1%, 1.25% and 1.5%
COLAs.
Councilmember Petso pointed out the salary policy also proposes 5% for steps. She asked whether the
intent was to incorporate that into the numbers Mr. Hunstock will provide, or only the step the Council
just approved and grant COLAs next year. Council President Peterson envisioned a combination of the
two. He questioned why the Council would implement a step program tonight and not have step increases
next year. He suggested a 5% step be provided as one budget line item as well as the range of COLAs that
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested.
Ms. Hite relayed Mr. Hunstock’s recommendation that they work with Mayor Earling to incorporate the
budget assumptions based on the Council’s conversation tonight and the recommendation of the
compensation consultant. Mr. Hunstock will provide options for the preliminary budget.
Management Leave
Ms. Hite explained there was a request from the Council last week to cost out management leave.
Management leave was one of the compensation consultant’s recommendations as many comparable
cities provide it for nonrepresented employees. Management leave is “use it or lose it;” there would not be
any cashout or hard dollars from the City’s budget. Each day represents approximately $13,000.
Councilmember Petso stated she was not interested in management leave at this time because the City has
already run into situations where the necessary employees are not present due to vacation or other reason.
Leave schedules are already pretty generous and she did not find it appealing to add to leave.
Council President Peterson commented he would like to see what a 3-day management leave scenario
looks like. Ms. Hite commented 3 days would be 3 times $13,000. That is the indirect cost of
management leave. It is not a cashout benefit and that amount would not be added to the budget in any
scenario.
Councilmember Petso asked whether an employee would have the option to take management leave
instead of vacation or sick leave and then cashout vacation or sick leave. Ms. Hite answered an employee
can only cashout vacation and a portion of their sick leave when they leave the City’s employment.
Employment Contracts
Ms. Hite explained this issue was raised by the compensation consultant. There are pros and cons
associated with employment contracts. Contracts may lessen the City’s liability in some respects but there
are also negatives associated with employment contracts.
City Attorney Jeff Taraday commented employment contracts at the director level can be a helpful
recruiting tool to provide an additional level of certainty to a director level candidate. One of the things
that would typically be included in an employment agreement is a provision for 3 month severance
package if the employee is terminated without cause in exchange for a release and waiver from the
employee. An employment contract can do two things, 1) to the extent that a potential employment
candidate is uncertain about making a change to a new employer and wants to have a parachute if things
don’t go as well as expected, it can be a useful recruiting tool for director level candidates, and 2) if an
employee is terminated, it can in some cases reduce the potential liability to the City because knowing
they are entitled to the 3 month severance package, the employee may opt not to “lawyer up.”
Packet Page 37 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 8
Mr. Taraday cautioned employment contracts need to be carefully drafted to ensure it is still clearly an at-
will position and it does not in some way create a contract right to employment. Employment contracts
can also give the City Council a performance dial if there is a particular metric the Council wants a
department to achieve; that performance metric could then be tied to compensation.
Councilmember Petso observed it was unlikely the Council will be acting on this issue tonight. She
assumed the matter would be reviewed by the Public Safety and Personnel Committee and returned to the
Council for further discussion. Ms. Hite agreed that could be done at the Council’s discretion.
Council President Peterson observed this was not an issue that needed to be addressed immediately. He
questioned whether Council wanted staff to develop a rough draft of an employment contract before
referring it to committee for review and returning to the Council next year. Before staff drafted an
employment contract, Ms. Hite requested the Council indicate whether there was interest in referring it to
the Public Safety and Personnel Committee.
Councilmember Bloom suggested the Committee consider it next year. Council President Peterson
concluded the Committee would discuss it next year or at the Council retreat.
Compensation Policy
Ms. Hite observed there was interest by Council in internal and external equity. She asked for Council
input regarding the compensation consultant’s recommendations for step increases. The consultant’s
recommendation is for an objective compensation policy rather than the subjective policy the City has
utilized in the past. She asked for Council input regarding the amount between steps and whether to
include qualifying language such as 5% subject to Council approval. She could then draft options for the
Council’s consideration.
Council President Peterson suggested the language read 5% with the provisions Ms. Hite suggested. He
pointed out one of the differences between a represented and a nonrepresented step program is the
Council has the ability to freeze the steps if necessary in the nonrepresented program which is not an
option in a negotiated contract.
Councilmember Petso agreed with including language “subject to Council approval.” She also suggested
deleting the first two paragraphs and the last four paragraphs of the policy. She offered to email Ms. Hite
her suggested revisions.
Councilmember Buckshnis also offered to send her suggested changes to Ms. Hite.
(Councilmember Yamamoto discontinued his participation in the Council meeting by phone at 8:23 p.m.)
7. 2013 BUDGET WORK SESSION
Mr. Hunstock explained the intent of this agenda item is to have a high level discussion of each
department’s budget assumptions going into 2013 budget planning. The assumptions will be included in
the preliminary budget that Mayor Earling will present to the Council on October 16.
Mr. Hunstock explained with a projected deficit of $1.5 million for 2013, the Mayor, Directors and staff
sought to reduce expenses in order to balance the budget, as well as potentially address the ongoing
imbalance between growth in revenue and expenses. The following approach was taken in developing the
2013 budget.
• No new taxes
• Across-the-board reduction of approximately $850,000 allocated to all departments except non-
departmental
Packet Page 38 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 9
• Reduction in staffing through the Voluntary Separation Incentive Program for a targeted savings
of at least $400,000
• Projected potential savings of at least $250,000 in the City’s portion of health insurance premium
costs
• The above $1.5 million reduction represents a cut of approximately 4.5% of the General Fund
budget
• All reductions will have an impact on service levels internally within the City and/or externally to
the public
• Declining fund balances in other funds will continue to place pressure on the General Fund to
cover deficits in those funds:
o LEOFF Medical Insurance Reserve Fund – another significant transfer from the General
Fund is anticipated
o Cemetery maintenance Improvement Fund – a transfer from the General Fund will be
required to cover the deficit in this fund beginning in 2013
o Public Facilities District (Edmonds Center for the Arts) – payment of debt service on behalf
of the Public Facilities District is expected to require an annual transfer indefinitely.
Finance Department
Mr. Hunstock reviewed what the Finance Department does:
• Mandated services:
o Budgeting (RCW 35A.33)
o Financial reporting (RCW 43.09.230)
• Other Services
o Risk management
o Internal audits
o Grant monitoring
o Cash management
o Department support
o Special projects
Mr. Hunstock reviewed 2011 operating measures:
• Utilities
o Mailed 67,300 utility statements
o 12,900 customers
o Generating $13 million in utility revenue
• Accounts Payable
o 6,500 checks written for 10,700 invoices
o $31.8 million in vendor payments
o 14,00 different vendors
• Payroll
o 5,000+ paychecks
o $15.4 million in gross payroll
o Paid to 327 distinct individuals
Mr. Hunstock reviewed highlights of the Finance Department 2013 budget:
• Consistent staffing levels from 2012 to 2013
• Reduction in professional services (approximately $12,000) for sales tax auditing program
o Will require staff to participate to a greater extent in sales tax auditing
o We will further develop in-house resources for this via utilities database, GIS information,
etc.
• Targeted reductions in supplies, travel and miscellaneous
Packet Page 39 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 10
Mr. Hunstock reviewed Non-Departmental expenditures over $100,000:
$6.4 million – Fire District 1 contract
$1.4 million – principal and interest payments
$817,000 – SnoCom / New World
$600,000 – LEOFF Medical Expense Fund
$486,000 – Prisoner Care (previously in Police Department budget)
$444,000 – Insurance – liability and property
$270,000 – Public Defender (increase of $130,000)
$250,000 – Edmonds Center for the Arts
$202,000 – Hydrant costs
$180,000 – ESCA/SERS
$100,000 – accrued vacation/sick payouts
$200,000 – approximate total increase in 2013 compared to 2012
Information Services
CIO Carl Nelson described the proposed reorganization:
• Anticipated vacancy of IT position
• Upgrade one existing position
• Establish part-time IT Assistant (helpdesk)
• Proposed reductions and reorganization service impacts:
o Technology adoption slowed or moved out
o Longer timeframes for software/hardware updates
o Web/social media adoption done case-by-case
Mr. Nelson provided information regarding the fiber project:
• Ongoing maintenance of equipment/facilities
• Excess capacity generates approximately $34,000/year
• CTAC recommendations:
o Additional route from downtown to Highway 99
o Business Plan to develop revenue from excess fiber capacity
o Transition to enterprise fund
Mayor’s Office
Mr. Hunstock explained the Mayor acts as the fulltime Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating
Officer. The Mayor’s Office encompasses the Mayor and the Executive Assistant along with the Human
Resources Department, Municipal Court, Economic Development Director, City Clerk and City Attorney.
Mr. Hunstock highlighted the Mayor’s Office 2013 budget:
• Net overall budget cuts of 8% achieved through salary and benefit reductions
• Resources reallocated to cover greater participation by Mayor at the regional level
City Clerk’s Office
City Clerk Sandy Chase reviewed a partial list of the City Clerk’s Office’s responsibilities:
• Public Records Requests - has become the number one impact in the City Clerk’s Office and
affects all departments
• Official City Records Management
• City Council – special meetings and public hearing notices, agendas, packets, minutes
• Ordinances, resolutions / codification
• Business licenses
• Parking permits
Packet Page 40 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 11
• Claims for damages / litigation
• Other: contracts, reception services, mail services, notary services, recording services, research,
elections, special events, census, etc.
Ms. Chase provided 2012 highlights:
• Public Disclosure/Records Management Specialist (part-time) hired in March
• Working with Information Services, a vendor has been selected for a Documentation
Management System in the Clerk’s Office to upgrade 1993 system – will assist public and
internal staff
• All employee training provided – records requests (Public Records Act), electronic records
management, records retention
Ms. Chase reviewed challenges:
• Public records requests continue to be a challenge due to the extensive nature of requests and
volume
• Management of email / electronic records
• Management of paper records (impacted by electronic requests)
Ms. Chase explained records requests frequently ask for any and all records associated with a topic. This
likely requires a search of email records which then turns up hundreds or thousands of emails related to a
public records request. Each email must be reviewed to determine if any are exempt from disclosure
which involves the City Attorney and referral to the Clerk’s Office for redactions, creation of a redaction
log, etc. All paper records must also be reviewed for this purpose as well. Since 2005 the City has
captured all email; there is no system in place that allows for the removal of records not required to be
kept by the Washington State Records Retention Schedules. Therefore because the City is in possession
of records that are not required, they must be disclosed if a records request is received. If paper records
are properly managed and destroyed in accordance with Record Retention Schedules, the records may
still need to be disclosed if they were originally provided electronically because they still exist in the
City’s email records. Ultimately this creates additional work that good records management is intended to
avoid. This is a major challenge that she will continue to pursue aggressively with Information Services in
the coming years.
Ms. Chase reviewed budget reductions and impacts:
• Reduce advertising budget related to non-required newspaper ad
o Impact: less public outreach
• Reduce communications (postage)
o Impact: Greater use of electronic communication
• Reduce training/travel
o Impact: Less opportunities to increase knowledge/skills
Police Department
Police Chief Al Compaan reviewed proposed 2013 staffing:
• Commissioned Officers: 51 (including 2 in training)
o Chief, Assistant Chief, Field Services, Investigations, Training Corporal, Administrative
Sergeant, and Professional Standards Sergeant
o Reduction of 4 FTE from 2012 budget
• Civilian staff: 9 full-time and 2 part-time
o Police Clerks, Property Office, Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement, Executive Assistant,
part-time DV Coordinator and Administrative Assistant
Chief Compaan reviewed impacts on the 2013 budget:
Packet Page 41 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 12
• Eliminates Assistant Chief position vacated by retirement
• Eliminates vacant patrol officer position
• Eliminates patrol officer position through VSIP
• Eliminates sergeant position through VSIP
• Requires realignment/reorganization of commissioned staff in Field Services
• Reduces prisoner care budget by $40,000 and moves it to the Non-Department budget.
Chief Compaan highlighted police activity:
• Part 1 crimes solved – 33.7% (very high clearance rate)
• Felony filings – 288, record number in 2011
• Traffic citations and infractions – 6,063
• DUI arrests – 161
• Total misdemeanor arrests – 1,497
• Animal control incidents – 1,370
• Parking citations – 793
• Firearms related requests (CPL, transfers) – 1,031
• Public Disclosure Requests – 2,093
Recent operational highlights included:
• Established regional burglary task force
• Integrated North Metro SWAT team after approval of Interlocal Agreement
Recent highlights related to community relations included:
• Celebrated Police Centennial in collaboration with Edmonds Historical Museum
• Hosted Edmonds Night Out on July 31, 2012
Public Works and Utilities Department
Public Works Director Phil Williams described who and what Public Works does:
• Operate and maintain 14 wastewater lift stations, one water pump station and 20 PRV stations,
2,100 valves, 2,000 hydrants, 4 reservoirs (7.5 million gallons), 3,300 manholes, 180 and 190
miles of water and sewer mains, respectively
• Maintain 133 CL miles (288 lane miles) of paved surface in City ROW, 448 City-owned
streetlights, 18 signalized intersections, and 5,625 signs
• Maintain 7,077 catch basins, cleaning about 6,000/year, 571 public and private
detention/treatment ponds, and over 175 miles of storm water piping and open drainage ditches or
creeks
• Maintain, fuel and replace as necessary 158 pieces of rolling stock, 92 in Public Works &
Utilities
• Maintain or operate/maintain 20 major public buildings or facilities
Mr. Williams reviewed 2012 accomplishments:
• Main Street 5th to 6th construction underway – will be completed in November
• Received $5.21 million grant for 228th/99 and signal improvements (no local match required)
• Received notice of award for construction grant for Five Corners roundabout $1.94 million
• Began design/ROW phase 212th/76th
• Finished up 2010, 1011 and 2012 water line replacements - $5.1 million
• Completed rebuild of sewer lift station #2 - $900,000
• Completed two Talbot Road drainage projects
Mr. Williams reviewed budget reductions and impacts:
Packet Page 42 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 13
• Reduce Public Works Administrative Assistant position to 80%
o Full coverage in office eliminated on Fridays
o Slower response to service calls from the public
o More people will be left with voicemail or have to call 911 on Fridays
• Reduce current staff in Engineering for review of private development impacts and ROW permit
applications from three to two (33% staffing reduction):
o Overall customer service experience, Q&A, counter presence, etc. will decline
o Review times will increase for ROW permits for the public and for the utilities (Comcast,
PSE, PUD, Frontier, etc.)
o Review times for City utility impacts and Public Works frontage impacts in City ROW will
increase
o Public Works webpage will not be as frequently updated and improved
• Budget reduction targets in Facilities Division will be met through energy cost savings over 2011
and from line item maintenance cuts:
o Office painting, carpeting, and small improvements will be eliminated
o Current reduced staffing level will be extended for custodians
• Fleet Division will convert 17 vehicles to propane fuel savings approximately $60,000 annually
o Lower maintenance costs, reduced greenhouse emissions
Mr. Williams reviewed the following decision packages:
• Water
o Replace meter reading handhelds - $35,000
o Purchase Insert-a-Valve (or equal) - $50,000
• Sewer
o Replace (2) trailer-mounted generators - $70,000
o Replace (2) davit hoists - $16,000
• Fleet
o Replace (3) 16-17 year old trucks - $165,000 (funded by B Fund)
• Engineering
o New position for capital project management - $95,000 annual expense 2013 – 2015 will save
over $100,000/year in consultant costs
Mr. Williams reviewed upcoming issues:
• Utility rates
o Proposed rate increased for City utilities from recently approved Comprehensive Plan for
Water and Stormwater
Water – 7.5%
Stormwater – 8.0%
o New Comprehensive Plan for wastewater under way now – have not increased sewer rates
since 2004, 2013 placeholder of 5%
o These adjustments are needed to continue to replace the City’s aging infrastructure
• Street Pavement Preservation
o After much discussion and several attempts, no ongoing predictable source of funding has
been identified to meet this approximately $1.5 million annual need
o Without additional investment, street condition continues to decline
Human Resources
Acting Human Resources Administrator Carrie Hite explained Human Resources provides oversight and
all human resources services to all City Departments including recruitment, testing, job classification,
compensation administration, administration of all benefit programs, training, employee relations, labor
Packet Page 43 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 14
union relations and negotiations, policy development, program development, Disability Board, Civil
Service and employee records.
Ms. Hite highlighted 2012 projects:
• Reorganization of department
o Budget amendment next month to hire HR analysis
• Nonrepresented Compensation study and policy
• Job description update
• Personnel Policy update
• EPOA negotiations, mediation
• Medical benefits reopener and change
• Voluntary Separation Incentive Program
Ms. Hite highlighted 2013 issues:
• Complete reorganization, staffing levels
o 2013 budget includes a FTE HR analysis
• EPOA still pending
• Law Support negotiations for 2013
Ms. Hite described 2013 budget reductions and impacts:
• Reduce supplies
• Reduce professional services
o Eliminates citywide flu shots
• Reduce advertising
o Move to more online advertising
• Reduce citywide tuition reimbursement program
• Reduce employee awards
• Reduce wellness budget
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Director Carrie Hite provided an overview of the department:
• Manage over 450 acres of park land and open space, including robust flower program
• Operate Frances Anderson Center, Yost Pool, Edmonds Memorial Cemetery, Meadowdale
Preschool
• Provide comprehensive recreation programs to the community
• Provide comprehensive cultural arts programs
• Partner with Senior Center, library and others
Ms. Hite reviewed 2012 accomplishments
• Interurban Trail completion
• Hazel Miller Plaza completion
• Sports tourism/half marathon
• RCO application for City Park
• Park Impact Fee study moving forward
• Edmonds Marsh grant, and work with People for Puget Sound
• OLAE: Improvements at off leash area
• Flower basket adoption program
• Art enhanced flower poles
• SR 99 ground breaking
• Underwater Park
Packet Page 44 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 15
• (2) grants from Verdant, including free swim lessons for all 3rd graders and pilot Xfit camp for
youth at risk of obesity
• Parks assisting with Main Street, Five Corners
Ms. Hite reviewed budget reductions and impacts:
• Reduce seasonal parks labor
o Corner flower beds will be planted with perennials
o Reduction in mowing, landscape maintenance
• Reduce irrigation at neighborhood parks and ball fields
o Grass will go dormant for the summer, will reduce water costs and mowing
• Reduction of staff at Frances Anderson Center (1.5 FTE)
o Reorganize office
Reduce recreation office hours
Decrease in service levels for arts program
• Reduce Arts funding
o Eliminate one summer concerts
o Eliminate arts scholarship programs
o Arts Commission programs to be funded by Writers on the Sound Conference revenue
• Reduce Beach Ranger Program
o Limit summer beach patrols
o Visitor station closed
o Reduction of programs
Ms. Hite described a proposed decision package:
• Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan (PROS) with Community Cultural Plan - $125,000
o PROS plan expired May 2014
o Funding could be split between 2013 and 2014
o Not eligible for REET funding
Ms. Hite commented on issues:
• Cemetery Maintenance Fund
o Expenses continue to grow, revenues are flat, therefore fund balance is decreasing
o Current fund balance will be depleted this year (2013) and will need General Fund subsidy
• Park Trust Fund: Yost Pool
o Trust Fund for Yost “Save the Pool” campaign depleted in 2011
o Long term operational goal is to increase revenue, decrease expenses and minimize subsidy
o Both participants and revenue increased this year compared to last year
Community Services and Economic Development Departments
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton described the department’s
responsibilities related to Community Service:
• Provides support to the Mayor, City Council, Department Directors and City staff
o Help form and develop long-term policies and strategies
o Plan, organize, coordinate, and implement major/special projects
o Serve as a liaison between the City and its residents, and community, regional and state
organizations
o Develop and establish both long-term and short-range goals and objectives and administrative
procedures and policies
o Help coordinate Capital Improvement Projects
o Participate as a member of the annual budget review team
Packet Page 45 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 16
o Special project management on regional issues that involve funding, legislation and interlocal
agreement
o Serve as Administrative Mayor when the mayor is away from the office
o Serve as City’s Disaster Recovery Coordinator
Mr. Clifton described the department’s responsibilities related to economic development:
• Works to strengthen the local economy by:
o Attracting new businesses
o Working with property owners on development options
o Assisting local merchants to grow their businesses
o Resolving complaints/concerns and marketing Edmonds to businesses and visitors
• Coordinates with other departments, government agencies and Chamber of Commerce on special
projects
• Works on policies that encourage economic development and make the City more business
friendly.
Mr. Clifton reviewed 2013 budget reductions and impacts:
• Community services
o Reduce funding in professional services
Eliminates environmental attorney funding
• Economic Development
o Reduce funding in professional services
Reduces ability to contract with economic development contractors on special projects
• Reduce funding for advertising
o Reduces ability to most effectively market the City
Mr. Taraday advised a member of the Lighthouse team has the requisite expertise to handle
environmental issues and that can be addressed via the existing City Attorney contract.
Development Services Department
Interim Development Services Director Rob Chave explained operations consist of programs design to
meet federal and state requirements and locally mandated laws and codes as well as other discretionary
services. He displayed an organizational chart for the department that includes Development Services
Administration, the Building Division and the Planning Division. He described services the department
provides:
• Mandatory:
o Permit review and inspection
o Long range planning and regional coordinator
o GMA compliance
• Other services:
o Code enforcement
o Public information and assistance
o GIS analysis and mapping
o Website management and permit information
o Support for Boards and Commissions and Hearing Examiner
Mr. Chave reviewed trends:
• Permit revenue continues to be at a reduced level, well below the peak years (2004-2007) but
recovering from the 2009-2010 trough
• Permit activity is at a high level
• Staffing is reduced from peak (2006) and as proposed will be below the 1991 staffing level
Packet Page 46 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 17
• Because of reduced staffing, permit activity per employee is nearing an all-time high
Mr. Chave reviewed several bar graphs illustrating:
o Development Services employment vs. building permits
o Building permits per Development Services employee
o Building permits issues through August compared to revenue
Mr. Chave reviewed 2013 budget reductions and impacts:
• Reduction in staffing: Director position remains unfunded and possible VSIP reduction
• No discretionary funds for independent analysis for permitting or enforcement
• Little capacity for maintenance/replacement of equipment or new initiatives (e.g. permit system
enhancement)
• Printing reduction shifts public information to nearly complete reliance on digital/web-based
delivery
• Reduced public meeting support (e.g. Planning Board goes from 2 to 1 meeting per month or
post meeting recordings on line and keep summary minutes)
• Slower code and plan amendment response times and capabilities
Municipal Court
Municipal Court Judge Doug Fair reviewed mandated court services:
• Court hearings
o Hearing must be set in required mandated time limits for infractions and criminal cases
o Interpreters must be provided at no cost
• Data entry
o All citations must be entered into the Washington State database correctly
• Probation DUI and domestic violence
o All defendants who are convicted of a DUI or domestic violence charge must be monitored
by the court
• Fine collections
o Fines are to be collected by the court and allocated to the City and the State
• Process judicial orders
o The court is responsible for properly processing all paperwork generated by or filed with the
court
Judge Fair described other services provided by the court:
• Passports
o Process passport applications as a special service to the citizens of Edmonds
• Other probation services
• The Probation Office monitors other criminal charges in order to cut down on recidivism
o
Judge Fair commented on impacts of budget reductions in 2012:
• Discontinued night court to fund court security for video hearings
• Closed during lunch hour to increase productivity
Judge Fair commented on impacts of 2013 budget reductions:
• Reduce by 0.5 FTE
o Reduce or eliminate passport service
o Reduce or eliminate probation on theft and drug cases
o Reduce periodic review on probation cases
o Reduce number of calendar resulting in longer hearings
Packet Page 47 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 18
Judge Fair explained his caseload has increased approximately 68% since he began as the Municipal
Court Judge and staffing levels have decreased 13%. Judge Fair described potential 2013 enhancements:
• Credit card entry at every clerk station
• Ability to make online payments
• Convert to a paperless court
City Council
Council President Peterson reported he is working with Mr. Hunstock and Senior Executive Council
Assistant Jana Spellman on reducing travel and supplies budgets.
Mr. Hunstock summarized a lot of information was provided tonight but not a lot of specifics. There are
still some moving targets including nonrepresented compensation, health insurance and the Capital
Improvement Plan. There will be a lot of potential impacts on service levels both internally and
externally. A lot of hard decisions have been made that will be incorporated into the preliminary budget
that will be presented to the Council on October 16. The budget Mayor Earling presents on October 16
will be a balanced budget; once it is presented, it becomes the Council’s budget. He recommended any
changes be accompanied by new revenue sources or other cuts to keep the budget balanced. Today he
emailed Councilmembers the additional information to be included in the 2013 preliminary budget
document. This will include historical information, charts, organizational charts with positions, some
policies, actual salaries rather than a range by position, etc.
Mayor Earling expressed his thanks to staff who have taken on the unpleasant task of cutting $1.5 million
from the budget. Staff has been enormously professional. There are obvious reductions in staff even with
the VSIP. All departments have had to make considerable compromises and work cooperatively.
With regard to pavement preservation, Council President Peterson asked if there were other TBD funding
options. Mr. Williams answered there are a variety of funding options via the state statute that authorizes
TBDs such as sales tax, property tax and vehicle license fee but all require a public vote.
Council President Peterson inquired about allocating REET funds to pavement preservation. Mr.
Williams answered one of the REET funds is eligible for all capital projects including streets.
8. REPORT ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Councilmember Bloom reported on the following:
• SeaShore Transportation: State Senator David Frockt provided a summary and encouraged all
municipalities to be consistent in their recommendations regarding transportation issues and TBD
funding options
• Economic development Commission – subcommittee assignments were discussed. Getting new
members up to speed.
• Lodging Tax Advisory Committee – approved an increase in the advertising allocation for the
ECA
Councilmember Petso reported the Lake Ballinger Forum met today. The issues discussed will be
forwarded to a Council committee for further discussion. She requested a Councilmember replace her on
the committee, explaining the committee works with neighboring jurisdictions with the goal of
eliminating flooding and improving water quality in the Lake Ballinger and Lake Forest Park areas.
Councilmember Buckshnis reported WRIA 8 has not had a meeting this quarter. Snohomish County
Tomorrow (SCT) is discussing mediation between cities regarding the municipal urban growth areas.
SCT also plans to discuss coal trains and their impacts on cities. SCT is also working on the inter-
jurisdictional housing memorandum.
Packet Page 48 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 25, 2012
Page 19
Councilmember Johnson reported Councilmember Fraley-Monillas and she attended the Parking
Committee meeting that included discussion regarding the need for more commuter parking for Sound
Transit. This will be discussed again at a future meeting. The Historic Preservation Commission is
researching whether sidewalk impressions identifying the street as George Street can be incorporated into
the Main Street project.
9. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported he attended the ribbon cutting ceremony for the new multi-family project on
Edmonds Way, Compass Apartments. The project feels very different inside than it does from the street;
it is very high quality construction and is fully leased. He summarized that is a sign of the need and the
ability of the community to attract high quality projects.
Mayor Earling reported the Antique Mall property has been purchased and he was hopeful the new
owners would move quickly to update the facility.
10. COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilmember Johnson provided a reminder of the dedication of the International Lighting on Highway
99 on Thursday at 11:30 a.m.
Councilmember Johnson welcomed Student Representative Yaelle Kimmelman. She explained a plaque
in the Council office lists all the Student Representatives since 1980; Ms. Kimmelman is the 72nd student
representative. The program has expanded over the years; the first student served only a month, Ms.
Kimmelman will serve for the school year.
Council President Peterson reported the Community Solar program celebrated the completion of phase 2
on the Frances Anderson Center roof. Phase 2 significantly increased the number of solar panels installed
in phase 1. The power generated in 2012 was 10% greater than originally anticipated. He commended the
group of volunteers for the incredible amount of work they have done. He also thanked City staff for
processing the permits in a timely manner so the project could be completed and qualify for grants.
Councilmembers Buckshnis and Petso welcomed Student Representative Yaelle Kimmelman.
Councilmember Bloom reported the Tree Board is preparing an Arbor Day celebration and plans to have
a booth at the last Summer Market. The Tree Board is preparing a report with recommendations that they
will present to the Council before yearend.
11. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(i).
At 9:58 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 15 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 Johnson, Buckshnis,
Peterson, Petso and Bloom. Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Interim Development
Services Director Rob Chave and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 10:20 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the meeting at 10:21 p.m. and adjourned the meeting at that time.
Packet Page 49 of 413
AM-5150 3. D.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted For:Shawn Hunstock Submitted By:Nori Jacobson
Department:Finance
Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of claim checks #134435 through #134555 dated September 27, 2012 for $291,678.16.
Recommendation
Approval of claim checks.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
In accordance with the State statutes, City payments must be approved by the City Council. Ordinance
#2896 delegates this approval to the Council President who reviews and recommends either approval or
non-approval of expenditures.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2012
Revenue:
Expenditure:291,678.16
Fiscal Impact:
Claims $291,678.16
Attachments
Claim Checks 09-27-12
Project Numbers 09-27-12
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finance Shawn Hunstock 09/27/2012 08:39 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/27/2012 08:39 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 09:15 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/27/2012 11:03 AM
Packet Page 50 of 413
Form Started By: Nori Jacobson Started On: 09/27/2012 08:29 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/27/2012
Packet Page 51 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
1
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134435 9/27/2012 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL 310356 MEADOWDALE RODENT CONTROL
RODENT CONTROL @ MEADOWDALE CLUBHOUSE
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 82.12
RODENT CONTROL310378
CITY WIDE RODENT CONTROL
001.000.640.576.800.480.00 93.08
Total :175.20
134436 9/27/2012 066054 ADIX'S BED & BATH FOR DOGS AND OCTOBER 2012 ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 10/12 EDMONDS AC
ANIMAL BOARDING FOR 10/2012
001.000.410.521.700.410.00 2,097.71
Total :2,097.71
134437 9/27/2012 064615 AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE 37372 LUBRICANT/OIL FILTER/COUPLING
LUBRICANT/OIL FILTER/COUPLING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 3,955.97
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 105.65
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 385.86
Total :4,447.48
134438 9/27/2012 065568 ALLWATER INC 092012033 COEWASTE
DRINKING WATER
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 23.35
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.11 0.67
Total :24.02
134439 9/27/2012 001528 AM TEST INC 72043 SAMPLE NUMBER TESTING
SAMPLE NUMBER TESTING
411.000.656.538.800.410.31 75.00
Total :75.00
134440 9/27/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6404266 UNIFORM SERVICES
1Page:
Packet Page 52 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
2
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134440 9/27/2012 (Continued)069751 ARAMARK 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
134441 9/27/2012 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 655-6272479 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
21580001655-6392301
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 :125.92
134442 9/27/2012 074106 ARMSTRONG, JENNIFER ARMSTRONG0919 WOTS NONFICTION JUDGE
NON FICTION JUDGE FOR WOTS
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
134443 9/27/2012 070251 ASHBROOK SIMON-HARTLEY 123163 ROLLER/FORGED STUB SHAFTS
ROLLER/FORGED STUB SHAFTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 7,230.00
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 2,067.78
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 686.85
Total :9,984.63
134444 9/27/2012 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER 66419 OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 32.95
2Page:
Packet Page 53 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
3
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134444 9/27/2012 (Continued)070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 32.95
UB Outsourcing area #600 Printing
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 33.96
UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 115.80
UB Outsourcing area #600 Postage
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 115.79
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.490.00 3.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 3.13
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.490.00 3.23
Total :340.94
134445 9/27/2012 002085 BARD, MICHAEL J BARD 9-20-12 BARD EXPENSE CLAIM 9-20-12
SIX TIER WIRE SHELVING UNITS
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 199.86
50' RUBBER HOSE
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 28.97
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.310.00 21.74
Total :250.57
134446 9/27/2012 002100 BARNARD, EARL 69 LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
LEOFF 1 Reimbursement
617.000.510.522.200.230.00 76.58
Total :76.58
134447 9/27/2012 073464 BEL-RED HEATING & AC Bld 2012.0825 Refund - work site not in City Limits
Refund - work site not in City Limits
001.000.000.257.620.000.00 75.00
Total :75.00
3Page:
Packet Page 54 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
4
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134448 9/27/2012 002258 BENS EVER READY 6247 INV#6247 - EDMONDS PD
SERVICED 5-5# EXTINGUISHERS
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 38.00
RECHARGE 5 EXTINGUISHERS
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 60.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.480.00 9.31
Total :107.31
134449 9/27/2012 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP 942792-82 INV#942792-82 - EDMONDS PD -RICHARDSON
METAL NAMETAG - RICHARDSON
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 10.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.04
INV#955854 - EDMONDS PD -FRAUSTO955854
REMOVE SERVICE BARS
001.000.410.521.210.240.00 2.50
SEW ON NEW SERVICE BARS
001.000.410.521.210.240.00 2.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.240.00 0.48
INV#955855 - EDMONDS PD -HONNEN955855
REMOVE SERVICE BARS
001.000.410.521.210.240.00 2.50
SEW NEW SERVICE BARS
001.000.410.521.210.240.00 2.50
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.210.240.00 0.48
INV#956836 - EDMONDS PD -ALTERATIONS956836
REMOVE BARS-MOORE/PLOEGER/
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 7.50
SEW NEW SERVICE BARS-MOORE
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 3.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.410.521.220.240.00 1.00
4Page:
Packet Page 55 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
5
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :34.45134449 9/27/2012 002500 002500 BLUMENTHAL UNIFORMS & EQUIP
134450 9/27/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12152155 PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE
PARK MAINTENANCE COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 36.16
Total :36.16
134451 9/27/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12150523 CANON CONTRACT CHARGE IRC1030
Canon contract charges -- Mayor's Office
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 9.35
Canon contract charges -- Mayor's Office
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 9.35
Canon contract charges -- Mayor's Office
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 9.29
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.450.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.450.00 0.89
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.450.00 0.88
Total :30.65
134452 9/27/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12166206 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
134453 9/27/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12152152 FLEET COPIER
Fleet Copier Sept
511.000.657.548.680.450.00 33.02
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.450.00 3.14
PW ADMIN COPIER12152153
PW Office Copier for Sept
5Page:
Packet Page 56 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
6
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134453 9/27/2012 (Continued)073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
111.000.653.542.900.450.00 38.85
PW Office Copier for Sept
411.000.652.542.900.450.00 38.85
PW Office Copier for Sept
411.000.654.534.800.450.00 27.42
PW Office Copier for Sept
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 27.42
PW Office Copier for Sept
511.000.657.548.680.450.00 27.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.650.519.910.450.00 6.51
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.652.542.900.450.00 3.69
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.450.00 2.61
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 2.61
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.450.00 2.59
PW Office Copier for Sept
001.000.650.519.910.450.00 68.55
9.5% Sales Tax
111.000.653.542.900.450.00 3.69
WATER SEWER COPIER12152154
Water Sewer Copier
411.000.654.534.800.450.00 70.68
Water Sewer Copier
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 70.68
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.450.00 6.72
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.655.535.800.450.00 6.71
Total :441.15
6Page:
Packet Page 57 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134454 9/27/2012 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES 12150532 Bld Div Copier/Printer Lease
Bld Div Copier/Printer Lease
001.000.620.558.800.450.00 36.16
Total :36.16
134455 9/27/2012 074180 CAWRSE, MIKE Cawrse.Boots MIKE CAWRSE.BOOT REIMBURSEMENT
Mike Cawrse.Boot Reimbursement
001.000.620.532.200.240.00 122.00
Total :122.00
134456 9/27/2012 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 9657 INV#9657 CUST#45 -EDMONDS PD
NEXTEL PHONE FOR NARCS 08/2012
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 41.68
Total :41.68
134457 9/27/2012 035160 CITY OF SEATTLE G100130 1-218359-279832
2203 205 ST
411.000.656.538.800.471.62 17.08
Total :17.08
134458 9/27/2012 073573 CLARK SECURITY PRODUCTS INC SE81875301 Fac Maint - Padlocks
Fac Maint - Padlocks
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 538.80
Freight
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 14.16
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 52.53
Total :605.49
134459 9/27/2012 004095 COASTWIDE LABS W2473961 Fac Maint - Cleaner, Seat Covers,TT
Fac Maint - Cleaner, Seat Covers,TT
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 492.13
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 46.75
Total :538.88
134460 9/27/2012 068358 COLUMBIA CASCADE COMPANY 36023-39 ANDERSON CENTER PLAY TOY
7Page:
Packet Page 58 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
8
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134460 9/27/2012 (Continued)068358 COLUMBIA CASCADE COMPANY
PARTS FOR ANDERSON CENTER PLAY STRUCTURE
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 325.00
Freight
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 185.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 48.45
Total :558.45
134461 9/27/2012 060914 CUMMINS NORTHWEST LLC 001-27822 FS Gen 16 - Parts
FS Gen 16 - Parts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 48.12
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 12.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.71
Total :65.83
134462 9/27/2012 073823 DAVID EVANS & ASSOC INC 322937 E1AA.SERVICES THRU 9/1/12
E1AA.Services thru 9/1/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 18,263.69
Total :18,263.69
134463 9/27/2012 074177 DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT INC 09192012 PAYMENT ON ROGER BROOKS WORKSHOP
Deposit on presentation by Roger Brooks
001.000.240.513.110.440.00 500.00
Total :500.00
134464 9/27/2012 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 12-3300 ECON DEV MINUTETAKER FEB -AUGUST
Economic Development Commission minute
001.000.240.513.110.410.00 426.00
Total :426.00
134465 9/27/2012 064531 DINES, JEANNIE 12-3301 MINUTE TAKING
9/18 Council Minutes
001.000.250.514.300.410.00 405.00
8Page:
Packet Page 59 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
9
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :405.00134465 9/27/2012 064531 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
134466 9/27/2012 074179 DITTMAR, ADRIAN 0567413 REDUND SPAY/NEUTER REFUND #0567413
SPAY/NEUTER REFUND IMP#8641
001.000.000.343.930.000.00 35.00
Total :35.00
134467 9/27/2012 007253 DUNN LUMBER 14108090 E9FB.WOOD POSTS
E9FB.Wood Posts
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 22.27
9.5% Sales Tax
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 2.12
Total :24.39
134468 9/27/2012 069523 EDMONDS P&R YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP KENNEMUR0918 YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP
YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP:MATTHEW KENNEMUR
122.000.640.574.100.490.00 59.00
Total :59.00
134469 9/27/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-01130 WWTP WATER
WWTP WATER
411.000.656.538.800.473.64 25.63
Total :25.63
134470 9/27/2012 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 3-01808 LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 32.11
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD3-03575
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 233.90
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W3-07525
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 70.35
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW3-07709
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 29.57
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD3-09350
9Page:
Packet Page 60 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
10
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134470 9/27/2012 (Continued)008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
LIFT STATION #4 8311 TALBOT RD
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 70.35
LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD3-09800
LIFT STATION #10 17526 TALBOT RD
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 37.19
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W3-29875
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE W
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 32.11
Total :505.58
134471 9/27/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 079966 ZSYST MK0315 PRINTER MAINTENANCE
Maintenance for printers 09/21/12 -
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 312.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.310.518.880.350.00 29.64
Total :341.64
134472 9/27/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 079531 COPIER LEASE
COPIER LEASE
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 11.69
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 1.11
Total :12.80
134473 9/27/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 079844 MK0653
MAINT PER COPY/COPIER CONTRACT
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 121.06
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.450.41 11.50
Total :132.56
134474 9/27/2012 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES 079907 METER READING
Recept. desk copier 5/21-6/21
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 11.83
9.5% Sales Tax
10Page:
Packet Page 61 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
11
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134474 9/27/2012 (Continued)008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES
001.000.250.514.300.450.00 1.12
Total :12.95
134475 9/27/2012 074183 ESPINOZAVALLES, OTILIA ESPINOZAVALLES0924 REFUND
REFUND FOR CITY PARK SHELTER
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 100.00
Total :100.00
134476 9/27/2012 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC 516875 SUPPLIES
TUBE, REMNANTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 74.25
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 7.05
Total :81.30
134477 9/27/2012 066378 FASTENAL COMPANY WAM0U26438 04710
SET BOLT
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 83.88
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 9.40
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.86
Total :102.14
134478 9/27/2012 009815 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 0352364 Water - Supplies
Water - Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 135.69
7.7% sales tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 10.45
Total :146.14
134479 9/27/2012 067004 FINE LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS 22088-00 FULL SCALE TRANSMITTER
FULL SCALE TRANSMITTER
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1,175.00
Freight
11Page:
Packet Page 62 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
12
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134479 9/27/2012 (Continued)067004 FINE LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 35.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 115.04
Total :1,325.99
134480 9/27/2012 072453 FIRST CLASS CARPET SERVICE 0963 CARPET CLEANING/GYMNASTICS ROOM
CARPET CLEANING IN GYMNASTICS ROOM
001.000.640.575.550.410.00 245.00
Total :245.00
134481 9/27/2012 070855 FLEX PLAN SERVICES INC 202060 August 2012 Section 125 plan fees
August 2012 Section 125 plan fees
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 51.10
Total :51.10
134482 9/27/2012 011900 FRONTIER 253-017-8148 CITY PARK T1 LINE
City Park T1 Line
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 414.01
Total :414.01
134483 9/27/2012 011900 FRONTIER 425-775-1344 BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
BEACH RANGER PHONE @ FISHING PIER
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 54.43
Total :54.43
134484 9/27/2012 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 18.54
12Page:
Packet Page 63 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
13
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134484 9/27/2012 (Continued)011900 FRONTIER
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 34.41
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
CIVIC CENTER ELEVATOR PHONE LINE
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 55.33
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES425-771-0158
FIRE STATION #16 ALARM AND FAX LINES
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 165.99
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER ALARM LINE425-776-3896
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIRE AND
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 111.32
UTILITY LOCATE DESIGNATED LINE425-778-3297
UTILITY LOCATE DESIGNATED LINE
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 19.05
UTILITY LOCATE DESIGNATED LINE
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 35.38
Total :1,027.84
134485 9/27/2012 012199 GRAINGER 9924424022 City Hall - Boot Brush
City Hall - Boot Brush
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 24.14
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 2.30
Total :26.44
134486 9/27/2012 012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 962108373 0000482902
CRIMP TOOL
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 212.68
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 9.34
13Page:
Packet Page 64 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
14
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134486 9/27/2012 (Continued)012233 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 21.09
0000482902962388320
RELAY COIL
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 276.95
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 9.34
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 27.20
Total :556.60
134487 9/27/2012 073662 GRIFFITHS, ANNEGRETH GRIFFITHS0917 REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
REFUND OF DAMAGE DEPOSIT
001.000.000.239.200.000.00 500.00
Total :500.00
134488 9/27/2012 012560 HACH COMPANY 7949754 112830
FILTER/PETRI DISH/ROSOLIC ACID
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 724.66
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 37.95
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.31 72.46
Total :835.07
134489 9/27/2012 070515 HARLEY DAVIDSON OF SEATTLE 7297 Unit 582 - Repairs
Unit 582 - Repairs
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 843.45
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.480.00 80.13
Total :923.58
134490 9/27/2012 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 007D7231 036570
2 REGULATORS
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 1,095.00
14Page:
Packet Page 65 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
15
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134490 9/27/2012 (Continued)060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 30.60
Total :1,125.60
134491 9/27/2012 006030 HDR ENGINEERING INC 00023824-B 178323
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
411.000.656.538.800.410.11 719.01
Total :719.01
134492 9/27/2012 074004 HEFFRON TRANSPORTATION 5717 E2AA.SERVICES THRU 7/29/12
E2AA.Services thru 7/29/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 1,956.00
Total :1,956.00
134493 9/27/2012 060165 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC 23424 E2FE.TASK ORDER 12-01 THRU 8/25
E2FE.Task Order 12-01 thru 8/25/12
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 746.68
E9FB.TASK ORDER 12-01 THRU 8/3123478
E9FB.Task Order 12-01 thru 8/31/12
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 433.88
Total :1,180.56
134494 9/27/2012 074150 IKEDA, RITA BAILEY IKEDA0419 SISTER CITY REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES
REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUPPLIES FOR WELCOME
138.200.210.557.210.490.00 44.79
Total :44.79
134495 9/27/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2152937 Visitor badges
Visitor badges
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 18.95
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.220.516.100.310.00 1.80
Total :20.75
134496 9/27/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2151409 CATALOG ENVELOPES 9X12
White 9x12 mailing envelopes
15Page:
Packet Page 66 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
16
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134496 9/27/2012 (Continued)073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 34.42
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.610.519.700.310.00 3.27
Total :37.69
134497 9/27/2012 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED 2151224 Office Supplies - DSD
Office Supplies - DSD
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 35.03
Office Supples - Dev Serv Dept2151332
Office Supples - Dev Serv Dept
001.000.620.558.800.310.00 4.36
Total :39.39
134498 9/27/2012 069349 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL INC 2911090 Membership Dues - Yaberry 0184650
Membership Dues - Yaberry 0184650
001.000.620.524.100.490.00 125.00
Total :125.00
134499 9/27/2012 014940 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEMS 709282 GLOVES
GLOVES
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 66.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 6.27
Total :72.27
134500 9/27/2012 070902 KAREN ULVESTAD PHOTOGRAPHY ULVESTAD16106 DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY 101
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY #16106
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 220.00
Total :220.00
134501 9/27/2012 061253 KEN HEANY-INPRA EXEC DIRECTOR HARRIS2013 PACIFIC NW MANAGEMENT SCHOOL
PACIFIC NORTHWEST MANAGEMENT SCHOOL
001.000.640.576.800.490.00 1,235.00
Total :1,235.00
134502 9/27/2012 074176 KING CO SUPERIOR COURT CLERK SEPT 26 2012 RECORDS REQUEST -EDMONDS PD
16Page:
Packet Page 67 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
17
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134502 9/27/2012 (Continued)074176 KING CO SUPERIOR COURT CLERK
RECORDS REQUEST
001.000.410.521.110.410.00 10.00
Total :10.00
134503 9/27/2012 074182 KITSAP TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT 81612 LAND PRIDE MOWER
NEW LAND PRIDE MOWER
001.000.640.594.760.640.00 11,710.45
Freight
001.000.640.594.760.640.00 250.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.594.760.640.00 1,136.24
Total :13,096.69
134504 9/27/2012 068024 KRUCKEBERG BOTANIC GARD FOUND KRUCKEBERG16077 BOTANIC GARDEN TOUR
BOTANIC GARDEN TOUR #16077
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 19.50
Total :19.50
134505 9/27/2012 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC 385330-001 PAINT WAND -PAINT STRIPPING WAND
Paint Wand - Paint Stripping Wand
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 80.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.620.532.200.490.00 7.60
Total :87.60
134506 9/27/2012 073136 LANG, ROBERT 09192012 ECON DEV MTG DOOR MONITOR
Econ Dev Commission meeting 9/19/12
001.000.240.513.110.490.00 36.00
Total :36.00
134507 9/27/2012 072914 LAUGHTLAND, AMANDA LAUGHTLAND0919 POETRY JUDGE FOR WOTS
POETRY JUDGE FOR WOTS
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
134508 9/27/2012 074178 LEGACY FORD 126576 Unit eq86sd - 2012 Ford Super Duty F
17Page:
Packet Page 68 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
18
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134508 9/27/2012 (Continued)074178 LEGACY FORD
Unit eq86sd - 2012 Ford Super Duty F
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 29,067.00
8.6% Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 2,499.76
Unit eq84sd - 2012 Ford Super Duty F126577
Unit eq84sd - 2012 Ford Super Duty F
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 29,067.00
8.6% Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 2,499.76
Total :63,133.52
134509 9/27/2012 018980 LYNNWOOD HONDA 801512 CEMETERY SUPPLIES
SHAFT, DRUM, ETC.
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 64.29
9.5% Sales Tax
130.000.640.536.500.310.00 6.11
Total :70.40
134510 9/27/2012 074181 MADSEN, DAWN MADSEN16120 IRISH DANCE CLASSES
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #16120
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 20.00
IRISH DANCE FOR KIDS #16118
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 90.00
Total :110.00
134511 9/27/2012 019582 MANOR HARDWARE 428008-00 Library - Supplies
Library - Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 70.85
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 6.73
Total :77.58
134512 9/27/2012 020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 36730922 123106800
SILICONE SEALANT/CABLE TIE/WOOD STEEL
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 531.71
18Page:
Packet Page 69 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
19
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134512 9/27/2012 (Continued)020039 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 10.89
12310680036823489
LOW-PRESSURE GAUGE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 229.26
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 6.60
12310680037195957
GREASE GUN/THREADED PIPE
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 306.76
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 8.01
12310680037326127
MOISTURE STEEL TUBING
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 283.76
Freight
411.000.656.538.800.310.21 5.82
Total :1,382.81
134513 9/27/2012 024302 NELSON PETROLEUM 0482795-IN Fleet - Filters
Fleet - Filters
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 52.68
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 5.00
Total :57.68
134514 9/27/2012 068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC 1027154 Unit eq84sd - Aluminum Tool Boxes
Unit eq84sd - Aluminum Tool Boxes
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 2,284.00
9.5% Sales Tax
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 216.98
Unit eq86sd - Alum Tool Boxes1027155
Unit eq86sd - Alum Tool Boxes
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 2,284.00
9.5% Sales Tax
19Page:
Packet Page 70 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
20
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134514 9/27/2012 (Continued)068451 NORTHEND TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 216.98
Total :5,001.96
134515 9/27/2012 061013 NORTHWEST CASCADE INC 1-531851 HONEY BUCKET RENTAL
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:MARINA BEACH
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 1,418.55
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-533125
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:PINE STREET PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-534000
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:CIVIC CENTER
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 194.62
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-535089
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:SIERRA PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-535323
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:WILLOW CREEK FISH
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 112.35
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL1-535505
HONEY BUCKET RENTAL:HUMMINGBIRD PARK
001.000.640.576.800.450.00 194.62
Total :2,144.84
134516 9/27/2012 061808 OAK HARBOR FREIGHT 19411616 0242284
FREIGHT CHARGE
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 300.47
Total :300.47
134517 9/27/2012 063511 OFFICE MAX INC 324863 PENCILS, TAPE
YELLOW PENCILS,HEAVY DUTY TAPE
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 20.41
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 1.94
MANILA ENVELOPES339969
MANILA ENVELOPES
20Page:
Packet Page 71 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
21
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134517 9/27/2012 (Continued)063511 OFFICE MAX INC
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 38.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 3.62
WOTS LABESL, PAPER,STORAGE BOXES411885
WRITE ON THE SOUND BOXES,LABELS
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 55.86
9.5% Sales Tax
117.100.640.573.100.310.00 5.30
BINDERS454272
ASSORTED BINDERS
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 63.22
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.574.100.310.00 6.01
Total :194.51
134518 9/27/2012 068709 OFFICETEAM 36324421 Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant Services
Deborah Pinney -HR Assistant Services
001.000.220.516.100.410.00 525.36
Total :525.36
134519 9/27/2012 063750 ORCA PACIFIC INC 058608 YOST POOL SUPPLIES
YOST POOL CHEMICALS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 207.15
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 19.67
Total :226.82
134520 9/27/2012 071402 PACIFIC NW FLOAT TRIPS PACNWFLOAT16071 GOLD PANNING RAFT ADVENTURE
GOLD PANNING RAFT ADVENTURE
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 71.60
Total :71.60
134521 9/27/2012 027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.954023031281 PS - Paint Supplies
PS - Paint Supplies
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 19.90
21Page:
Packet Page 72 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
22
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134521 9/27/2012 (Continued)027165 PARKER PAINT MFG. CO.INC.
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.651.519.920.310.00 1.89
Total :21.79
134522 9/27/2012 063951 PERTEET ENGINEERING INC 20110010.000-11 E7AC.SERVICES THRU 7/1/12
E7AC.Services thru 7/1/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 5,481.66
E7AC.SERVICES THRU 7/29/1220110010.000-12
E7AC.Services thru 7/29/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 11,494.80
E7AC.SERVICES THRU 8/26/1220110010.000-13
E7AC.Services thru 8/26/12
112.200.630.595.330.410.00 4,972.80
Total :21,949.26
134523 9/27/2012 073546 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT 09202012 POSTAGE FOR CITY METER
Postage for City Meter250-00288
001.000.250.514.300.420.00 8,000.00
Total :8,000.00
134524 9/27/2012 028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 2313996 211958
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 372.54
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 35.39
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES2316301
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 81.16
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 7.71
2119582325168
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 57.00
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 5.42
22Page:
Packet Page 73 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
23
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134524 9/27/2012 (Continued)028860 PLATT ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
2119582339142
ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 27.37
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.656.538.800.310.22 2.60
Total :589.19
134525 9/27/2012 064088 PROTECTION ONE 730531 ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 23.85
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 23.85
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 21.46
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 27.42
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC
511.000.657.548.680.420.00 11.92
ALARM MONITORING PUBLIC WORKS OMC
001.000.650.519.910.420.00 10.73
Total :119.23
134526 9/27/2012 071911 PROTZ, MARGARET PROTZ15832 FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP
FELDENKRAIS WORKSHOP #15832
001.000.640.575.540.410.00 98.00
Total :98.00
134527 9/27/2012 030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC 129900 MARKER
MARKER: ROSCOE
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 268.00
MARKER129901
MARKER: NILSEN
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 418.00
INSCRIPTION130115
INSCRIPTION: WHITE
23Page:
Packet Page 74 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
24
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134527 9/27/2012 (Continued)030780 QUIRING MONUMENTS INC
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 90.00
INSCRIPTION130116
INSCRIPTION: JOHNSON
130.000.640.536.200.340.00 90.00
Total :866.00
134528 9/27/2012 068483 RH2 ENGINEERING INC 56259 Water 5Corners Pump House -Wiring
Water 5Corners Pump House -Wiring
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 860.18
Total :860.18
134529 9/27/2012 071335 RHAMEY, RAY RHAMEY0919 FICTION JUDGE FOR WOTS
FICTION JUDGE FOR WOTS
117.100.640.573.100.410.00 130.00
Total :130.00
134530 9/27/2012 073819 ROCK SOLID LEARNING LLC ROCKSOLID16091 ROCKHOUND DISCOVERY
ROCKHOUND DISCOVERY #16091
001.000.640.574.200.410.00 36.30
Total :36.30
134531 9/27/2012 074014 SAIC ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT &03-557 E1FM.SERVICES THRU 7/27/12
E1FM.Services thru 7/27/12
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 8,391.56
Total :8,391.56
134532 9/27/2012 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC 14-257454 Unit 582 - Rubber Wheel Chock
Unit 582 - Rubber Wheel Chock
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 33.76
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 3.21
Fleet Stock Supplies14-257475
Fleet Stock Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 131.89
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 12.53
24Page:
Packet Page 75 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
25
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :181.39134532 9/27/2012 036950 036950 SIX ROBBLEES INC
134533 9/27/2012 060889 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL ARV/ 17956428 Fleet Shop Supplies - Sockets
Fleet Shop Supplies - Sockets
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 31.80
Freight
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 14.95
9.5% Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.311.00 4.46
Total :51.21
134534 9/27/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2012-3682-5 100 DAYTON ST
100 DAYTON ST
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 449.04
Total :449.04
134535 9/27/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 110566566 2030-9778-7
WWTP ELECTRICITY
411.000.656.538.800.471.61 24,299.44
Total :24,299.44
134536 9/27/2012 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 2003-8645-6 CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD
CLUBHOUSE 6801 MEADOWDALE RD
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 73.60
TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S2005-9295-4
TRAFFIC LIGHT 101 9TH AVE S
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 31.68
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST2006-3860-9
OLD PUBLIC WORKS 200 DAYTON ST
411.000.654.534.800.470.00 343.67
TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S2006-7801-9
TRAFFIC LIGHT 200 3RD AVE S
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 53.93
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W2012-6598-0
LIFT STATION #12 16121 75TH PL W
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 303.58
25Page:
Packet Page 76 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
26
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134536 9/27/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
TRAFFIC LIGHT 599 MAIN ST2012-8389-2
TRAFFIC LIGHT 599 MAIN ST
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 53.21
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W2013-7496-4
LIFT STATION #11 6811 1/2 157TH PL W
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 33.09
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S2015-7289-8
TRAFFIC LIGHT 117 3RD AVE S
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 148.86
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW2015-9448-8
LIFT STATION #15 7710 168TH PL SW
411.000.655.535.800.470.00 31.68
DECORATIVE LIGHTING 413 MAIN ST2016-5690-7
DECORATIVE STREET LIGHT 413 MAIN ST
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 400.46
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @2017-1178-5
STREET LIGHTING (183 LIGHTS @
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 1,429.64
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST2017-8264-6
TRAFFIC LIGHT 901 WALNUT ST
111.000.653.542.640.470.00 55.63
STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY2023-8937-5
STREET LIGHT 7601 RIDGE WAY
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 16.17
LOG CABIN 120 5TH AVE N2024-2158-2
LOG CABIN 120 5TH AVE N
001.000.651.519.920.470.00 92.19
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @2025-2918-6
STREET LIGHTING (303 LIGHTS @
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 2,649.74
STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 4002025-2920-2
STREET LIGHTING (13 LIGHTS @ 400
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 184.24
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @2025-7615-3
STREET LIGHTING (2029 LIGHTS @
26Page:
Packet Page 77 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
27
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134536 9/27/2012 (Continued)037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 14,066.35
STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 2502025-7948-8
STREET LIGHTING (58 LIGHTS @ 250
111.000.653.542.630.470.00 596.97
Total :20,564.69
134537 9/27/2012 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO 103587 DISPOSAL SERVICES
PARK MAINTENANCE DISPOSAL SERVICES
001.000.640.576.800.470.00 2,774.90
Total :2,774.90
134538 9/27/2012 038410 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS 4204705-0001-04 VESTS
VESTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 38.20
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 3.63
VESTS4204725-0001-04
VESTS
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 30.34
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 2.88
Total :75.05
134539 9/27/2012 060371 STANDARD INSURANCE CO Oct Standard Ins OCTOBER STANDARD INSURANCE PREMIUMS
October Standard Insurance Premiums
811.000.000.231.550.000.00 14,019.83
Total :14,019.83
134540 9/27/2012 040430 STONEWAY ELECTRIC SUPPLY S100288977.001 E9FB.POWER DROP-ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
E9FB.Power Drop-Electrical Supplies
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 732.25
9.5% Sales Tax
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 69.56
Total :801.81
134541 9/27/2012 070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC 440011490659 C/A 440001304654
27Page:
Packet Page 78 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
28
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134541 9/27/2012 (Continued)070864 SUPERMEDIA LLC
Basic e-commerce hosting 09/02/12 -
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
C/A 440001307733440011490672
09/2012 Web Hosting for Internet
001.000.310.518.880.420.00 34.95
Total :69.90
134542 9/27/2012 065578 SYSTEMS INTERFACE INC 13940 Water - Troubleshooting
Water - Troubleshooting
411.000.654.534.800.410.00 514.00
Total :514.00
134543 9/27/2012 040917 TACOMA SCREW PRODUCTS INC 18981348 Water- Supplies
Water- Supplies
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 67.16
9.5% Sales Tax
411.000.654.534.800.310.00 6.38
Total :73.54
134544 9/27/2012 073629 TDS AKA BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS 801-12775 Unit 127 - Tires
Unit 127 - Tires
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 285.04
Sales Tax
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 26.89
Total :311.93
134545 9/27/2012 009350 THE DAILY HERALD COMPANY 1794308 NEWSPAPER ADS
Hearing-Gift of Artwork
001.000.250.514.300.440.00 61.60
Total :61.60
134546 9/27/2012 073749 THE WATERSHED COMPANY 2012-0648 E9FB.SERVICES THRU 8/31/12
E9FB.Services thru 8/31/12
412.200.630.594.320.410.00 1,092.70
Total :1,092.70
28Page:
Packet Page 79 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
29
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134547 9/27/2012 073781 TRICO CONTRACTING INC E8GA.Ret Release E8GA.RETAINAGE RELEASE
E8GA.Retainage Release
412.300.000.223.400.000.00 27,674.16
Total :27,674.16
134548 9/27/2012 064905 TYDI CONCRETE CUTTING & CORING 520915 CORE DRILL HOLES
CORE DRILL HOLES
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 238.50
9.5% Sales Tax
414.000.656.594.320.410.10 22.65
Total :261.15
134549 9/27/2012 062693 US BANK 3686 MAYOR'S ED LUNCHEON
Mayor's ED luncheon
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 207.89
Parking to attend ST Meeting
001.000.210.513.100.430.00 7.50
EASC Public Officials Reception
001.000.210.513.100.490.00 25.00
Total :240.39
134550 9/27/2012 062693 US BANK 3363 WA DOR Fleet Business Lic
WA DOR Fleet Business Lic
511.000.657.548.680.490.00 489.00
Radio Shack - Unit eq87wq -Supplies
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 5.00
Fisheries Supplies - Unit eq87wq
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 66.76
OReilly Auto Parts - Unit 400 -Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 98.81
Dunn Lumber - Unit eq87wq -Supplies
511.100.657.594.480.640.00 94.36
OReillys Auto Parts - Unit 130 - Parts
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 8.37
Matco - Supplies
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 32.93
29Page:
Packet Page 80 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
30
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
134550 9/27/2012 (Continued)062693 US BANK
OReilly Auto Parts - Credit3363
OReilly Auto Parts - Credit
511.000.657.548.680.310.00 -52.54
Total :742.69
134551 9/27/2012 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS 1118830146 C/A 671247844-00001
Cell Service-Bldg
001.000.620.524.100.420.00 97.91
Cell Service-Eng
001.000.620.532.200.420.00 173.39
Cell Service Fac-Maint
001.000.651.519.920.420.00 67.40
Cell Service-Parks Discovery Program
001.000.640.574.350.420.00 18.33
Cell Service Parks Maint
001.000.640.576.800.420.00 65.25
Cell Service-PD
001.000.410.521.220.420.00 440.40
Cell Service-PD 104 Fund
104.000.410.521.210.420.00 72.54
Cell Service-PW Street
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 26.80
Cell Service-PW Storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 14.70
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
111.000.653.542.900.420.00 46.91
Cell Service-PW Street/Storm
411.000.652.542.900.420.00 46.91
Cell Service-PW Water
411.000.654.534.800.420.00 140.68
Cell Service-PW Sewer
411.000.655.535.800.420.00 54.93
Cell Service-WWTP
411.000.656.538.800.420.00 40.24
30Page:
Packet Page 81 of 413
09/27/2012
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
31
7:26:25AM
Page:vchlist
Bank code :front
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #Description/Account Amount
(Continued)Total :1,306.39134551 9/27/2012 067865 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
134552 9/27/2012 073552 WELCO SALES LLC 5643 Envelopes -- Office of the Mayor
Envelopes -- Office of the Mayor
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 150.00
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.210.513.100.310.00 14.25
Total :164.25
134553 9/27/2012 073018 WILCO-WINFIELD 120268 GARDENING SUPPLIES
CASORON, ROUNDUP
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 497.82
9.5% Sales Tax
001.000.640.576.800.310.00 47.29
Total :545.11
134554 9/27/2012 067393 WWCCPPGROUP 2012 Cross Conn 2012 Annual Cross Connection Seminar
2012 Annual Cross Connection Seminar
411.000.654.534.800.490.00 200.00
Total :200.00
134555 9/27/2012 070432 ZACHOR & THOMAS PS INC 1009 SEPT-12 RETAINER
Monthly Retainer - September 2012
001.000.360.515.230.410.00 13,000.00
Total :13,000.00
Bank total :291,678.16121Vouchers for bank code :front
291,678.16Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report121
31Page:
Packet Page 82 of 413
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 9/27/2012Packet Page 83 of 413
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 9/27/2012Packet Page 84 of 413
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 9/27/2012Packet Page 85 of 413
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 9/27/2012Packet Page 86 of 413
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 9/27/2012Packet Page 87 of 413
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
WWTP c383 WWTP WWTP ReRoof Project
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 9/27/2012Packet Page 88 of 413
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 9/27/2012Packet Page 89 of 413
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 9/27/2012Packet Page 90 of 413
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 91 of 413
AM-5142 3. E.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Acknowledge receipt of a Claim for Damages from Hilary Renee Schnell (amount undertermined).
Recommendation
Acknowledge receipt of the Claim for Damages by minute entry.
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
A Claim for Damages has been received from the following:
Hilary Renee Schnell
P.O. Box 1882
Edmonds, WA 98020
(Amount Undetermined)
Attachments
Schnell Claim for Damages
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 09:15 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/27/2012 11:03 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/24/2012 01:39 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/27/2012
Packet Page 92 of 413
Packet Page 93 of 413
Packet Page 94 of 413
AM-5155 3. F.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Grant Agreement for Historic Preservation.
Recommendation
Authorize staff to enter into the grant agreement with the State of Washington (Exhibit 1).
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
Staff has obtained a grant from the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in the
amount of $6,000 to enable the Historic Preservation Commission to produce a new version of its
successful calendar for the 2014 calendar year. There is no city match required; the grant will cover the
actual printing of the calendar, which will be developed by the Commissioners with assistance from staff.
The City Attorney's office has reviewed the grant and approved it in form; it is a standard state contract
for this type of grant.
If Council approves, the $6,000 will be reflected as a one-time expenditure in the 2013 budget in the
Planning Division of the Development Services Department.
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Year:2013
Revenue:6,000
Expenditure:6,000
Fiscal Impact:
Grant revenue will be offset by a budgeted expenditure in the Planning Division for 2013.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: DAHP Grant Agreement
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Packet Page 95 of 413
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/27/2012 05:08 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 08:54 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/28/2012 08:35 AM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 09/27/2012 04:49 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2012
Packet Page 96 of 413
Packet Page 97 of 413
Packet Page 98 of 413
Packet Page 99 of 413
Packet Page 100 of 413
Packet Page 101 of 413
Packet Page 102 of 413
Packet Page 103 of 413
Packet Page 104 of 413
Packet Page 105 of 413
Packet Page 106 of 413
Packet Page 107 of 413
Packet Page 108 of 413
Packet Page 109 of 413
Packet Page 110 of 413
Packet Page 111 of 413
Packet Page 112 of 413
Packet Page 113 of 413
Packet Page 114 of 413
AM-5144 3. G.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie
Department:Human Resources
Review Committee: Committee Action: Approve for
Consent Agenda
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
2012 Law Enforcement Support Service Employees' collective bargaining agreement.
Recommendation
This collective bargaining agreement (contract) for the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees has
been ratified and is being presented to Council for approval.
Previous Council Action
This step is part of the normal process at the City for a collective bargaining agreement resulting in a a
final contract.
Narrative
This collective bargaining agreement is effective from 1/1/12 -12/31/12.
Attachments
Law Support CBA 2012
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 09/27/2012 04:07 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/27/2012 04:10 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 08:56 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/28/2012 08:35 AM
Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 09/26/2012 12:47 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2012
Packet Page 115 of 413
AGREEMENT
by and between
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
and the
EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
(Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees)
JANUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2012
Packet Page 116 of 413
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ARTICLE I RECOGNITION, ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP & PAYROLL
DEDUCTION
3
ARTICLE II
GENDER
3
ARTICLE III
ASSOCIATION RIGHTS
3
ARTICLE IV
HOURS OF WORK, OVERTIME, AND CALLBACK
4
ARTICLE V
PROBATION, SENIORITY AND LAYOFF'S
7
ARTICLE VI
WAGES
8
ARTICLE VII
TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENTS- SUPERVISOR'S
8
ARTICLE VIII
HOLIDAYS
8
ARTICLE IX
VACATIONS
9
ARTICLE X
LEAVES
10
ARTICLE XI
HEALTH AND WELFARE AND INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE
13
ARTICLE XII
UNIFORMS ALLOWANCE AND OTHER EQUIPMENT
14
ARTICLE XIII
NO STRIKE PROVISION
16
ARTICLE XIV
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
16
ARTICLE XV
DISCHARGE, REDUCTION OR DEPRIVATION OF PRIVILEGES
17
ARTICLE XVI
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
17
ARTICLE XVII
SAVINGS CLAUSE & MISCELLANEOUS
19
ARTICLE XVIII
DURATION
19
ARTICLE XIX
ENTIRE AGREEMENT
19
APPENDIX "A"
20
APPENDIX "B"
23
Packet Page 117 of 413
3
AGREEMENT
by and between
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
and the
EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
(Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees)
JANUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2012
THIS AGREEMENT is by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, hereinafter referred to
as the Employer, and the EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, hereinafter referred to as the
Association.
ARTICLE I. RECOGNITION, ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP & PAYROLL DEDUCTION
1.1 Recognition- The Employer recognizes the Association as the sole Collective Bargaining representative
for all Employees within the Bargaining Unit as specified in APPENDIX "A."
1.2 Association Membership- It shall be a condition of employment that all Employees of the Employer
who are members of the Association in good standing until effective date of this Agreement shall remain
members in good standing or pay an agency fee and those who are not members on the effective date of
this Agreement, shall, on the thirty-first (31st) day following the effective date of this Agreement,
become and remain members in good standing in the Association or pay an agency fee.
1.2.1 In accordance with RCW 41.56.122 Employees who for bona fide religious tenets or teachings of a
church or religious body are forbidden from joining a Union/Association as may be determined by the
Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) shall contribute an amount equivalent to regular
Union/Association dues to a non-religious charity or to another charitable organization mutually agreed
upon by the affected Employee and the Association to which such Employee would otherwise pay the
regular monthly dues. If the Employee and Association are unable to agree, the Public Employment
Relations Commission shall designate the charity. The Employee shall furnish written proof to the
Association and the Employer that such payment has been made.
1.3 Payroll Deduct - The Employer shall deduct from the pay of all Employees the dues of the
Association and shall remit to said Association all such deductions monthly, except that all deductions
for the above items must be uniform and regular to accommodate the monthly machine processed
payroll. Where laws require written authorization by the Employee, the same shall be furnished in
the form required. No deduction shall be made which applicable law prohibits. The Association
shall indemnify, defend and hold the Employer harmless against any claims made and against any suit
instituted against the Employer on account of any check-off of dues for the Association. The
Association shall refund to the Employer any amounts paid to it in error on account of the check-off
provision upon presentation of proper evidence thereof.
1.4 Association Notification - Within fifteen (15) days from the date of hire of a new Employee, the
Employer shall forward to the Association the name and address and social security number of the new
Employee. The Employer shall promptly notify the Association of all Employees leaving its
employment.
ARTICLE II. GENDER
2.1 Wherever the words Employee or Employees are used in this Agreement, they are intended and shall be
construed so as to apply equally to either gender.
ARTICLE III. ASSOCIATION RIGHTS
3.1 Association Officials Time-Off - An Association Official who is an Employee in the Bargaining Unit
Packet Page 118 of 413
4
(Association Board Officer, Negotiation Team Member and/or Shop Steward as appropriate to
the specific activity) shall be granted a reasonable amount of release time if on duty while
actually conducting contract negotiations, contract administration or discipline representation with the
Employer on behalf of the Employees in the Bargaining Unit or actually engaged in preparatory
meetings for said activities with the Employee. This does not include research and other
preparation activities not specifically enumerated and provided:
o They notify the Employer at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the time-off,
o The Employer is able to properly staff the Employee's job duties during the time- off,
o And the wage cost to the Employer is no greater than the cost that would have been incurred
had the Association Official not taken time-off.
When Association activities, as enumerated above, must be scheduled during an Association Official's
off duty hours, adjustments shall be made to the Official's regular schedule on an hour for hour (straight
time) basis.
3.2 Association Investigation and Visitation Privileges - The Business Representative of the Association,
with the permission of the Department Head or designee, may visit the work location of Employees at
any reasonable time and location for the purpose of investigating grievances. Such representative shall
limit activities during such investigations to matters relating to this Agreement; provided however; the
labor representative shall not interfere with the operation or normal routine of any department.
3.3 Bulletin Board - The Employer shall provide suitable space for a bulletin board to be used exclusively
by the Association.
3.4 Use of Equipment- Bargaining Unit Officials may make occasional but limited use of City
owned/operated communication resources (telephone, facsimile, voice mail, electronic mail, copier,
computer) for communications; specifically, incidental or minimal use is permitted. Incidental or
minimal use is that which is both brief in duration and accumulation and does not interfere with or
impact the conduct of official City business due to volume, frequency or impedes Employee's
performance of their official duties. In no event will the Association use the City communications
resources for internal Association business beyond that permitted for minimal use or for any political
use.
The Association will supply one (1) box/case of paper of a similar type and quality as used by the City
on an annual basis to the City.
ARTICLE IV. HOURS OF WORK, OVERTIME AND CALLBACK
4.1 The workweek shall be comprised of four (4) or more consecutive equal days ON duty and two (2) or
more consecutive days OFF duty. The sum total of time worked shall not exceed forty (40) hours per
week based on an annual average. The Association and the City may mutually agree to reopen Article
IV, Section 4.1, for the purpose of negotiating a departure from the status quo on shift hours and days
on/days off rotation during the term of this Collective Bargaining Agreement.
4.1.1 The policy of bidding for shift assignments on a seniority basis by rank or within classification shall
be recognized, provided seniority may be disregarded for good cause by the Employer.
Shift bids for the following year open on September 1 and close on or about October 1 and shall
be open for thirty (30) days.
Employees shall be notified of the result of the bid on or about October 15.
Packet Page 119 of 413
5
Bid results may be subject to change due to events such as promotion, resignation or other good cause.
For the purpose of this article, "on or about" means not to exceed three (3) days.
4.1.2 A workday shall normally include the following based on shift hours:
Shifts of 8 hours: One (1) thirty (30) minute meal period
Two (2) fifteen (15) minute rest periods
Shifts of 10 hours: One (1) forty five (45) minute meal period
Two (2) fifteen (15) minute rest periods
4.2 Overtime - Overtime shall be that time worked in excess of the scheduled hours of work which shall be
compensated at the rate of one and one-half (1.5) times the Employee's regular straight-time hourly rate
of pay.
4.2.1 All approved overtime shall be compensated for in increments of fifteen (15) minutes with the major
portion of fifteen (15) minutes being paid as fifteen (15) minutes.
4.3 Call Back- The Employee is considered to be on paid status upon being ordered back to work
(i.e. notification of a call out) and off paid status when leaving the police facility or other Employer
designated work site. In the case of pre-scheduled meetings, court appearances and other scheduled
events, paid status commences at the time scheduled for the event and ends when the event is over but
at no time less than the three (3) hour minimum as described later in this Section.
Employees ordered to report back to duty after going home after their regular shift, or ordered to
report back to work on their day off, including time required to be spent in court, either as a
witness or in assistance on another officer's case, or in attendance at department meetings shall be
guaranteed three (3) hours at the rate of one and one-half (1.5) times the Employee's regular straight
time hourly rate of pay. In the event an Employee is not notified by 12:00 noon forty eight (48)
hours prior to a scheduled or subpoenaed Court appearance on a regularly scheduled day off that such
an appearance is not necessary, the Employee shall be guaranteed two and one-half (2.5) hours at the
Employee's regular straight time hourly rate of pay.
4.4 Required Training- On-duty training will be compensated at the Employee's regular rate of pay with
shift adjustments allowed as necessary and agreed upon by the Supervisor and Employee. OFF duty
required training shall be paid with compensatory time off or paid at the time and one-half (1.5) rate with
three (3) hour minimum.
4.5 Shift Premium - Employees who are assigned to work a regular shift that includes hours between 1900
and 0600 hours, (the "Premium Period") shall receive a shift premium of five percent (5%) of the hourly
wage, in addition to their hourly rate of pay. The shift premium shall apply to all hours worked as part of
an assigned, regular shift that includes hours within the Premium Period. Employees who elect, but are
not assigned, to work regular shifts that include hours within the Premium Period will not receive a shift
premium for such shifts. Employees assigned to a shift that is eligible for the shift premium will receive
the shift premium for any overtime hours attached to their shift that fall within the Premium Period, but
will not receive the shift premium for overtime hours falling outside the Premium Period. Employees
whose regular shifts do not include hours within the Premium Period will not receive the shift premium
for overtime hours or overtime shifts worked within the Premium Period.
o e. g: Employee works a regular shift from 1800 to 0600 hours. They will receive the shift
premium for all twelve (12) hours. If the Employee works three (3) hours overtime from 0600
to
0900 hours, they would not receive the shift premium for the overtime hours.
o Employee works a regular shift from 1500 to 0300 hours. The Employee works two (2) hours
Packet Page 120 of 413
6
overtime from 0300 to 0500 hours. The Employee will receive the shift premium for all twelve
(12) hours of their regular shift and will also receive the shift premium for the two (2)
overtime hours.
o Employee normally works a regular shift between 0700 and 1700 hours. The Employee elects
to change the work schedule one (1) day to work 1200 to 2200 hours to accommodate an
assignment/meeting. The Employee would not receive the shift premium.
o Employee elects or is mandated to work an overtime shift between 1800 and 0600 hours. The
Employee would receive overtime pay, but would not receive the shift premium.
4.6 Employees shall receive overtime for all shifts rescheduled with less than fourteen (14) days notice
except where there is a bona fide emergency. The fourteen (14) day notification and the one and one
half (1.5) times regular straight time hourly rate of pay requirement may be waived by the Association on
behalf of the Employee.
4.7 Requests to schedule Compensatory or Holiday time shall be made not less than fourteen (14) days in
advance of the requested date, provided, however, that compensatory time may be scheduled with less
than fourteen (14) days notice only when the request would not require the Employer to call another
Employee to work in order to meet minimum staffing requirement, provided further that an Employee
requesting compensatory time with less than fourteen (14) days notice shall be allowed the time off if
the Employee arranges for a volunteer replacement. Whether the substitute Employee works at the
request of the Employer or at the request of another Employee, overtime will be paid. Accumulation of
compensatory time shall be limited to a maximum accrual of sixty five (65) hours at any one time. Any
hours accrued in excess of the maximum shall be paid to the Employee at the next regularly scheduled
pay period. It will be the responsibility of the Employee to provide as much notification as possible.
Requests submitted less than eight (8) hours prior to the start of a shift, may be denied by a Supervisor.
While actually at work, an Employee will be granted a request to leave early if the staffing levels are met
and work load allows.
4.8 Job Share:
4.8.1 Definition and Implementation- A job share position is defined as a full-time budgeted position,
which is occupied by two (2) part-time Employees. Job sharing shall be implemented, only upon the
approval of the Chief of Police or designee.
4.8.2 Schedule- Employees will share a full-time position on an agreed upon work schedule, which is
convenient to the Employer and the Employees. Examples of schedules that might be used are:
o One Employee works two (2) ten (10) hour days and one (1) five (5) hour day and the other
Employee works one (1) ten (10) hour day and one (1) five (5) hour day;
o One Employee works three (3) five (5) hour days and one (1) ten (10) hour day and the
other Employee works three (3) five (5) hour days;
o Each Employee works five (5) hours per day;
o Each Employee works forty (40) hours in alternating weeks.
4.8.3 Coordination- The Employees will be expected to coordinate with each other so that the
responsibilities of the position and the level of required productivity are not adversely affected.
4.8.4 Compensation- Each employee will be paid the hourly rate of pay of the established salary for the
position. Due to seniority, two (2) Employees may be paid at different steps in the salary grade,
however. Whenever one (1) Employee works during vacation, sick leave or other absence of the
Packet Page 121 of 413
7
second Employee, the working Employee will receive additional compensation at the regular rate of
pay for excess hours worked up to forty (40) hours in one (1) week. Any hours worked beyond forty
(40) in one (1) week will be compensated at time and one-half (1.5).
4.8.5 Benefits - Each Employee will be entitled to the following benefits:
o Vacation, Sick Leave, Holidays and Uniform Allowance on a pro-rated basis;
o Medical, Dental and Vision insurance with the Employer share of the premium pro-rated;
o Life Insurance and Short-term Disability paid for in full by the Employer;
o Participation in other Employee programs, including but not limited to the Employee
Suggestion Program, Perfect Attendance Award, Wellness Program, and Employee
Assistance Program.
4.8.6 Termination of Job-Share Position- Should either job share participant leave, the remaining
participant will revert back to full-time status until such time as a suitable replacement can be
employed. In addition, the Employer reserves the right to discontinue the job share position at any
time for legitimate operational reasons.
4.8.7 First Right of Refusal on an Open Full-Time Position- Should a job share participant wish to return
to full time status and a full time position is then available, the job share participant shall have first right
of refusal to the full time position.
ARTICLE V. PROBATION SENIORITY AND LAYOFFS
5.1 Probation Period - Non-Commissioned Employees and Employees with Special Commissions shall
be subject to a twelve (12) month probation period commencing with their first date of regular
employment in a position within the Bargaining Unit. Any probationary period shall be extended
automatically for the number of work days equal to the number of work days an Employee was
absent in excess of ten (10) work days during the probationary period. Discharge of an Employee
during this probation period shall not be subject to Section 15.1.
5.2 "Seniority" shall be defined as total length of service in the Bargaining Unit computed from the
Employee's most recent first compensated day of regular employment within the Bargaining Unit,
excluding the portion of extended leave of absence in excess of thirty (30) days and excluding periods of
layoff less than twelve (12) months.
5.2.1 "Seniority by Rank" as used in this Agreement shall accrue from the effective date of promotion to the
Employee's current rank.
5.3 The Employer shall provide the Association with a list of all current Employees of the Bargaining Unit
with their respective seniority dates on July 1st of each year and shall post a copy of same on the
Association bulletin board.
5.3.1 An Employee shall lose all seniority in the event of discharge or voluntary termination or layoff in
excess of twelve (12) months.
5.4 Layoffs- Positions within the Bargaining Unit shall be assigned to "work units" as follows: Police
Services: Police Services Assistant
Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement: Senior Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement Officer, Animal
Control/Ordinance Enforcement Officer
Packet Page 122 of 413
8
Crime Prevention: Crime Prevention Coordinator
Property: Property Officer
In the event of a layoff involving any of these work units, Employees will be laid off by reverse order of
seniority within the affected work unit (as contrasted with seniority as defined in Section 5.2).
An Employee designated for layoff who held a position in another work unit within the previous two (2)
years, who had a documented satisfactory work history in that prior position and who continues to meet
the minimum qualifications for the prior position, may displace an Employee occupying the prior
position who has less seniority as defined in Section 5.2; provided that upon mutual agreement between
the Chief of Police or designee and the Association, the two (2) year limitation in this Section may be
waived. An Employee returning to a prior position under this Section will serve a six (6) month
probationary period.
o e. g: An Employee is facing layoff from the Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement unit. That
same Employee had previously held a position within the Police Services unit within the past
two (2) years, had a history of satisfactory performance in that position and continues to meet
the minimum qualifications for the position. The Employee designated for layoff may displace
an Employee in Police Services who has less seniority as defined in Section 5.2.
ARTICLE VI. WAGES
6.1 The classification of work and the corresponding rates of pay covered by this Agreement shall be as
set forth in APPENDIX "A" which by this reference shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in
full.
ARTICLE VII. TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENTS- SUPERVISORS
7.1 Employees covered under this Agreement may at times and in some cases, may at all times
perform some duties of a Supervisor. Nothing in this Agreement shall in any way interfere with
carrying out their duties.
ARTICLE VIII. HOLIDAYS
8.1 The following days shall be considered holidays:
New Year's Day
Martin Luther King Day
Washington's
Memorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Veteran's Day
Thanksgiving Day
Friday following Thanksgiving Day
Christmas Eve
Christmas Day
January 1
Third Monday in January
Third Monday in February
Last Monday of May
July 4
First Monday of September
November 11
Fourth Thursday of November
December 24
December 25
Packet Page 123 of 413
9
8.1.1 All Employees shall be paid for all such holidays regardless upon which day in the week the holiday
shall fall. Each day consists of ten (10) hours. This pay shall be in the form of a holiday bank equal
to one hundred and ten (110) hours. If any work is performed by such Employee on such holiday,
additional compensation at the overtime rate shall be paid, in addition to the day off at a later date. No
Employee shall be called to work on such a holiday for less than a minimum call-out time and rate.
Employees scheduled to work Monday through Friday 8 hour days, Monday through Thursday 10
hour days, or Tuesday through Friday 10 hour days shall observe holidays which fall upon a
Saturday on the proceeding scheduled Friday workday and any holidays which fall upon a Sunday
on the following scheduled Monday workday. If a holiday occurs during an Employee's
vacation, the Employee shall receive the holiday on a later mutually scheduled date. Employees
may use only the holiday hours accrued for the holidays up to an including the date that the
employee wishes to use the leave. When employees terminate employment mid-year, they will be
paid only for unused holiday hours that have occurred prior to their termination.
8.2 On or before December 1st of each calendar year, all unused and unscheduled "Holiday" hours, up
to and including eighty eight (88) hours shall be repurchased by the Employer at the Employee's
regular straight time hourly rate of pay. Employees are responsible for monitoring their
"Holiday" hour balances and planning use of "Holiday" hours to avoid "use it or lose it"
scenarios. Any hours in excess of eighty eight (88) shall be scheduled by the Employee prior to
October 31'1 of each calendar year. Any scheduled but remaining unused holiday hours still in the
employee's bank on December 31 of each year shall be forfeited without any additional
compensation. However, if the employer requires an employee to cancel a prescheduled holiday off
during November or December, upon written approval of the Division's Assistant Chief, the holiday
may be carried over to be used within 60 days of the new calendar year.
8.3 One floating holiday will be given to each full-time employee (pro-rated for part time regular employees) for
calendar year 2012. This additional day is not eligible for cash out or carry over, and should not result
overtime.
ARTICLE IX. VACATIONS
9.1 All regular full-time Employees shall receive vacation with full pay annually in accordance with the
following:
YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT HOURS OF VACATION
After first 6 months
Second 6 months
2 through 4 years
5 through 10 years
11 through 19 years
20 through 24 years
25 years and thereafter
48 hours
40 hours
96 hours
136 hours
176 hours
200 hours
216 hours
Packet Page 124 of 413
10
9.1.1 For the purpose of this article, the term employment shall include any full time employment with the
City of Edmonds.
9.2 In the event of termination of employment, the Employee shall be given proportionate vacations
earned in the current year, together with any unused earned vacations for, the preceding calendar year
before being separated from the payroll.
9.3 The maximum vacation leave carry-over from one calendar year to the next shall be limited to
two (2) years worth of accumulated leave at the Employee's current accrual rate. An Employee
who has reached the maximum accrual level may continue to accrue vacation until December
31 '\ at which time any vacation accrued in addition to the maximum carry-over will be
forfeited, provided that the maximum accrual subject to cash-out upon separation shall be four
hundred and thirty two (432) hours, provided further that this limitation shall not apply when the
separation is caused by unanticipated events such as death, disability, illness, involuntary
discharge or similar circumstances . Employees are responsible for monitoring their vacation
balances and planning vacation to avoid "use it or lose it" scenarios. Where the Employee has
failed to appropriately manage their vacation balances, the Employer need not incur overtime to avoid
forfeiture
9.4 In the event scheduling in Superior Court necessitates the appearance of an Employee during the
Employee's previously scheduled vacation time, that Employee shall be offered the opportunity of
rescheduling the Employee's vacation at a time mutually convenient to the Employee and the
Employer as determined by the Chief of Police. Once vacation has been approved and the affected
Employee has incurred non refundable or unusable expenses in planning for the same, the Employee
shall be reimbursed by the City for those expenses. Upon request, the Employee shall assign any
tickets or other benefits to the City for which reimbursement is made. Any Employee called back to
duty for any reason once the vacation has begun shall be reimbursed for round trip transportation costs
involved in returning for duty. Reimbursement for travel shall be made on the same basis as the
original mode of transportation. If applicable, mileage shall be paid at the approved IRS rate. For the
purposes of this section "vacation" shall include leave of absence, bereavement leave or compensatory
time off, including regularly scheduled days off, immediately preceding or following any of the
aforementioned time off.
9.5 In order to make provisions for timely vacation schedules, all Employees shall bid for vacations for
the coming year by November 30. Preference in bidding for vacation scheduling and extra days off
shall be administered in accordance with seniority. Employees shall be advised of the bid results no
later than January 1. After January 15, scheduling shall be by seniority during the first two-(2)
weeks of each shift assignment work period (i.e. quarter or trimester). For the remainder of
each work period, scheduling shall be first come, first served. Employees who request a position
transfer may be subject to losing their previously bid time.
ARTICLE X. LEAVES
10.1 Sick Leave- Employees shall receive sick leave accruals under Section 10.8, including a one
thousand (1,000) hour maximum accrual, accrued at the rate of nine (9) hours per month. Sick leave
accrued but not taken from one (1) hour to four hundred (400) hours shall be converted to pay at
the Employee's regular rate of pay in effect at the date of termination and on the basis of the following
schedule:
With two (2) week notice - Honorable voluntary quit
Termination by City layoff
Termination for Retirement
- 25% of hours accrued.
- 25% of hours accrued.
-50% of hours accrued.
Packet Page 125 of 413
11
Sick leave accrued but not taken from four hundred one (401) hours to eight hundred (800) hours
shall be converted to pay, upon honorable termination of any nature, for fifty percent (50%) of hours
accrued at the Employee's regular rate of pay in effect at the date of termination. At the Employee's
option, sick leave accrued but not taken from four hundred one (401) hours to eight hundred (800)
hours may be converted to vacation time, on the basis of one (1) hour for every two (2) hours accrued
or fifty percent (50%), to be used prior to the Employee's termination date. At such time as the
employee elects to convert hours 401-800, the employee will no longer be entitled
to accrue sick leave. Hours accrued from eight hundred one (801) hours to one thousand (1,000)
hours are not eligible for compensation or conversion.
Retirement is defined as being eligible to receive PERS benefits at the time of termination.
Employees who terminate based on a disability may elect to either receive one hundred percent (100%)
of the unused sick leave balance or remain in a pay status until the sick leave is exhausted.
10.1.1 In the event of death of the Employee, payment for all unused sick leave shall be made to the surviving
spouse or domestic partner or to Employee's estate if there is no spouse or domestic partner, at
this regular straight-time hourly rate of pay.
10.2 An Employee eligible for sick leave with pay shall be granted such leave for:
o Personal illness or physical incapacity resulting from a cause beyond the Employee's control;
o Forced quarantine of the Employee;
o The death of a member of the Employee's immediate family, as defined in 10.6 and
o Illness of a member of the Employee's immediate family, as defined in 10.6.
At their election, Employees may use other accrued paid leave in place of or in addition to sick leave
for any of the purposes described above.
10.2.1 In the event an Employee shall be entitled to benefits or payments under any program of disability
insurance furnished by the Employer, Workers' Compensation Act, or similar legislation of the State of
Washington, or any other government unit, the Employer shall pay only the difference between the
benefits and payments received under such insurance or Act by such Employee and the Employee's
regular rate of compensation that the Employee would have received from the Employer if able to work
in accordance with applicable City policies. The foregoing payment by the Employer shall be limited to
the period of time that such Employee has accumulated sick leave credits as specified herein.
10.2.2 Sick leave may be used for medical, dental, or ocular appointments, when absence during working
hours for this purpose is authorized in advance by the Department Head, provided that the Employee
must make a reasonable effort to schedule such appointments at times which have the least
interference with the workday. In any instance involving use of a fraction of a day's sick leave, the
minimum charge to the Employee's sick leave account shall be one (1) hour.
10.3 The certificate of a physician and/or written report concerning the need for the sick leave may be
required by the Employer when an Employee is absent for a period in excess of three days or based upon
an individualized suspicion of sick leave abuse and if so required shall be supplied by the Employee in
order to qualify for sick leave with pay.
10.4 Leaves of Absence- Leaves of Absence may be granted to the Employees by the Employer with the
approval of the Chief of Police said absence to be for the benefit of the Employer and/or police
education, preserving seniority status provided adequate provision can be made for replacement of the
absent Employee during the Employee's absence. Seniority shall not accrue during any leave of absence.
Packet Page 126 of 413
12
10.5 Jury Leave - An Employee who is required to serve on a jury or as a result of official police department
duties is required to appear before a Court, Legislative Committee or Quasi judicial body as a witness in
response to a subpoena or other legally binding directive, shall be permitted authorized leave with pay
The Employee shall sign over to the Employer compensation received from the Courts for jury duty and
remain on full paid status.
10.6 Bereavement Leave- An Employee shall be granted up to three (3) days leave with pay in the event of
the death of any member of the immediate family.
Additional bereavement leave not to exceed three (3) days may be granted by the Mayor should travel
or other unusual circumstances require the additional time. This additional leave shall be deducted and
paid from the Employee's accrued sick leave.
Immediate family defined as:
o Spouse or domestic partner and children, including step children of the Employee;
o Mother, Father, Brother, sister of the Employee or spouse or domestic partner;
o Grandparents of the Employee or spouse or domestic partner;
o Grandchildren
10.7 Sick Leave Incentive Bonus- Unless otherwise specified in the labor agreement, Employees,
who maintain a good attendance record, shall be eligible for the following Sick Leave
Incentive Plan:
Days of Sick Leave Used during the Year Hours of Vacation Leave Earned
0 24
1 16
2 8
3 or more 0
Packet Page 127 of 413
13
This Sick Leave Incentive Plan excludes sick leave used for on duty injury involving an approved
Washington State Labor and Industries (L & I) claim against the City or leave taken pursuant to Family
Medical Leave Act (FLMA). The hours earned and used will be pro-rated to the nearest full hour. For
the purposes of this section, day is defined as a work day under the Employee's present work schedule.
In the event of death of the Employee, payment for all unused sick leave up to eight hundred (800)
hours shall be made to the surviving spouse or domestic partner or to the Employee's estate if
there is no spouse or domestic partner, at the Employee's regular straight-time hourly rate of pay.
10.8 Employees will accrue sick leave at the rate of nine (9) hours per month commencing with the date
of hire.
10.8.1 In the event of significant job related injury or illness to the Employee which is approved as a claim by
Washington State Labor and Industries (L&I), the Employee may at the Employee's option:
o Be placed on unpaid leave statue and accept the L&I Time Loss Compensation checks.
o Be placed on paid sick leave status (using accrued sick leave or if insufficient sick leave, then
other paid leave shall be utilized) and sign the L&I Time Loss Compensation checks over to
the City. The City would then "buy-back" and reimburse the Employee's sick leave bank.
10.9 Light-Duty - In the event an Employee suffers an illness or injury that prevents the Employee from
performing their full range of duties for a period in excess of two (2) weeks, light-duty shall be
assigned as authorized by the treating doctor pursuant to the terms outlined in Article 10.9.3.
10.9.1 Work Assignments- Light-duty status shall include work assignments within the Police Department
that the Employee is released to perform by the Employee's treating doctor until a full release for
return to work is authorized.
10.9.2 Rate of Pay/Required Duty- Employees assigned light-duty status shall be paid at one hundred
percent (100%) of their normal rate of pay. Employees shall work a forty (40) hour workweek
schedule as determined by the Employer. Employees may work less than 40 hours per week (including
partial days) if so ordered by the treating doctor.
10.9.3 Requested Duty- An Employee with a favorable prognosis for return to full duty by the treating
doctor will be assigned light-duty for a maximum period of three hundred thirty six (336) hours
unless the Employee is earlier able to resume a full range of duties. The three hundred thirty six (336)
hour period includes both full days and partial days on a prorated basis when required by the treating
doctor. Such period may be extended upon mutual written agreement of the Employer and the
Association on behalf of the Employee when the medical prognosis of the Employee being able to
return to full Employment within a reasonable period of time is received by the Employer.
10.9.4 Medical Reinstatement List & Effective Life of List -Names on Civil Service Commission's
(CSC) Medical Reinstatement List for a class of Employee shall be in order of separation to be
established by the Commission. Names of Employees on the Medical Reinstatement List shall be carried
two (2) years from the Employees last date of employment.
ARTICLE XI. HEALTH AND WELFARE AND INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE
11.1 Coverage- The Employer shall make available to eligible regular full time Employees and their
eligible spouses and dependents, an insurance program that includes medical, dental, vision
insurance and employee assistance plan (EAP) benefit. For the purposes of this article, spouse also
includes "registered domestic partner" as defined under Washington state law. This insurance program
includes the following:
Packet Page 128 of 413
14
Medical Insurance - Employees may choose between the following medical plans; Association of
Washington Cities ("AWC") Health First Plan or AWC Group Health Cooperative $10 Co-pay Plan.
Dental Insurance - Dental insurance is provided through the AWC Washington Dental Service
Plan F with Option III (Orthodontia).
Vision Insurance - Vision insurance is provided through AWC Vision Service Plan ($10.00
deductible).
EAP Plan -The Employee Assistance Program is provided through AWC.
11.1.1 The Employer shall pay the costs necessary to provide health, vision, life, dental and disability
insurance plans specified in this agreement for all employees in the bargaining unit. The selection of a
different/new provider shall be at the sole discretion of the Employer, provided that the benefit
levels shall be substantially the same as those benefit levels in effect as of the signing of this agreement.
In the event that the Employer receives notice of the termination of any plan specified in this agreement,
the Employer will promptly notify the Association and the parties shall commence negotiation
regarding replacement coverage and cost.
11.2 The Employer shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of those premiums necessary to maintain
the existing level of hospital and medical care, dental care, orthodontic care, vision care, life and disability
insurance coverage for each Employee. The Employer shall pay ninety percent (90%) of those
premiums necessary to maintain the existing level of hospital, medical care, dental care, and
orthodontic care insurance coverage for each Employee's Dependents.
11.3 Liability - Liability insurance for Employees shall be provided by the Employer. The Employer shall
provide legal counsel or reasonable attorney's fees for representation and defense of lawsuits and to hold
Employees harmless from any expenses, connected with the defense, settlement or monetary judgments
from such actions, claims, or proceedings arising out of or incident to acts and/or omissions occurring
while the Employee was acting in good faith in the performance or purported failure of performance of
the Employees official duties or employment and provided further that the Employee was not engaging
in criminal or malicious misconduct. A criminal conviction shall be deemed conclusive but not exclusive
proof of criminal misconduct for the purposes of this section. If the City elects to pay reasonable
attorney's fees hereafter, no claim for such payment may be made by an Employee prior to the
conclusion of a criminal lawsuit.
11.4 If it is permissible under the Employer-provided health plan, Employees shall have the option to divert
Dependent coverage applicable to that Employee to the Employee's own private health plan.
11.5 Upon execution of this agreement, the City will provide a one-time payment of $500 to each represented
employee to mitigate changes in the health care plans.
11.6 EPOA representatives will participate on the city-wide Health Benefits Committee to assist in selecting
health care plans to be provided effective January 2013 on a city-wide basis.
ARTICLE XII. UNIFORMS ALLOWANCE AND OTHER EQUIPMENT
12.1 The employer shall provide the following uniform items to new Employees and replace any of the
following items of any employee which in the reasonable opinion of the Employer require replacement:
Police Staff Assistants
Shirts (Polo); Short sleeve 3
Shirts (Flying Cross: short sleeve 3
Trousers 3 pair
Belt 1
Packet Page 129 of 413
15
Sweater or Vest 1
Shoes or boots 1 pair
Badge 1
Dept Insignia 2 pair
Shoulder Patches 4 pair
Property Officers
Shirts (Polo); Short sleeve 3
Shirts (Flying Cross: short sleeve 3
Shirts (Flying Cross); short sleeve 2
Turtleneck 1
Trousers 3 pair
Belt 1
Sweater or Vest 1
Shoes or boots 1 pair
Jacket 1
Department Insignia 2 pair
Shoulder Patches 4 pair
Hat 1
Animal Control Officers
Shirts (Flying Cross); long sleeve light blue 3
Shirts (Flying Cross); short sleeve light blue 3
Turtleneck 2
Trousers 3 pair
Belt 1
Hat 1
Tie 1
Tie Bar 1
Department Insignia 2 pair
Shoulder Patches 7 pair
Shoes or boots 1 pair
Badges 1
Uniform Jacket 1
Uniform Rain Pants 1
Crime Prevention Officer
Shirts (Polo); short sleeve polo 3
Shirts (Flying Cross); long sleeve light blue 1
Shirts (Flying Cross); short sleeve light blue 2
Shirts (Flying Cross); long sleeve dress white 1 Turtleneck 1
Trousers 3
B 1
Sweater or Vest 1
Tie 1
Packet Page 130 of 413
16
Tie Bar 1
Shoes or boots 1
Department Insignia 2 pair
Shoulder Patches 4 pair
12.1.1 In an effort to clarify garments covered by this Section, only items used while during employment will
be covered. Dry Cleaning/Laundry Service will be provided based on a weekly average as follows:
o e. g. Four (4) items Dry Cleaned or,
o Two (2) items Dry Cleaned and four (4) items Laundered.
12.2 The Employee shall be held accountable for all uniform items and all other equipment so assigned to
the Employee by the Employer. Loss or destruction of items of clothing or protective devices
shall be replaced by the Employer where said loss was incurred as direct result of the
performance of the Employee while on the job, or as the result of an occurrence not due to the
Employee's wrongful act or willful negligence. Any uniform items or equipment assigned to an
Employee which is lost or mutilated or requires replacement as a direct result of the Employee's
wrongful act or willful negligence shall be replaced at the Employee's expense from a supplier
designated by the Employer.
12.2.1 All items of clothing, protective devices, and equipment issued by the Employer to each Employee shall
remain the property of the Employer.
12.3 No clothing allowance that remains in effect shall accrue during any period in excess ofthirty (30) days
in which the Employee is on approved disability, and if previously paid it shall be refunded by the
Employee through payroll deduction on a pro rata basis.
ARTICLE XIII. NO STRIKE PROVISION
13.1 During the term of this Agreement, the Association and/or the Employees shall not cause or engage in
any work stoppage, strike, slowdown or other interference with City functions. Employees who engage
in any of the foregoing actions may be subject to such disciplinary actions as may be determined by the
Employer.
ARTICLE XIV. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
14.1 The Association recognizes the prerogative of the Employer to operate and manage its affairs in all
respects in accordance with its responsibilities, and the powers and authority which the Employer
possesses.
14.1.1 The Employer has the authority to adopt rules for the operation of the Department and conduct of its
Employees provided the adoption of such rules are not deemed to be a waiver of the Association's
Collective Bargaining Rights.
14.1.2 The Employer has the right to schedule overtime work as required in a manner most advantageous to the
Employer and consistent with the requirements on municipal employment and the public interest.
14.1.3 Every incidental duty connected with operations enumerated in job descriptions is not always
specifically described. Nevertheless, it is intended that all such duties shall be performed by the
Employee.
14.1.4 The Employer reserves the Right to discipline or discharge for cause. The Employer reserves the Right
to lay-off for lack of work or funds, or the occurrence of conditions beyond the control of the Employer
or where such continuation of work would be wasteful and unproductive.
Packet Page 131 of 413
17
14.1.5 The Employer shall have the Right to assign work and determine the duties of Employees; to schedule
hours of work; to determine the number of personnel to be assigned at any time and to perform all other
functions not limited by this Agreement.
ARTICLE XV. DISCHARGE. REDUCTION OR DEPRIVATION OF PRIVILEGES
15.1 The tenure of Employees covered by this Agreement shall be only during good behavior and any
such person may be removed or discharged, suspended without pay, demoted, or reduced in rank, or
deprived of vacation privileges or other special privileges for cause.
15.2 The parties shall abide by the terms of the Employees "Bill of Rights" set forth in APPENDIX "B".
In the case of Special Commission Employee's, covered by this contract, the "Bill of Rights" set forth
in APPENDIX "B" of the Commissioned Officers Contract will be utilized.
15.3 All Employees shall be covered by Civil Service Rules as stated below. An Employee may either
"Grieve" discipline or discharge through Article XVI Grievance Procedure or "Appeal" through the
Civil Service Commission (CSC) Rules applicable for such Appeal. The parties further agree all other
provisions covered by the Civil Service Rules, including applications, examination, eligibility, and
appointments, shall be administered by the Employer in accordance with Personnel Policy and
Department regulations and standards. All Employees covered by this Agreement shall be
"grandfathered" into the system.
ARTICLE XVI. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
16.1 A Grievance shall be defined as an issue raised relating to the interpretation, application or
violation of any terms or provisions of this Agreement. An Employee may either "Grieve"
discipline or "Appeal" said discipline to the Civil Service Commission, provided that a Grievance
shall not be processed if any Employee has previously filed a Civil Service Appeal over the same
matter and provided further, that the subsequent filing of a Civil Service Appeal shall operate to
withdraw a Grievance, previously filed over the same matter.
16.1.1 When an Employee has a Grievance it shall immediately be brought to the attention of the immediate
Supervisor and the Employee and Supervisor shall attempt to settle the Grievance.
If the Grievance cannot be settled, the Employee shall state the Grievance in writing and present it to
the Supervisor in accordance with the procedure set forth below.
16.1.2 An Employee and/or the Association may bring a Grievance at the appropriate step:
o within thirty (30) days of the occurrence of an alleged Violation,
or
o within thirty (30) days,
of when the Employee and/or Association, by reasonable diligence, should have known of the
occurrence of said Violation, provided that no remedy may be applied retroactively more than sixty (60)
days prior to the actual filing of the Grievance.
16.1.3 The immediate Supervisor shall make every effort to resolve the Grievance:
o within twenty (20) days.
Failure of the immediate Supervisor to resolve the Grievance:
o within the twenty (20) day period,
Packet Page 132 of 413
18
shall permit the Employee and/or Association the Right to submit a written demand:
o within twenty (20) days,
of the Supervisor's answer for resolution of the alleged Violation to the Chief of Police or designee.
The Chief or designee shall either schedule a meeting with the Association to discuss the
Grievance or respond to the Grievance:
o within twenty (20) days.
If a meeting is scheduled, the Chief or designee shall be
granted:
o an additional twenty (20) days, from the date of the meeting to respond.
16.1.4 Failure of the Chief of Police to resolve the Grievance (involving only issues that have a
monetary penalty proposed), within the time lines outlined in Section 16.1.3, shall permit the Employee
and/or Association the Right to submit a written demand:
o within twenty (20) days,
of the Chiefs answer for resolution of the alleged Violation to the Mayor or designee. The Mayor
or designee shall either schedule a meeting with the Association to discuss the Grievance or respond
to the Grievance:
o within twenty (20) days.
If a meeting is scheduled, the Mayor or designee shall be granted:
o an additional twenty (20) days, from the date of the meeting to respond.
16.1.5 If the Association is not satisfied with the City's response, it may submit a demand for Arbitration to
the Employer in writing within thirty (30) days.
16.1.6 The Employer and the Association shall immediately thereafter select an Arbitrator to hear the dispute.
If the Employer and the Association are not able to agree upon an Arbitrator within ten (10) days,
after receipt by the Employer of the written demand for arbitration, the Association may request a list
of seven (7) Arbitrators from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. After receipt of same,
the parties shall alternately strike the names of the Arbitrators until only one name remains who shall,
upon hearing the dispute, render a decision which shall be final and binding upon all parties. The
party to strike first shall be determined by a flip of a coin.
16.2 Nothing herein shall prevent an Employee from seeking assistance from the Association or the
Association from furnishing such assistance at any stage of the Grievance procedure.
16.3 The expenses of the Arbitrator and the cost of any Hearing Room shall be borne equally by the parties.
In all instances, attorney's fees shall be the responsibility of each individual party.
16.4 If either party fails to take the action required within the times provided herein, the party failing to
act shall forfeit its Right to further protest the Grievance, denial of the Grievance or interim
recommended solution provided that the time frames enumerated herein may be extended with the
mutual written agreement of the parties.
16.5 Matters within the Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) shall not be subject to
this Grievance procedure unless they are covered by the specific terms and conditions of this
Agreement, provided nothing herein constitutes a waiver of the Association's Right to bargain
Packet Page 133 of 413
19
pursuant to RCW41.56.
16.6.1 By mutual agreement between the Association Representative and the Mayor 's Office or when that step
is the lowest level at which a matter may be resolved, an Employee or the Association may
initiate a Grievance at the Chiefs level.
ARTICLE XVII. SAVINGS CLAUSE & MISCELLANEOUS
17.1 It is the intention of the parties hereto to comply with all applicable law and they believe that each and
every part of this Agreement is lawful. All provisions of this Agreement shall be complied with unless
any of such provisions shall be declared invalid or inoperative by a court of competent jurisdiction. In
such event either party may request re-negotiations of such invalid provisions for the purpose of adequate
and lawful replacement thereof; provided however, that such finding shall have no effect whatsoever on
the balance of this Agreement.
17.2 Definitions - "Days" when used in this contract shall refer to "calendar days" unless otherwise specified.
17.3 New World GPS – When Edmonds Police Department begins using Auto Vehicle Locator (AVL) technology
in its vehicles which are operated by Edmonds Police Department members, the City agrees that it will not
review and use AVL data with the intent of generating any complaints or internal investigations against an
Edmonds Police member. AVL data may be used as corroborating evidence to prove or disprove allegations of
misconduct made against an Edmonds Police member. Corroborating evidence is evidence which strengthens,
adds to, or confirms already existing evidence. AVL data shall not be used to monitor or evaluate an Edmonds
Police member’s performance without precipitating cause. AVL data will be used to enhance officer safety and
efficiency and is not intended to replace effective first-level supervisory practices, including knowledge of
subordinates’ activities on-shift.
In the case of Edmonds Police members having assigned take home vehicles, the City shall comply with RCW
42.56.250, and must redact all identifiable information from a records request for AVL data that would disclose
a member’s residential location and/or address.
ARTICLE XVIII. DURATION
18.1 This Agreement shall be effective January 1, 2012 and shall remain in full force until December 31,
2012and shall remain in effect during the course of negotiations on a new Labor Agreement.
ARTICLE XIX. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
19.1 The parties agree that each has had full and unrestricted right and opportunity to make, advance, and
discuss all matters properly within the province of Collective Bargaining: The above and foregoing
Agreement constitutes the full and complete Agreement of the parties and there are no others, oral or
written, except as contained herein. Each party for the term of this Agreement specifically waives
the Right to demand or to petition for changes herein or additions hereto.
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS'ASSOCIATION
(
BY:_______________________________ BY:____________________________________
DATE:____________________________ DATE:__________________________________
ATTEST TO:
Packet Page 134 of 413
20
BY:_______________________________
DATE:_______________________________
Packet Page 135 of 413
21
APPENDIX "A"
to the
AGREEMENT
by and between
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
and the
EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
(Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees)
THIS APPENDIX is supplemental to the AGREEMENT by and between the, CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, hereinafter referred to as the Employer, and THE EDMONDS
POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, hereinafter referred to as the Association.
Wages and benefits shall be retroactive for all employees who were employed by the city on the date this
agreement is fully ratified by both parties, and any employee who was laid off, retired under the PERS system
at normal retirement age, retired under the PERS system with an actuarially reduced retirement, or left
employment due to disability. No employee who voluntarily left employment or was discharged for cause is
eligible for retroactivity. For the purposes of this paragraph, retirement is defined pursuant to RCW
41.40.010(24).
A.1 Effective January 1, 2012, the classification of work and the monthly rates of pay for each
classification covered by this Agreement shall be increased across the board by 1.5%.
PAY GRADE CLASSIFICATION MONTHLY RATES OF PAY
GRADE STEP I STEP II STEP III STEP IV STEP V STEP VI
NE-10 4158 4246 4459 4681 4915 5160
NE-9 3953 4032 4238 4446 4667 4901
NE-8 3726 3800 3988 4190 4396 4619
NE-7 3531 3600 3783 3971 4168 4378
NE-6 3311 3381 3546 3726 3912 4107
A.1.13 Longevity Pay - An Employee shall receive in addition to their monthly rate of pay set forth
within Section A.1, monthly Longevity Pay in accordance with the following:
SENIORITY MONTHLY LONGEVITY PAY
After 5 years
After 10 years
After 14 years
After 18 years
1% of Employee's monthly rate of pay
2% of Employee's monthly rate of pay
3% of Employee's monthly rate of pay
4% of Employee's monthly rate of pay
Packet Page 136 of 413
22
A.2 Classification and Pay Grades - The classifications covered by this Agreement and their
corresponding Pay Grades shall be as follows:
CLASSIFICATIONS PAY GRADES
Crime Prevention Coordinator NE-10
Senior Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement Officer NE-10
Animal Control/Ordinance Enforcement Officer NE-9
Domestic Violence Coordinator NE-9
Property Officer NE-8
Police Services Assistant NE-7
Administrative Assistant NE-6
Any part-time Employee for the above positions [hourly wage]
A.2.1 The rates of pay set forth within Section A.1 provide for the maximum time an Employee shall be
employed in any one particular pay STEP. The Employer shall have the Right to place an Employee
in any pay STEP set forth within Section A. 1, in which event, advancement of said Employee to each
of the next higher pay STEPS shall be automatic upon completion of six (6) months in pay STEP I
and/or twelve (12) months in each higher pay STEP.
A.2.2 Generally- Employees shall receive wages according to the six (6) STEP Pay Plan based upon
longevity set forth in Section A.l. Each STEP (with the exception of the first STEP which represents
six (6) months) represents one (1) full year of longevity with the Employer in a particular job
classification.
A.2.3 Longevity Increase - Increases to the next higher STEP shall be made after an Employee is paid at a
given pay STEP for one (1) full year. If the completion of such year occurs at other than the beginning
of a semi-monthly pay period, the increase shall be effective at the beginning of the next semi-monthly
pay period.
A.2.4 Promotional/Upgrade Reclassification- Promotion shall be defined as movement from one position
covered by this Agreement to another position covered by this Agreement with a higher Pay Grade. An
Employee promoted from one classification to another shall be placed into the lowest pay Step of the
higher classification which still provides for a monthly rate of pay five percent (5%) higher than that
currently being received by the promoted Employee.
A.2.5 Demotional/Downgrade Reclassification - Demotion shall be defined as movement from one position
covered by this Agreement to another position covered by this Agreement with a lower Pay Grade. An
Employee demoted from one classification to another shall be placed into the pay Step affording them
the same number of months service time that they had prior to the demotion to the lower classification.
A.2.6 Transfer Reclassification - Transfer shall be defined as movement from one position covered by this
Agreement to another position covered by this Agreement in the same pay grade.
A.2.7 All Reclassifications pursuant to Sections A.2.4; A.2.5 and A.2.6 shall be subject to a six (6) month
probationary period.
A.3 Tuition Reimbursement- Employees shall be eligible for a reimbursement of up to forty dollars
($40.00) per calendar quarter for tuition paid for a job-related course of instruction. If Department or
Division rules require the completion of specified courses in order to qualify for promotion in the
Department or Division, the Employer shall reimburse the Employee the full cost of tuition for such
courses up to eighteen (18) credit hours per year. Reimbursement' shall be made in either case only in
the course of instruction is approved in advance by the Department Head or Mayor and the Employee
received a grade point average of two (2) or higher. No reimbursement shall be made for any single
course in which the Employee receives a grade less than C or grade point less than two (2), or
Packet Page 137 of 413
23
equivalent. Such tuition reimbursement shall be refunded (by payroll deduction if possible) to the
Employer if the Employee voluntarily terminates employment within one (1) year following completion
of the course. In making such reimbursement, the Employer may use its own funds or funds from other
governmental sources. If the City policy, regarding reimbursement rates, is increased during the term of
this Agreement, then the reimbursement in the Agreement shall be increased accordingly.
A.4 Accreditation Pay- An Employee shall receive, in addition to the monthly rate of pay set forth within
Section A. 1, monthly Accreditation Pay equal to one percent (1.0%) as long as the Department is
recognized as an accredited agency by the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs or the
Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies.
A.5 Public Disclosure Specialist- The Public Disclosure Specialist position is to be classified as having
an "indeterminate rotation" period. The designated position is not considered a permanent
assignment and is subject to rotation at the discretion of the Chief of Police at the end of each annual
review. In the absence of extenuating circumstances, candidates will be expected to serve a minimum of
three (3) years in the assignment before voluntarily leaving. The Chief of Police will make the selection
based upon the Employees applying for the position and their attributes. The term attributes is to include
consideration of the career development needs of the individual and the organization. The Public
Disclosure Specialist position shall be, at the origination and termination, for just cause.
Termination for just cause may occur at any time during the assignment.
An Employee who is regularly assigned Public Disclosure Specialist duties shall receive a two percent
(2.0%) pay incentive while so acting in such capacity on a full time basis.
Packet Page 138 of 413
24
APPENDIX "B"
to the
AGREEMENT
by and between
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
and the
EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
(Representing the Law Enforcement Support Service Employees)
THIS APPENDIX is supplemental to the AGREEMENT by and between the CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, hereinafter referred to as the Employer, and EDMONDS POLICE OFFICERS'
ASSOCIATION hereinafter referred to as the Association.
APPENDIX "B"
BILL OF RIGHTS
8.1 Employee Rights: It is agreed that the City has the Right to discipline, suspend, or discharge any Employee for
just cause.
8.2 Bill of Rights:
8.2.1 In an effort to ensure that investigations made by an Officer as designated by the Chief of Police of the
Police Department are conducted in a manner which is conducive to good order and discipline, the
Employees shall be entitled to the protection of what shall hereafter be termed as the "Employee Bill of
Rights."
B.2.2 Every Employee who becomes the subject of an Internal Affairs (I/A) Investigation, as defined by
department policy, shall be advised in writing at the time of the interview that they are suspected of:
(a) Committing a criminal offense; or
(b) Misconduct that would be grounds for termination, suspension, or other economic
sanction; or
(c) Not being qualified for continued employment with the Police Department
(such as job competency or fitness for duty).
8.2.3 Any Employee who becomes the subject of a criminal investigation shall have all Rights accorded by the
State and Federal Constitutions and Washington State law.
B.2.4 The Employee under investigation must, at the time of an interview, be informed of the name of the
Officer in charge of the investigation and the name of the Officer who will be conducting the interview.
B.2.5 Forty-eight (48) hours before an Internal Affairs (IIA) Investigation interview commences,
any Employee who is the subject of an Internal Affairs Investigation shall be informed, in writing, of the
nature of the investigation, that the Employee is considered a "suspect" in the investigation and shall
include the following information:
o Who is the complainant or the victim,
Packet Page 139 of 413
25
o what reportedly took place, o
when it happened,
o and where it happened.
No forty-eight (48) hour notice is required for, Employees subject to Investigations that will not
result in any economic sanction, e.g. a Complaint Investigation; however if the Employee
requests to contact an Association Representative appropriate time will be allowed prior to
the interview. Employees who are given a forty-eight (48) hour notification may waive that
delay by signing a written waiver form.
No forty-eight (48) hour notice or Association Representation is required for an
Employee listed as a "witness" in an I/A or for routine Supervisor/Subordinate inquiries that will
not result in any economic sanction.
8.2.6 The interview of an Employee shall be at a reasonable hour, preferably when the
Employee is on duty, unless the exigency of the interview dictates otherwise. Whenever
practical, interviews shall be scheduled during the normal workday of the City.
8.2.7 At the cost of the requesting party and in accordance with Washington State Law, RCW
9.73, the Employee or City may request that an investigative interview be recorded, either
mechanically or by a stenographer. There can be no "off-the-record" questions. Upon request,
the Employee under an investigation shall be provided an exact copy of any written statement
the Employee has signed or, at the Employee's expense, a verbatim transcript of the interview.
8.2.8 The Employee may be required to answer any questions in an investigation and will be afforded
all Rights and privileges to which he is entitled under the laws of the State of Washington or
the United States. Prior to being ordered to respond to any question, the Employee will be
notified in writing and acknowledge receipt of the following:
"You are about to be questioned as part of an internal investigation
being conducted by the Police Department. You are hereby
ordered to answer the questions which are put to you which relate
to your conduct and/or job performance and to cooperate with this
investigation. Your failure to cooperate with this investigation
can be the subject of disciplinary action in and of itself, including
dismissal. The statements you make or evidence gained as a result
of this required cooperation may be used for administrative
purposes but will not be used or introduced into evidence in a
criminal proceeding."
Employees who are subject to a Criminal Investigation shall be advised of their Miranda
Rights.
8.2.9 Interviewing shall be completed within a reasonable time and shall be done under
circumstances devoid of intimidation or coercion. Written notice shall be provided forty- eight
(48) hours prior to any Investigative (IIA) interview subject to the notice requirements
of Section 8.2.2. As noted in Section 8.2.2 the Employee may provide a
Packet Page 140 of 413
26
written waiver of the forty-eight (48) hour requirement. The Employee shall be afforded an
opportunity and facilities to contact and consult with their Association Representative before
being interviewed if requested. The Employee may be represented by the Association
Representative to the extent permitted by law. The Employee shall be entitled to such reasonable
intermissions as the Employee shall request for personal necessities, meals, telephone calls,
consultation with their Representative, and rest periods.
B.2.10 The Employee shall not be subjected to any profane language nor threatened with dismissal,
transfer or other disciplinary punishment as a guise to obtain the resignation of said Employee nor
shall the Employee be subjected to intimidation in any manner during the process of interrogation.
No promises or rewards shall be made to the said Employee as an inducement to answer questions.
B.2.11 Investigations shall be concluded within a reasonable period of time as defined in Section
26.1.4 of the Department Policy Manual. Within a reasonable period after the conclusion of the
investigation and no later than forty-eight (48) hours prior to a pre-disciplinary hearing, the
Employee shall be advised of the results of the investigation and the potential disposition (which
may include a range of possible discipline) and shall be provided a copy of the investigatory
file. In the event an investigation is sustained but no discipline is to be imposed because it was not
completed within established timelines, the Employee is still entitled to a Loudermill hearing and
appeal process.
B.2.12 All interviews shall be limited in scope to activities, circumstances, events, conduct or actions
which pertain to the incident which is the subject of the investigation. Nothing in this section
shall prohibit the Employer from questioning the Employee about information which is
developed during the course of the investigation.
B.2.13 No Employee shall be requested or required to submit to a polygraph test or to answer questions
for which the Employee might otherwise properly invoke the protection of constitutional
amendment against self-incrimination, except as required pursuant to Section B.2.8. Nor shall
any Employee be dismissed for or shall any other penalty be imposed upon the Employee solely
for a failure to submit to a polygraph test or to answer questions for which the Employee
might otherwise invoke the protection of any constitutional amendment against self-
incrimination; and provided further that this provision shall not apply to either the initial
application for employment or to persons in the field of public law enforcement who are seeking
promotion.
Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase in this Article be declared
unconstitutional or invalid, for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Article.
NOTE: For Employees with Special Commissions involved in a "use of force" type incident,
please refer to Section 15.2.
Packet Page 141 of 413
AM-5148 3. H.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:Consent
Submitted By:Mary Ann Hardie
Department:Human Resources
Committee: Public Safety, Personnel Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Approval of updated represented (union) job descriptions.
Recommendation
Personnel Committee and the Mayor reviewed the represented (union) job descriptions and have
authorized their forwarding to Council for approval.
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 represented (union) job descriptions are complete and ready for Council approval.
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
by the Directors and Mayor.
Because of the amount of attachments this would entail, the job descriptions have not been attached. All
of the job descriptions have been disseminated to the Personnel Committee. In addition, there is a copy in
the Council office for review by other City Council members and/or the public. We will also have a
Packet Page 142 of 413
copy at the meeting.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Parks and Recreation Carrie Hite 09/27/2012 04:09 PM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/27/2012 04:10 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 08:53 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/28/2012 08:35 AM
Form Started By: Mary Ann Hardie Started On: 09/26/2012 04:56 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2012
Packet Page 143 of 413
AM-5088 4.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn
LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Proclamation in honor of Sno-Isle Libraries 50th Year Celebration.
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Fifty years ago, in the midst of the excitement of the Boeing boom and the celebration of the 1962 Work's
Fair, residents in Snohomish and Island County took a big leap into the future by unifying two county
rural library districts into Sno-Isle Libraries.
Fifty years later, technology has evolved and many customers needs have changed. Yet, the two-county
library district continues to be an essential community doorway to reading, resources and lifelong
learning, as well as a center for people, ideas and culture.
So they're celebrating the millions of children and adults, over the past 50 years, who’ve benefited from
library early learning efforts for children and lifelong learning materials and classes for adults, with local
community celebrations. The Edmonds' celebration will take place on Monday, October 15th from 5-6:30
pm at the Edmonds Library and will include the sealing of the Edmonds Library time capsule to be
opened in 2022.
Attachments
Sno_Isle_Libraries_50th
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/26/2012 01:42 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 09:14 AM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 08/29/2012 10:19 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/27/2012
Packet Page 144 of 413
Packet Page 145 of 413
AM-5135 5.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn
LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
National Arts & Humanities Month Proclamation
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
The value and importance of culture in the lives of Americans has been celebrated for over two decades
through the proclamation at national, state, and local levels of Arts and Humanities Month in October.
The proclamation commemorates the efforts of millions of people in our country, including the many arts
organizations and individuals in Edmonds, who work to make the arts and humanities a part of
everyone’s life while contributing to our economic vitality and enhancing education for our youth.
Edmonds is known as a community that supports the arts and many talented cultural organizations call
Edmonds their home - including the Cascade Symphony, Driftwood Theater, Edmonds Arts Festival and
Arts Festival Foundation, Edmonds Center for the Arts, Edmonds Historical Museum, Gallery North, and
the Olympic Ballet Theatre. In addition the city is home to a rich variety of arts related businesses. The
City of Edmonds Arts Commission works on behalf of the City to foster the literary, performing and
visual arts with such programs as the nationally recognized Write on the Sound writers’ conference in
October, free Summer Concerts in the park, a significant collection of public art, and ongoing exhibits by
regional artists. Partnerships, sponsorships, and volunteers are key to the success of Edmonds Arts
Commission programs.
The proclamation is an opportunity to urge citizens to reflect on the benefits of the arts to Edmonds and
the many opportunities to experience a broad array of cultural events throughout October and all year
long.
Attachments
NAHM_2012
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Packet Page 146 of 413
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/26/2012 01:42 PM
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 09/20/2012 11:24 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/26/2012
Packet Page 147 of 413
Packet Page 148 of 413
AM-5134 6.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:5 Minutes
Submitted For:Dave Earling Submitted By:Carolyn
LaFave
Department:Mayor's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
National Community Planning Month Proclamation
Recommendation
Previous Council Action
Narrative
Each year the American Planning Association, its members, chapters, divisions, and professional institute
sponsor National Community Planning Month to raise the visibility of the important role of planners and
planning in communities across the U.S.
October has been designated as National Community Planning Month in 2012. Planning is particularly
important in Edmonds. Much of the public discussion over the years has been about planning in its
various forms, from long-range planning and visioning to strategic planning for what to focus on as the
city moves forward. Even budgeting has involved planning, looking beyond the current year’s finances to
plan for longer-term budget priorities and challenges.
At its best, planning involves acknowledging and learning from the past, surveying and assessing the
present, and envisioning and working toward the future.
In recognition of National Community Planning Month, we hope all citizens will pause to think about the
past, the present, and the future of the Edmonds community, and pay special attention to the community’s
planning processes.
Attachments
NCPM_2012
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/26/2012 01:42 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 09:14 AM
Packet Page 149 of 413
Form Started By: Carolyn LaFave Started On: 09/20/2012 11:20 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/27/2012
Packet Page 150 of 413
Packet Page 151 of 413
AM-5146 7.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Frances Chapin
Department:Parks and Recreation
Committee: Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing: Acceptance of a gift of artwork from the Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation.
Recommendation
Recommend acceptance of the gift by full Council at the October 2, 2012 City Council Meeting
following the Public Hearing.
Previous Council Action
Finance Committee recommended on September 11, 2012 forwarding to full Council and scheduling a
public hearing.
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. 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. Staff made a presentation at the PFD board meeting September 27, 2012 and the
board confirmed their willingness to have the pieces remain on public display at the ECA with an
interlocal agreement if ownership is transferred to the City.
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 in 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.
Packet Page 152 of 413
Attachments
Gift letter from EAFF
EAC motion
Artwork Gift Policy
Chihuly artwork
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/27/2012 11:03 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 08:49 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/28/2012 08:35 AM
Form Started By: Frances Chapin Started On: 09/26/2012 01:29 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2012
Packet Page 153 of 413
Packet Page 154 of 413
Packet Page 155 of 413
Packet Page 156 of 413
Packet Page 157 of 413
Packet Page 158 of 413
Packet Page 159 of 413
Packet Page 160 of 413
Packet Page 161 of 413
Dale Chihuly “Lineus Blue Sea Form with Chinese Red Lip Wrap”
Dale Chihuly “Cadmium Orange Soft Cylinder with Aqua Green Lip Wrap”
Packet Page 162 of 413
AM-5141 8.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:30 Minutes
Submitted For:Council President Peterson Submitted By:Jana
Spellman
Department:City Council
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Public Hearing regarding taking minutes/notes during City Council 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 Committee for further discussion and clarification (minutes attached).
The Public Safety/Personnel Committee had another discussion on this issue at their 9/11/12 meeting
(minutes attached).
The Council discussed this on September 18, 2012 (minutes attached) and passed the following motion:
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO PULL
ITEM 10, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING TAKING MINUTES/NOTES
DURING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE FIRST
POSSIBILITY. MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO.
Narrative
Council President Peterson has placed this item on the agenda for a Public Hearing.
Attachments
Packet Page 163 of 413
6-5-2007 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
9-11-2012 Public Safety & Personnel Committee Minutes
9-18-2012 Draft Council Minutes
Public Hearing Correspondence
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/27/2012 08:27 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 09:30 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/27/2012 11:03 AM
Form Started By: Jana Spellman Started On: 09/24/2012 09:27 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/27/2012
Packet Page 164 of 413
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 165 of 413
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 166 of 413
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 167 of 413
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 168 of 413
)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 169 of 413
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 170 of 413
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 171 of 413
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 172 of 413
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 173 of 413
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 174 of 413
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 175 of 413
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 176 of 413
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 177 of 413
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 178 of 413
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 179 of 413
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 180 of 413
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 181 of 413
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 182 of 413
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 183 of 413
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 184 of 413
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 185 of 413
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 186 of 413
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 187 of 413
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 188 of 413
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 189 of 413
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 190 of 413
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 191 of 413
Packet Page 192 of 413
Packet Page 193 of 413
Packet Page 194 of 413
Packet Page 195 of 413
Packet Page 196 of 413
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 197 of 413
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 198 of 413
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 199 of 413
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 200 of 413
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 201 of 413
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 202 of 413
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 203 of 413
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 204 of 413
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 205 of 413
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 206 of 413
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 207 of 413
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 208 of 413
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 209 of 413
To Record
or Not to Record?
Toby Nixon
President
Washington Coalition for Open Government
president@washingtoncog.org
Packet Page 210 of 413
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 211 of 413
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 212 of 413
“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 213 of 413
“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 214 of 413
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 215 of 413
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 216 of 413
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 217 of 413
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 218 of 413
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 219 of 413
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 220 of 413
So Why Not Record?
Risk of disclosure under the Public Records Act.
Packet Page 221 of 413
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 222 of 413
Not Automatically Exempt
Recordings of several of the allowed topics for
executive sessions would be exempt from
disclosure, but not all.
Packet Page 223 of 413
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 224 of 413
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 225 of 413
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 226 of 413
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 227 of 413
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 228 of 413
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 229 of 413
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 230 of 413
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 231 of 413
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 232 of 413
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 233 of 413
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 234 of 413
APA Proceedings
(3) Matters governed by chapter 34.05 RCW, the
Administrative Procedure Act; or
Does not apply to cities.
Packet Page 235 of 413
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 236 of 413
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 237 of 413
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 238 of 413
Washington Coalition for Open Government
6351 Seaview Avenue NW
Seattle, WA 98107
(206) 782-0393
info@washingtoncog.org
www.washingtoncog.org
Packet Page 239 of 413
1 Revised 9-27-12
PUBLIC SAFETY/PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
September 11, 2012
Committee members present: Council Member Joan Bloom
Council Member Kristianna Johnson
Others present: Mayor Dave Earling
Council President Strom Peterson
City Attorney Jeff Taraday
Community Services/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton
Reporting Director for HR Carrie Hite
HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie
HR Consultant Tara Adams
Citizen Ken Reidy
Citizen Don Hall
Council Member Joan Bloom started the meeting at 6:27 pm.
DISCUSSION ON MINUTES/NOTE TAKING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
Council Member Bloom stated that she wanted to discuss minutes vs. notes during executive sessions [with regard to
executive sessions that contained attorney/client privileged information as well as exemptions and release of executive
session information under the Public Records Act (PRA) exemptions]. Council Member Bloom asked City Attorney Jeff
Taraday to clarify what is protected by attorney-client privilege (exempt from release as a public record) as well as
clarification on all things that should not be kept private from the public. Council Member Bloom further stated that she
was interested in focusing on [looking into] recording executive sessions as described by Toby Nixon of the Washington
Coalition for Open Government who made a recent information presentation to Council on this subject.
City Attorney J. Taraday stated that he would generally agree that the items on Mr. Nixon’s list that were considered
exempt from public records disclosure would be exempt although he has not had a chance to thoroughly cross check
every item on the list that was presented. City Attorney Taraday further stated that he was not prepared at this time to go
through the items on the list provided by Mr. Nixon (one by one) and agree or disagree although he does not have a
quarrel with the information provided. Additionally, there are certain types of executive sessions in which the PRA does
not provide clear protection.
Council Member Bloom requested that City Attorney J. Taraday provide additional clarification on items that were
considered to be attorney-client privileged. City Attorney J. Taraday stated that any time that Council meets in an
executive session regarding litigation or pending litigation, this would (in his opinion) have attorney-client privilege or work
product privilege and is non-disclosable. This covers a large portion of what is discussed in executive session.
Council Member Johnson questioned if the Council should have written rules about how to conduct executive sessions.
For example, what subjects are allowed by state statute, what is the process if a Council member states that the subject
of discussion is not allowable by state statute? What are the rules for running an executive session? In the past there
were concerns about who gets to talk and for how long. Other concerns have been raised about who may be invited to
executive sessions, and who extends the invitation. Council Member Johnson requested that the rules be written down
and that all of the allowable subjects identified by RCW be listed. This could serve as a resource for City Council
members. City Council President Peterson agreed that this was a good idea. He will work with the City Attorney Jeff
Taraday to draft rules for conducting executive sessions and provide the necessary reference materials.
Council Member Bloom inquired as to how the recording of executive sessions (documentation) should be handled since
the “minutes” from the session are not approved, so they are not legally minutes. Additionally, how should Council
continue to address the recording of meetings (in what form), etc.
Packet Page 240 of 413
2 Revised 9-27-12
Council Member Bloom stated that she would like everything to be recorded if possible (to the extent that it is not
protected) and that there was a need to look at two different categories of sessions - those protected and those not
protected from disclosure (under PRA).
Council Member Johnson stated that it would be important to monitor legislative changes regarding this and that Mike
Doubleday could keep the Council apprised on this subject with any changes.
Council Member Johnson further inquired as to whether or not there was a retention schedule regarding previous Council
notes.
City Attorney J. Taraday stated that there should be a good reason for continuing to keep notes on executive sessions
and/or why Council would want to make a record of executive sessions since, as privileged conversations, they [the
records] will be unlikely to be disclosed. City Attorney J. Taraday further explained that a questionable reason to keep
record of the executive sessions would be so they [the records] could be disclosed in the near future. There is a risk in
keeping a record of exempt items and an audio or video is quite thorough. Council Member Johnson asked if individual
Council Members’ notes were exempt from public disclosure. Mr. Taraday stated that Mr. Nixon had made the assertion
and reference case law. Mr. Taraday stated that he would have to do research in order to make a legal determination.
Council Member Bloom stated that she liked the transparency of having all the information disclosed to the extent that it
may be disclosable but [that it seems appropriate] to just record only attorney-client privilege information until the
legislature comes out with new information.
Council Member Johnson stated that she respectfully disagreed due to the risk [of keeping such a recording] and based
on advice of the AWC, MRSC, and City Attorney. Council Member Johnson stated that the Council should have clear
rules about how executive sessions are recorded and that it would be important to continue to monitor legislative issues
with Mr. Doubleday pending checking on further information on Council notes in executive sessions.
Responding to a question from Mr. Taraday, Council Member Bloom read the list of reasons given by Toby Nixon for
recording executive sessions:
• 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
Recommendation
The Committee reached agreement on four items:
1. The Council should have executive session rules and reference materials.
2. Legislative action to modify executive sessions should be monitored through the city’s lobbyist and associations
(AWC, MRSC).
3. The retention schedule for previous Council executive session notes should be researched.
4. Consider not recording real estate matters.
The Committee did not reach agreement regarding records of legal discussions.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Citizen Ken Reidy stated that it is the actions in Executive Session that can create liabilities, not the recording of the
actions. Those actions are subject to review by the courts whether those actions are recorded or not. Citizen Reidy
opined that everyone would be better off if there was an audio or video recording (which does not require review and
approval) that can be used when needed.
Citizen Reidy pointed out that Mayor Earling was City Council President in 1996 when Resolution No. 853 was passed as
it was in the public interest. He stated this step by the Council was a big deal as they knew State law did not require them
to take minutes of Executive Session, yet they were motivated to do so anyway.
Citizen Reidy encouraged the City to not go backwards in the Open Government and Transparency area. He
recommended the City actively lobby the State related to recording Executive Sessions.
Packet Page 241 of 413
3 Revised 9-27-12
JOB DESCRIPTIONS REVIEW
Reporting Director for HR Carrie Hite explained that the job descriptions project has been a process in the works with
WCIA and the unions. The City hired Public Sector Personnel Consultants as a consultant to this project and HR
Consultant Tara Adams and HR Manager Mary Ann Hardie have worked on the job descriptions as well as every
employee (including managers and directors) The job descriptions contain updated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
language. Out of concerns for potential financial impacts of job reclassifications, HR worked closely with the unions so
that there were no reclassification requests [with financial impacts] at this time from the job descriptions update.
There was some discussion that followed about the job descriptions in the development services department and in the
public Works department as to why some positions on the second floor of City Hall [engineering] reported to public works
and why others [planning and building] reported to the [acting] development services director.
Council Member Bloom inquired as to whether the City would look at restructuring the development services department
to provide more efficiencies and the impact of this upon job descriptions. Mayor Dave Earling stated that this issue was
currently under discussion with management and that he is aware of Council Member Bloom’s concerns and is working to
address them. Mayor Earling stated that he had been trying to understand what each department does and it responsible
for and also what each employee does [through the job descriptions]. Additionally, he has put a working group (consisting
of Phil Williams – Public Works & Utilities Director, Leonard Yarberry – Building Official, Stephen Clifton – Community
Services/Economic Development Director and Rob Chave – Acting Development Services Director) to have discussions
regarding how to package this with more of a collaborative style in the department and for ways for things to work better
but it will take time. Mayor Earling further stated that a recommendation will be put together for council approval in the
future and that he firmly believes that a more friendly city is for good quality development [but requires] a collaborative
approach.
There was further discussion that followed about re-organizations and what departments could be eligible for
reorganization.
Council Member Bloom stated that she wanted to understand the role of Council in reviewing organizational chart and job
descriptions. Reporting Director for HR Hite stated that, as she understood, Council has authority over working conditions
in job descriptions and personnel policies as well as benefits and the Mayor has responsibility and authority to hire,
terminate and discipline employees (aside from positions appointed by Council). Additionally, the Mayor can reorganize
and make recommendations on the budget but has to have financial authority from Council although he has the financial
parameters from Council to “run” the City.
There was further discussion that followed about the Mayor’s expectation of Council regarding the job descriptions as well
as how many more different job duties of employees were going to be affected with the voluntary separation incentive
program (VSIP). Mayor Earling stated that he has reviewed the organizational chart and the job descriptions and that he is
comfortable with the layout [of both]. Mayor Earling stated that he understood that he will make decisions [regarding a
reorganization] depending on the issues that may arise from the VSIP [or the budget], but that with feedback Council
Member Bloom about the second floor reorganization [development services] is being taken seriously and will be taken
into consideration after a thorough review has been done.
Council Member Johnson inquired as to how much more different the job duties of employees were going to be for those
positions that would be affected by the VSIP changes, etc. Reporting Director for HR Hite stated that there will be
changes. Council Member Johnson stated that in her review of the commissioned police officer positions it did not appear
that under the “Knowledge” requirements that “Federal” knowledge was required but that it should be. Also, it was
suggested that the “Maintenance Custodian” and “Custodian” position differences be reviewed.
There was some discussion that followed as to why positions were not more generic and why there were specific and
explanation by HR provided as to legal requirements, risk management, distribution of labor, performance management
and ADA requirements that necessitated specific job descriptions.
Council Member Johnson made a recommendation for the union job descriptions [SEIU, TEAMSTERS, Law Support &
EPOA] be forwarded to the next Council meeting for approval but that due to concerns with the Non-Represented job
descriptions that the Non-represented positions be discussed at another time.
Packet Page 242 of 413
4 Revised 9-27-12
Community Services Director/Economic Development Director Stephen Clifton inquired as to what the preliminary
concerns may be with regard to the Non-Represented job descriptions. Council Member Johnson stated that the there
was variation in the years of experience in the Director level position as well as in the supervisory experience at the
Director level. Additionally, there was clarity needed about how education and job experience were substituted on a ratio
basis. Also, whether or not certifications should be required for the paraprofessional positions is a concern. Reporting
Director for HR Hite requested that Council Member Johnson e-mail the technical questions to HR for further looking into
before the next discussion.
Council President Strom Peterson expressed concern as to whether or not it was clear where working conditions (such as
where the Mayor gets to approve in terms of technical requirements) and changing qualifications were under Council
purview. Council President Peterson stated that some latitude should be given to administration [the Mayor] to do so.
Reporting HR Director Hite stated that she would e-mail City Attorney J. Taraday for further clarification on this.
Council Member Bloom inquired as to whether or not there are certain directors who are considered officials [as codified
in the Edmonds’ Municipal Code] and that Council has to approve these appointments. Which director positions are
considered officials and have to be approved by Council.
Recommendation
Council Member Bloom and Council Member Johnson recommended moving the represented positions [SEIU,
TEAMSTERS, Law Support & EPOA] for approval at the next council meeting on 9/18/12 and that they would arrange a
further meeting with HR on the Non-Represented job descriptions so that the Non-rep job descriptions would be able to
move forward for Council approval on 9/25/12.
ORDINANCE CHANGE FOR THE SALARY COMMISSION
Council President Peterson presented the ordinance change for the Salary Commission, wanting to allow the Commission
to meet anytime during the year if needed. The impetus for this request is to allow the Salary Commission to consider
their recommendations during the City's budget process, so they would have full information about finances before they
make a recommendation.
There was some discussion that followed by the committee.
Recommendation
It was determined that the committee was not supportive of the recommendation with respect to the decision of the Salary
Commission. Additionally, it was recommended that action toward forwarding this item to Council be delayed at this time.
The Committee adjourned at 9:22 p.m.
Packet Page 243 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 1
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
September 18, 2012
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council Chambers,
250 5th Avenue North, Edmonds.
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Strom Peterson, Council President
Joan Bloom, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
Lora Petso, Councilmember
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Frank Yamamoto, Councilmember*
(*participated by phone for Agenda Item 6)
STAFF PRESENT
Al Compaan, Police Chief
Stephen Clifton, Community Services/Economic
Development Director
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Shawn Hunstock, Finance Director
Carrie Hite, Parks & Recreation Director
Rob Chave, Interim Development Serv. Dir.
Mary Ann Hardie, Human Resources Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Sandy Chase, City Clerk
Jana Spellman, Senior Executive Council Asst.
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
Executive Session Regarding Labor Negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b)
At 6:30 p.m., Mayor Earling announced that the City Council would meet in executive session regarding labor
negotiations per RCW 42.30.140(4)(b). He stated that the executive session was scheduled to last approximately
30 minutes and would be held in the Jury Meeting Room, located in the Public Safety Complex. No action was
anticipated to occur as a result of meeting in executive session. Elected officials present at the executive session
were: Mayor Earling, and Councilmembers Johnson, Fraley-Monillas, Buckshnis, Peterson, Petso and Bloom.
Others present were City Attorney Jeff Taraday, Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, Finance Director
Shawn Hunstock and City Clerk Sandy Chase. The executive session concluded at 7:04 p.m.
Mayor Earling reconvened the regular City Council meeting at 7:07 p.m. and led the flag salute.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER, MOVING ITEM 6 TO FOLLOW AGENDA
ITEM 3 AND AGENDA ITEM 10 TO FOLLOW AGENDA ITEM 6.
Councilmember Bloom requested an opportunity to address Agenda Item 10.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM VOTING NO.
10. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING TAKING MINUTES/NOTES DURING
EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
Councilmember Bloom read from the minutes of the Council retreat, “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
Packet Page 244 of 413
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 18, 2012
Page 2
their suggestions.” She acknowledged this subject has been on the Council agenda twice before and on Council
committee agendas twice but the Council has never taken public comment. The resolutions referenced in this
agenda item are very important and have been in place since 1996. Mayor Earling was the Council President at
that time; it was felt at that time that it was in the citizens’ best interest that minutes be taken of executive
sessions. She recommended no action be taken with regard to taking minutes/notes during executive session
until a public hearing has been held.
COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO PULL
ITEM 10, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING TAKING MINUTES/NOTES DURING
EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE FIRST POSSIBILITY.
MOTION CARRIED (5-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO.
Councilmember Bloom advised she planned to make revisions to the minutes of the Public Safety and Personnel
Committee meeting.
2. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Petso requested Item H be removed from the Consent Agenda and Councilmember Buckshnis
requested Item G be removed.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, 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 SEPTEMBER 11, 2012.
C. APPROVAL OF CLAIM CHECKS #134142 THROUGH #134306 DATED SEPTEMBER 13, 2012
FOR $600,875.09.
D. APPROVAL OF THE LIST OF BUSINESSES APPLYING FOR RENEWAL OF THEIR
LIQUOR LICENSE WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD FOR
THE MONTHS OF JULY, AUGUST, AND SEPTEMBER.
E. JULY 2012 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT.
F. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A $500,000 GRANT CONTRACT WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR THE MAIN ST. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
BETWEEN 5TH AND 6TH AVENUES.
I. REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 2010 WATERMAIN
REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT.
J. 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.
ITEM H: 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.
Councilmember Petso stated she pulled this item so that she could abstain from the vote.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ITEM G. MOTION CARRIED (5-0-1), COUNCILMEMBER PETSO
ABSTAINING.
Packet Page 245 of 413
Packet Page 246 of 413
AM-5151 10.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:20 Minutes
Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:City Clerk's Office
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Report: Edmonds Center for the Arts
Recommendation
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
A report will be provided at the City Council Meeting by representatives from the Edmonds Center for
the Arts.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 08:49 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/28/2012 08:35 AM
Form Started By: Sandy Chase Started On: 09/27/2012 02:21 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2012
Packet Page 247 of 413
AM-5154 11.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:15 Minutes
Submitted By:Rob Chave
Department:Planning
Review Committee: Committee Action:
Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Update from the Planning Board.
Recommendation
N/A
Previous Council Action
N/A
Narrative
The Planning Board will provide an update on its activities.
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/27/2012 05:08 PM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 08:48 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/28/2012 08:35 AM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 09/27/2012 04:47 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2012
Packet Page 248 of 413
AM-5124 12.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:45 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob English Submitted By:Robert English
Department:Engineering
Committee: Planning, Parks, Public Works Type: Information
Information
Subject Title
Presentation on the Capital Facilities Plan (2013-2018) and the Capital Improvement Program
(2013-2018).
Recommendation
Review the proposed Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program and provide comments
and feedback.
Previous Council Action
On September 11, 2012, the Planning, Parks and Public Works committee reviewed this item.
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 proposed 2013-2018 CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of
General, Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 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. Exhibit 3 is a comparison that shows added, deleted and changed projects
between last year's CFP/CIP to the proposed CFP/CIP.
The proposed CFP and CIP are being presented to the City Council for review and comment. A public
hearing is scheduled for the October 16, 2012 City Council meeting. The CFP and CIP will also be
Packet Page 249 of 413
presented to the Planning Board at their October 10, 2012 meeting.
Attachments
Exhibit 1 - CFP 2013-2018
Exhibit 2 - CIP 2013-2018
Exhibit 3 - CFP-CIP Comparison
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Engineering Robert English 09/28/2012 08:38 AM
Public Works Phil Williams 09/28/2012 08:42 AM
City Clerk Sandy Chase 09/28/2012 08:43 AM
Mayor Dave Earling 09/28/2012 10:09 AM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/28/2012 10:13 AM
Form Started By: Megan Luttrell Started On: 09/12/2012 11:18 AM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2012
Packet Page 250 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN ELEMENT
2013-2018
1Packet Page 251 of 413
2Packet Page 252 of 413
CFP
GENERAL
3Packet Page 253 of 413
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
8
)
$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
$
3
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
US
D
O
T
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
$
0
St
a
t
e
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
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
$1
1
,
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
$
1
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
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
a
t
Y
o
s
t
P
a
r
k
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
a
n
d
/
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
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/
2
7
/
2
0
1
2
4Packet Page 254 of 413
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
5Packet Page 255 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Art Center / Art Museum ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A new Art Center/Museum facility will provide and promote
Cultural / Arts facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts
facilities is a high priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001
and in the 2008 update process.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for
public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority
creates the need to determine feasibility for and potentially construct new visual arts related
facilities.
SCHEDULE: 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 256 of 413
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
7Packet Page 257 of 413
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
8Packet Page 258 of 413
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
9Packet Page 259 of 413
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
10Packet Page 260 of 413
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
11Packet Page 261 of 413
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
12Packet Page 262 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Crossing
WSDOT Ferry / Multimodal Facility
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: Unknown
PHASE I
PHASE II
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
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. (New project, not included in 2009 Transportation Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve safety at the railroad crossing, reduce delay for
the ferry system, and allow access for 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
13Packet Page 263 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PHASE I
PHASE II
14Packet Page 264 of 413
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
15Packet Page 265 of 413
16Packet Page 266 of 413
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
17Packet Page 267 of 413
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
1
8
)
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
\
C
F
P
\
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
_
8
-
3
1
-
1
2
9/
2
7
/
2
0
1
2
18Packet Page 268 of 413
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
1
8
)
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
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
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
\
C
F
P
\
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
_
8
-
3
1
-
1
2
9/
2
7
/
2
0
1
2
19Packet Page 269 of 413
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
1
8
)
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
\
C
F
P
\
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
_
8
-
3
1
-
1
2
9/
2
7
/
2
0
1
2
20Packet Page 270 of 413
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
1
8
)
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
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
.
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
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
.
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
.
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
\
C
F
P
\
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
_
8
-
3
1
-
1
2
9/
2
7
/
2
0
1
2
21Packet Page 271 of 413
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
1
8
)
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
To
t
a
l
C
F
P
$2
6
,
3
6
1
,
4
2
5
A nn
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$
4
,
65
7
,
7
0
0
$
6
,
4
1
1
,
7
2
5
$
3
,
5
8
1
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
4
9
6
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
4
1
4
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
8
0
1
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
,
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
,
4
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
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
5
,
2
7
8
,
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
,
1
3
6
,
2
3
3
$
1
,
9
4
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
4
3
9
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
3
2
6
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
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
$
2
3
,
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
.
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
.
S:
\
E
N
G
R
\
C
I
P
_
C
F
P
B
O
O
K
S
\
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
\
C
F
P
\
S
i
x
-
Y
e
a
r
C
F
P
(
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
)
_
8
-
3
1
-
1
2
9/
2
7
/
2
0
1
2
22Packet Page 272 of 413
PROJECT NAME: 212th St. SW @ 84th Ave.
W (5-Corners) Intersection Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,604,260
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. (ROADWAY
ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #6).
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.
SCHEDULE: A federal grant was secured for all project phases. Construction is scheduled for
completion in 2013.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$332,690
Construction $2,798,730
1% for Art $2,880
TOTAL $3,134,300
23Packet Page 273 of 413
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). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in
2009 Transportation Plan: #8).
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
24Packet Page 274 of 413
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. (not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan
project priority chart)
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 B with the installation of a mini-roundabout.
SCHEDULE: 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$500
Construction $9,500
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000
25Packet Page 275 of 413
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. (ROADWAY ROJECT
PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #3).
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
26Packet Page 276 of 413
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. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan:
#11).
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).
* All or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$35,000
Construction $138,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $173,000
27Packet Page 277 of 413
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. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in
2009 Transportation Plan: #1).
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 2014. In 2010, federal grant was secured for the completion of design and ROW acquisition. In 2012, a
federal grant was secured for construction.
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
28Packet Page 278 of 413
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). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #9).
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 2025
(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
29Packet Page 279 of 413
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. (ROADWAY ROJECT
PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #12).
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 2025
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$204,000
Construction $818,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,022,000
30Packet Page 280 of 413
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. (part of this project was ranked #11 in the Long Walkway list
of the 2009 Transportation Plan).
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 2025
(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 2019-2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$2,042,000
Construction $8,169,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,211,000
31Packet Page 281 of 413
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. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #10).
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 2025
(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
32Packet Page 282 of 413
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.(ROADWAY PROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #13)
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
33Packet Page 283 of 413
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. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation Plan: #17)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers
accessing either street.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2019 and 2025
(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
34Packet Page 284 of 413
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. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation
Plan: #2)
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 2025
(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
35Packet Page 285 of 413
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. (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2009 Transportation
Plan: #7).
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 2025
(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
36Packet Page 286 of 413
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 (16) historic style decorative
light poles along this block (8 on the south side and 8 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.
(New project, not included in 2009 Transportation Plan)
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
37Packet Page 287 of 413
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
38Packet Page 288 of 413
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. (This is only part of a stretch of Walkway project,
which ranked #1 in the Long Walkway list in the 2009 Transportation Plan)
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
The current pedestrian conditions are unsafe near Madrona Elementary School and
along 236th St. SW because of the limited sight distance issues (curvature of the
roadway).
SCHEDULE: 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
39Packet Page 289 of 413
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
40Packet Page 290 of 413
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
41Packet Page 291 of 413
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
42Packet Page 292 of 413
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. (recent project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan).
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
43Packet Page 293 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway
from Main St. to 200th St. SW
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $677,000
* 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
44Packet Page 294 of 413
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
45Packet Page 295 of 413
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
46Packet Page 296 of 413
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
47Packet Page 297 of 413
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 not included in 2009 Transportation
Plan).
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
48Packet Page 298 of 413
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. (ranked #8 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation
Plan)
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
49Packet Page 299 of 413
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. (ranked #3 in the Long Walkway list of the 2009 Transportation Plan)
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
50Packet Page 300 of 413
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 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
51Packet Page 301 of 413
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.
52Packet Page 302 of 413
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 2025
(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
53Packet Page 303 of 413
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
54Packet Page 304 of 413
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. (new project, not included in the 2009 Transportation Plan)
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
55Packet Page 305 of 413
56Packet Page 306 of 413
CFP
STORMWATER
57Packet Page 307 of 413
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
1
8
)
$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
)
$2
2
6
,
0
0
0
(
D
e
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
)
$2
2
6
,
0
0
0
$2
2
6
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
$2
2
6
,
0
0
0
$0
(F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
$
0
(
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
u
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$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
$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
7
,
7
4
9
,
2
6
0
A
n
n
u
a
l
C
F
P
T
o
t
a
l
s
$
1
,
27
8
,
2
6
0
$
1
,
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
6
0
1
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
2
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
1
2
3
,
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
$0
To
t
a
l
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
&
S
t
a
t
e
(
S
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
1
,
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
$6
,
1
7
6
,
0
1
0
De
b
t
/
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
F
e
e
s
$1
,
2
0
3
,
2
6
0
$
3
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
6
5
,
2
5
0
$
1
,
7
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
1
2
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
8
9
,
5
0
0
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
2
0
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
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
.
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
-
95
t
h
/
9
3
r
d
S
t
.
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
.
Ad
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
f
l
o
o
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
.
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
.
58Packet Page 308 of 413
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%
59Packet Page 309 of 413
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%
60Packet Page 310 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Low Impact Development
Retrofit Project - 95th/93rd St. Drainage
Improvement Project. – SSWCP1 Project 5
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $226,000
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.
SCHEDULE: 2013-2018
COST BREAKDOWN2,3
PROJECT
COST
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study $50,000
Eng. & Admin. $5,000
Construction $171,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $226,000
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%
61Packet Page 311 of 413
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%
62Packet Page 312 of 413
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%
63Packet Page 313 of 413
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
64Packet Page 314 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2013-2018
1Packet Page 315 of 413
2Packet Page 316 of 413
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 49
132
Parks Construction
(Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
53
3Packet Page 317 of 413
4Packet Page 318 of 413
CIP
GENERAL
5Packet Page 319 of 413
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
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
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
6
,
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
8
8
,
1
8
0
$
5
,
7
9
9
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
0
9
6
,
4
7
5
$
2
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
9
7
6
,
5
0
0
$
3
,
6
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
6
,
5
6
8
,
5
0
0
$
2
9
,
4
8
7
,
1
7
5
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
F
u
n
d
1
3
2
(
I
n
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
T
r
a
i
l
)
$1
1
,
8
0
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
6
Packet Page 320 of 413
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
F
u
n
d
1
1
7
(
2
1
2
t
h
S
t
S
W
/
8
4
t
h
A
v
e
W
)
$2
,
8
8
0
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
L
o
a
n
(
1
)
2
2
0
t
h
S
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
$1
9
,
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
&
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
$8
8
,
8
4
3
$
7
9
,
5
6
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
1
9
,
6
9
7
$
3
4
5
,
7
2
1
$
3
0
6
,
4
7
3
$
4
9
7
,
5
1
5
$
1
,
1
3
1
,
0
7
2
$
2
,
1
9
5
,
9
8
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
-
1
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
0
,
6
9
7
$
5
9
0
,
7
2
1
$
8
0
3
,
4
7
3
$
9
9
7
,
5
1
5
$1
,
6
3
3
,
0
7
2
$
2
,
6
9
8
,
9
8
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
7
Packet Page 321 of 413
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
2
4
,
4
8
1
$
7
,
4
7
9
,
2
6
8
$
3
,
0
0
4
,
4
7
3
$
5
,
1
8
3
,
5
1
5
$
5
,
8
8
7
,
0
7
2
$
9
,
8
5
9
,
9
8
9
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
($
2
,
1
8
8
,
1
8
0
)
(
$
5
,
7
9
9
,
2
0
0
)
(
$
7
,
0
9
6
,
4
7
5
)
(
$
2
,
4
3
1
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
3
,
9
7
6
,
5
0
0
)
(
$
3
,
6
1
5
,
5
0
0
)
(
$
6
,
5
6
8
,
5
0
0
)
To
t
a
l
D
e
b
t
($
8
8
,
8
4
3
)
(
$
7
9
,
5
6
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
1
9
,
6
9
7
$
3
4
5
,
7
2
1
$
3
0
6
,
4
7
3
$
4
9
7
,
5
1
5
$
1
,
1
3
1
,
0
7
2
$
2
,
1
9
5
,
9
8
9
$
3
,
2
1
6
,
0
3
1
8
Packet Page 322 of 413
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
h
a
s
e
1
-
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
$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
P
h
a
s
e
2
-
E
d
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
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$0
$0
$0
$0
$
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
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
)
$5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
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
$
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
(
U
n
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
)
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
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
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
1
,
0
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
1
,
0
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
1
,
0
5
5
,
8
5
9
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
1
,
0
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
1
,
0
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
1
,
0
5
5
,
8
5
9
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
$0
$0
$0
$0
(
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
1
,
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
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
$
5
5
,
8
5
9
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
]
9
Packet Page 323 of 413
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
10
Packet Page 324 of 413
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
11
Packet Page 325 of 413
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
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
12
Packet Page 326 of 413
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
13
Packet Page 327 of 413
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
6
,
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
,
0
8
7
,
9
8
0
$2
,
0
8
7
,
9
8
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
0
,
4
0
0
$
2
,
7
5
7
,
3
8
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
,
3
5
6
,
2
7
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
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
4
7
,
7
6
9
$
3
,
6
8
4
,
8
8
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
,
2
8
3
,
7
7
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
,
0
3
4
,
6
7
8
$
1
,
7
9
7
,
6
0
9
$
3
,
5
3
9
,
5
2
9
$
6
4
6
,
5
2
9
$
3
,
8
6
4
,
7
3
0
$
4
6
5
,
1
3
1
$
3
,
9
1
7
,
9
1
5
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
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
)
$
4
,
3
4
5
,
3
7
8
$
1
,
9
2
4
,
4
0
9
$
3
,
6
7
0
,
4
2
9
$
7
8
1
,
6
2
9
$
4
,
0
0
4
,
3
3
0
$
6
0
9
,
3
1
5
$
4
,
0
6
6
,
8
1
5
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
$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
$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
$4
,
3
4
5
,
3
7
8
$
7
,
2
2
4
,
4
0
9
$
3
,
6
7
0
,
4
2
9
$
7
,
4
8
1
,
6
2
9
$
4
,
0
0
4
,
3
3
0
$
7
,
0
0
9
,
3
1
5
$
4
,
0
6
6
,
8
1
5
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
&
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
($
2
,
5
4
7
,
7
6
9
)
(
$
3
,
6
8
4
,
8
8
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
,
7
9
7
,
6
0
9
$
3
,
5
3
9
,
5
2
9
$
6
4
6
,
5
2
9
$
3
,
8
6
4
,
7
3
0
$
4
6
5
,
1
3
1
$
3
,
9
1
7
,
9
1
5
$
7
3
9
,
3
1
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
14
Packet Page 328 of 413
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
)
$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
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
$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
$
2
,
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
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
$2
,
8
4
4
,
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
,
3
1
3
,
6
8
4
An
n
u
a
l
l
y
F
u
n
d
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
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
.
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
)
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
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
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
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
15
Packet Page 329 of 413
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
$2
4
1
,
4
0
0
$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
$
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
2
,
6
5
0
$
2
1
,
1
8
1
$
2
6
,
2
1
6
$
2
2
,
2
8
8
$
1
6
,
8
0
0
$9
9
,
1
3
4
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
2
,
6
5
0
$
2
1
,
1
8
1
$
2
6
,
2
1
6
$
2
2
,
2
8
8
$
1
6
,
8
0
0
$
1
0
8
,
1
4
4
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
5
,
6
5
0
$
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
0
,
6
4
4
$1
,
7
9
6
,
9
0
5
$
2
,
2
6
3
,
1
9
4
$
2
,
9
5
9
,
6
5
0
$
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
,
3
0
4
,
3
2
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
$3
,
0
0
8
,
8
9
7
$
1
,
3
4
8
,
4
9
2
$
1
,
5
3
5
,
2
9
8
$
2
,
0
3
0
,
1
4
8
$
1
9
8
,
7
1
7
$
6
1
6
,
5
0
2
$
4
8
9
,
2
1
3
$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
$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
$3
,
1
4
5
,
3
9
7
$
1
,
5
4
8
,
4
9
2
$
1
,
8
5
6
,
2
9
8
$
2
,
0
5
2
,
1
4
8
$
2
2
0
,
7
1
7
$
6
3
8
,
5
0
2
$
4
9
9
,
2
1
3
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
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
0
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
$
3
,
0
3
5
,
7
5
0
$
6
,
5
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
1
8
7
,
5
0
0
$3
,
1
4
5
,
3
9
7
$
3
,
7
9
8
,
4
9
2
$
4
,
9
8
9
,
7
9
8
$
5
,
0
8
7
,
8
9
8
$
6
,
7
4
5
,
7
1
7
$
5
,
6
3
8
,
5
0
2
$
3
,
6
8
6
,
7
1
3
($
1
,
7
9
6
,
9
0
5
)
(
$
2
,
2
6
3
,
1
9
4
)
(
$
2
,
9
5
9
,
6
5
0
)
(
$
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
)
$1
,
3
4
8
,
4
9
2
$
1
,
5
3
5
,
2
9
8
$
2
,
0
3
0
,
1
4
8
$
1
9
8
,
7
1
7
$
6
1
6
,
5
0
2
$
4
8
9
,
2
1
3
(
$
2
2
7
,
0
8
6
)
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
)
.
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
)
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
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
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
)
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
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
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
)
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
To
1
1
2
-
S
t
r
e
e
t
F
u
n
d
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
16
Packet Page 330 of 413
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
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
F
u
n
d
1
3
2
(
I
n
t
e
r
u
r
b
a
n
)
$
1
3
,
9
5
0
$0
$1
3
,
9
5
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1
,
0
4
0
,
8
7
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
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
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
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
To
t
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
17
Packet Page 331 of 413
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
$4
,
4
9
2
,
8
9
0
$
4
,
2
9
1
,
7
2
0
$
9
0
8
,
0
2
0
$
2
3
1
,
0
2
0
$
1
,
1
0
3
,
0
2
0
$
2
5
3
,
0
2
0
$
1
,
2
4
3
,
0
2
0
$8
,
5
0
0
$
1
0
,
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
$5
,
3
3
2
,
5
9
0
$
4
,
3
4
8
,
7
2
0
$
9
3
3
,
0
2
0
$
2
5
6
,
0
2
0
$
1
,
1
2
8
,
0
2
0
$
2
7
8
,
0
2
0
$
1
,
2
6
8
,
0
2
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
$3
,
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
3
,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
,
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
3
2
,
5
9
0
$
8
,
1
4
8
,
7
2
0
$
9
3
3
,
0
2
0
$
3
,
3
5
6
,
0
2
0
$
1
,
1
2
8
,
0
2
0
$
1
,
7
7
8
,
0
2
0
$
1
,
2
6
8
,
0
2
0
($
1
,
0
4
0
,
8
7
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
,
2
9
1
,
7
2
0
$
9
0
8
,
0
2
0
$
2
3
1
,
0
2
0
$
1
,
1
0
3
,
0
2
0
$
2
5
3
,
0
2
0
$
1
,
2
4
3
,
0
2
0
$
2
3
3
,
0
2
0
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
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
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
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
)
18
Packet Page 332 of 413
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
4
5
,
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
1
5
,
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
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
F
u
n
d
4
1
2
-
3
0
0
(
S
e
w
e
r
C
o
m
p
P
l
a
n
)
$4
7
,
0
0
0
$4
7
,
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
6
0
,
0
2
7
$
2
6
2
,
2
7
4
$
2
6
3
,
0
9
2
$
2
6
3
,
0
1
8
$
2
6
3
,
0
7
2
$
2
6
1
,
7
7
8
$
2
6
0
,
9
4
0
$
1
,
5
7
4
,
1
7
4
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
8
2
,
3
0
1
$
2
,
1
2
7
,
2
7
4
$
2
,
5
9
4
,
0
9
2
$
2
,
4
0
8
,
7
7
2
$
1
,
1
6
3
,
8
2
6
$
1
,
1
6
2
,
5
3
2
$
1
,
1
6
1
,
6
9
4
$
1
0
,
6
1
8
,
1
9
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
)
$2
0
5
,
9
4
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
In
t
e
r
g
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
$9
0
,
5
8
7
$
3
0
0
,
7
7
4
$
4
0
4
,
5
9
2
$
4
9
9
,
2
7
2
$
4
9
9
,
3
2
6
$
4
9
8
,
0
3
2
$
4
9
7
,
1
9
4
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
$9
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
4
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
9
5
,
0
0
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
$4
6
0
,
0
2
7
$
1
,
4
4
5
,
2
7
4
$
2
,
0
9
4
,
0
9
2
$
2
,
3
0
8
,
7
7
2
$
7
1
3
,
8
2
6
$
7
1
2
,
5
3
2
$
7
1
1
,
6
9
4
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
$
8
8
2
,
0
0
0
$
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$1
,
7
8
2
,
3
0
1
$
2
,
3
2
7
,
2
7
4
$
2
,
7
9
4
,
0
9
2
$
2
,
6
0
8
,
7
7
2
$
1
,
3
6
3
,
8
2
6
$
1
,
3
6
2
,
5
3
2
$
1
,
3
6
1
,
6
9
4
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
($
1
,
5
8
2
,
3
0
1
)
(
$
2
,
1
2
7
,
2
7
4
)
(
$
2
,
5
9
4
,
0
9
2
)
(
$
2
,
4
0
8
,
7
7
2
)
(
$
1
,
1
6
3
,
8
2
6
)
(
$
1
,
1
6
2
,
5
3
2
)
(
$
1
,
1
6
1
,
6
9
4
)
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
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
3
5
,
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
$
4
7
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
$1
,
3
2
2
,
2
7
4
$
8
8
2
,
0
0
0
$
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
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
4
7
,
9
4
1
$
3
5
5
,
5
0
9
$
1
5
2
,
3
6
1
$
3
3
0
,
1
1
6
$
3
3
0
,
1
1
6
$
3
3
0
,
1
1
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
0
4
,
3
9
5
$
1
6
2
,
2
1
8
$
6
9
,
5
2
2
$
1
5
0
,
6
3
1
$
1
5
0
,
6
3
1
$
1
5
0
,
6
3
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
4
5
,
9
8
0
$
1
1
5
,
8
5
7
$
4
9
,
6
5
3
$
1
0
7
,
5
8
2
$
1
0
7
,
5
8
2
$
1
0
7
,
5
8
2
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
$
8
3
,
6
8
4
$
6
6
,
4
1
6
$
2
8
,
4
6
4
$
6
1
,
6
7
2
$
6
1
,
6
7
2
$
6
1
,
6
7
2
TO
T
A
L
S
10
0
.
0
0
%
$1
,
3
2
2
,
2
7
4
$
8
8
2
,
0
0
0
$
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
8
19
Packet Page 333 of 413
20Packet Page 334 of 413
CIP
PARKS
21Packet Page 335 of 413
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
R
e
v
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
$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
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
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
$5
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
$
4
4
4
,
0
0
0
$
9
8
9
,
0
0
0
$
7
1
9
,
0
0
0
$
5
2
7
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
2
,
0
0
0
$
7
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
1
8
2
,
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
1
6
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
0
1
4
,
0
0
0
$
8
1
9
,
0
0
0
$
5
2
7
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
2
,
0
0
0
$
7
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
1
8
2
,
0
0
0
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
22Packet Page 336 of 413
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
$
6
0
1
,
7
1
2
$
2
3
7
,
7
1
2
$
6
8
,
7
1
2
$
1
9
1
,
7
1
2
$
2
3
9
,
7
1
2
$
1
7
9
,
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
,
2
5
1
,
7
1
2
$
8
8
7
,
7
1
2
$
7
1
8
,
7
1
2
$
8
4
1
,
7
1
2
$
8
8
9
,
7
1
2
$
8
2
9
,
7
1
2
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$1
,
2
1
8
,
2
1
2
$
1
,
2
5
1
,
7
1
2
$
8
8
7
,
7
1
2
$
7
1
8
,
7
1
2
$
8
4
1
,
7
1
2
$
8
8
9
,
7
1
2
$
8
2
9
,
7
1
2
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
&
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
($
6
1
6
,
5
0
0
)
(
$
1
,
0
1
4
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
8
1
9
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
5
2
7
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
6
0
2
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
7
1
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
$6
0
1
,
7
1
2
$
2
3
7
,
7
1
2
$
6
8
,
7
1
2
$
1
9
1
,
7
1
2
$
2
3
9
,
7
1
2
$
1
7
9
,
7
1
2
$
1
9
4
,
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
.
23Packet Page 337 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Haines Wharf Park &
Walkway
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $178,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Maintain neighborhood park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $178,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $178,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
24Packet Page 338 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center
Field/Court/Stage
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $185,000
700 Main Street, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
2.3 acres; zoned public neighborhood park/openspace field
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrades to youth sports field, picnic and playground amenities
and children’s play equipment. Replacement and renovation of amphitheater in 2012 with
improved courtyard area and drainage.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: As a neighborhood park, the Frances Anderson Center
serves the community with various sports, playground and field activities including various
special events. Upgrade and additions essential to meet demand for use.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $5,000 $30,000 $130,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $30,000 $130,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
25Packet Page 339 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Brackett’s Landing
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000
South: Main Street and Railroad Avenue south of Edmonds Ferry Terminal on Puget Sound
North: 2.7 acres with tidelands and adjacent to Department of Natural Resources public tidelands with Underwater Park
South: 2.0 acres with tidelands south of ferry terminal. Regional park/Zoned commercial waterfront. Protected as public park
through Deed-of-Right; partnership funding IAC/WWRC/LWCF /DNR-ALEA & Snohomish Conservation Futures
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Landscape beautification, irrigation, furnishings/bench
maintenance, exterior painting, repairs, jetty improvements/repair, north cove sand, habitat
improvement, fences, interpretive signs, structure repairs, sidewalk improvements, restroom
repairs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park,
regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $95,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $95,000 $5,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
26Packet Page 340 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $575,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revitalize City Park play area with new play equipment and addition
of a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. Spray parks have become very popular in
many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer acceptable to increased
health department regulations. These installations create no standing water and therefore require
little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary donations for construction
costs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project combines two play areas and the completion of
the master plan from 1992. This is very competitive for State grant funding, as it will be using a
repurposing water system. This will be a much valued revitalization and addition to the City’s
oldest and most cherished park.
SCHEDULE: 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $500,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $500,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
27Packet Page 341 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Complex
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000
6th Street N. and Edmonds Street, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
8.1 acres / property owned and leased from Edmonds School District until 2021; Community Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Park Development
Bleacher/stadium repairs, infield mix, baseball/softball turf repair, retaining wall, fence and
play structure replacement, skate park and facility amenities, tennis and sports courts repair
and resurfacing, irrigation. Regrade and improve track. Upgrade portable restrooms.
Landscape and site furnishing improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for Civic Center Field.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $10,000 $10,000 $75,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $10,000 $10,000 $75,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
28Packet Page 342 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms ESTIMATED COST: $70,000
LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Fishing pier parking lot landscape improvements. Re-tile and
renovate restroom facilities. Electrical upgrade, rail and shelter replacements / renovations.
Work with WDFW on structural repairs of concrete spalling on pier subsurface.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and
enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
29Packet Page 343 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Former Woodway HS
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,555,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
fields and recreational amenities in partnership with Edmonds School District, community colleges,
user groups, and other organizations. Development dependent upon successful regional capital
campaign. $10m - $12M project.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The site is currently an underutilized and undermaintained
facility with great potential as community multi-use active park. Site has existing controlled
access, greenbelt, parking and 4-court tennis facility with substandard fields. Highly urbanized
area with 150,000 residents within 5-mile radius. Future maintenance supported by user fees.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $155,000 $200,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $155,000 $200,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
30Packet Page 344 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $20,000
89th Place West and 197th Street SW, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
12.7 acres (10.7 acres Open Space & 2 acres Neighborhood Park) Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the picnic, roadway, parking, play area and
natural trail system to Maplewood Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2013, 2016
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $10,000 $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $10,000 $5,000 $5,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
31Packet Page 345 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $130,000
South of the Port of Edmonds on Admiral Way South, Edmonds City limits, Snohomish County
4.5 acres / Regional Park / Zoned Commercial Waterfront, marina beach south purchased with
federal transportation funds.
WWRC / IAC Acquisition Project; Protected through Deed-of-Right RCW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Expand parking area. Portable restroom upgrades. Repair and
improvements to off-leash area. Replace play structure and install interpretive sign.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the regional
waterfront park system.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $5,000 $100,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $5,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
32Packet Page 346 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $125,000
78th Place W. & 241st. St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Install path from Interurban Trail spur terminal to parking lot. Replace play structure and
improve picnic area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2012 - 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $100,000 $20,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $100,000 $20,000 $5,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
33Packet Page 347 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Meadowdale Clubhouse
Grounds
ESTIMATED COST: $65,000
6801 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds City limits, within Snohomish County
1.3 acres / Neighborhood Park / Zoned RS20
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improvements to the parking area, wooded area, trail system and
landscaping of exterior clubhouse at Meadowdale Clubhouse site. Replace playground.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset with installation
that provides community use of the facility and north Edmonds programming for day care,
recreation classes and preschool activities.
SCHEDULE: 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $0 $5,000 $50,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $5,000 $50,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
34Packet Page 348 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
83rd Avenue West and 204th St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County
22 acres (20 acres zoned openspace/2 acres neighborhood park) Zoned Public; Adopted Master Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Forest improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, wildlife
habitat attractions, trail improvements, signs, parking. Natural trail links under Main Street
connecting to Yost Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Retention of natural open space habitat site and regional
trail connections.
SCHEDULE: 2015
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $5,000 $5,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $5,000
New additions meet the 1% for the Arts Ordinance requirements
35Packet Page 349 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park
Improvements
ESTIMATED COST: $35,000
80th Street West and 186th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public; Purchased and developed with LWCF funds through IAC; protected with Deed-
Of-Right
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annual repair and upgrade to facilities and fields. Re-surface
tennis courts, pathway improvements, and play area maintenance. Renovate restrooms.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, restroom facilities, basketball court,
parking and tennis courts.
SCHEDULE: 2012 - 2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $20,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $20,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
36Packet Page 350 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Sierra Park Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $115,000
80th Street West and 191th Street SW, Snohomish County, within Edmonds City limits
5.5 acres; Neighborhood Park/ Zoned Public
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Improve pathways and interpretive braille signs. Field renovation
to include field drainage for turf repair.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Site serves as neighborhood park with children’s play
area, open lawn, softball/baseball fields and soccer fields, portable restroom facilities,
basketball hoops, parking and Braille interpretive trail for the blind.
SCHEDULE: 2014-2015
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $40,000 $75,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $40,000 $75,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
37Packet Page 351 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Sunset Avenue
Overlook Trail
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $900,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop a 2,000 foot trail with expansive views of the Puget Sound
and the Olympic Mountains. The trail will connect the downtown business district, surrounding
neighborhoods, water access points, and the existing parks and trails system.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This new trail would be ADA accessible and able to
accommodate walkers, joggers, bicyclists, picnickers, or those there to enjoy the view . This trail
has been a priority for the City of Edmonds for several years. It is included in 5 different City
plans, the Transportation Improvement Plan, Non-Motorized Section; the Parks Recreation and
Open Plan; the City comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan; the Capital Improvement Plan;
and the Shoreline Master Program. Specifically, the Parks Recreation and Open Space Plan
identified Sunset Avenue Overlook priorities, namely improved connectivity and multi-modal
access, complete the bicycle and pedestrian route system, identify scenic routes and view areas,
and landscape improvements.
SCHEDULE: 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction 200,000
1% for Art
TOTAL 200,000
38Packet Page 352 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Yost Park/Pool
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $470,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Pool replastering, tile work, and annual anticipated and
unanticipated repairs. Add in-pool play amenities.
Park site improvements and repairs to trails and bridges, picnicking facilities, landscaping,
parking, tennis/pickleball courts and erosion control. ADA improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Beautiful natural area serves as upland area for
environmental education programs as well as enjoyable setting for seasonal Yost Pool users.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $50,000 $120,000 $75,000 $125,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $50,000 $120,000 $75,000 $125,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
39Packet Page 353 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $216,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include library, Senior Center, outdoor
plaza, city park, corner parks, irrigation, planting, mulch, FAC Center, vegetation, tree plantings,
streetscape/gateways/street tree planting, flower basket poles.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improve beautification citywide and provide
comprehensive adopted plan for beautification and trees.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $36,000 $29,000 $29,000 $22,000 $22,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $36,000 $29,000 $29,000 $22,000 $22,000 Not Eligible Not Eligible
40Packet Page 354 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Paving ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $40,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Includes miscellaneous small paving and park walkway
improvements citywide.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvement needs citywide in park system.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $5,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $5,000 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000
* all or a portion of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
41Packet Page 355 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park
Improvements / Misc Small Projects
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $335,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Citywide park facility and public landscaping improvements
including signage, interpretive signs, buoys, tables, benches, trash containers, drinking
fountains, backstops, bike racks, lighting, small landscaping projects, play areas and
equipment. Landscape improvements at beautification areas and corner parks, public gateway
entrances into the city and 4th Avenue Corridor from Main St. to the Edmonds Center for the
Arts, SR 104, street tree and streetscape improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Overall capital improvements for citywide park facilities
and streetscape improvements in public areas.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering / Administration
Construction $35,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $35,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $70,000 $70,000
42Packet Page 356 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade /
Playground Partnerships
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $75,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Partnerships with local schools, organizations, or neighboring
jurisdictions to upgrade additional youth ball field or play facilities or playgrounds to create
neighborhood park facilities at non-City facilities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Annual partnerships with matching funds to create
additional facilities.
SCHEDULE: 2012 - 2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $0 $25,000
43Packet Page 357 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Aquatic Center
at Yost Park
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000 –
$23,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement recommendations of the Aquatics Feasibility Study
completed in 2009. Six scenarios were presented and the plan recommended by the
consultants was a year round indoor pool with an outdoor recreational opportunity in the
summer. The project is dependent upon a public vote.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The current Yost Pool, built in 1972, is nearing the end of
its life expectancy. The comprehensive study done in 2009 assessed the needs and wants of
Edmonds citizens in regard to its aquatic future as well as the mechanical condition of the
current pool.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
44Packet Page 358 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved
Trail/Bike Path/Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 30,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Complete portions of designated trail through public parks to meet the
goals of the Bicycle Plan and Pathway Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Walking and connections was listed as a high priority in the
comprehensive Park Plan from public survey data. Creating trails, paths and bike links is essential to
meet the need for the community. Provides for the implementation of the citywide bicycle path
improvements and the elements and goals of the citywide walkway plan. Linked funding with
engineering funding.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $0 $10,000 $0
$10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0
* all or part of these projects may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
45Packet Page 359 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Arts Facility
Needs Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $30,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initiate feasibility study of providing and promoting Cultural / Arts
facilities for the City of Edmonds. The need for visual and performing arts facilities is a high
priority stated in the adopted updated Community Cultural Arts Plan 2001 and in the 2008
update process.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The City of Edmonds desires to secure and provide for
public Cultural Arts facilities in the community. The emphasis on the arts as a high priority
creates the need to study performance, management and long term potential for arts related
facilities.
SCHEDULE:
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
46Packet Page 360 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh/Hatchery
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $160,000
South of Dayton Street and Harbor Square, east of BSNF railroad, west of SR 104, north of UNOCAL
23.2 acres; Natural Open Space / Zoned Open Space
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Using strategies and recommendations identified in the
comprehensive management plan, protect site from adjacent development and storm water
impacts. Continue to support day-lighting of Willow Creek to Puget Sound. Sidewalk / pathway
repairs and continuation of walkway / viewing path to the hatchery if environmentally feasible.
Hatchery repairs as needed. Work with Friends of the Edmonds Marsh, People for Puget
Sound and others in the rejuvenation and management of the marsh.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The Edmonds Marsh is a unique urban salt and fresh
water marsh with abundant habitat / wildlife species. It is a designated and protected bird
sanctuary. Protection is vital. Co-fund the completion of a master plan using Storm Water
Utility funds as defined in the comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. As well as grant
funds available through various agencies and foundations.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study $50,000
Engin. & Admin.
Construction $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $10,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $10,000
47Packet Page 361 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park Forest
Management Study
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $50,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Hire consultant to develop a plan for best forest management
practices in Pine Ridge Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This forest park is under stress from over-mature trees
especially alder and others. This study will give the Parks Division necessary guidance to
better manage this park to become a more healthy forest and open space.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study $50,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $50,000
48Packet Page 362 of 413
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
$4
1
6
,
8
4
9
$
3
1
2
,
4
8
8
$
3
1
0
,
9
0
0
$6
2
3
,
3
8
8
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
$1
8
2
,
9
2
8
$
1
8
2
,
5
3
8
$
1
8
1
,
6
7
3
$1
8
0
,
5
5
3
$1
8
4
,
1
7
8
$
1
8
2
,
2
9
3
$
1
8
5
,
1
5
3
$1
,
0
9
6
,
3
8
8
De
b
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
o
n
P
S
C
C
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
$6
8
,
0
8
0
$7
1
,
7
6
8
$
7
0
,
2
2
8
$6
8
,
6
0
8
$6
6
,
9
4
8
$
7
0
,
2
4
8
$
6
8
,
2
9
0
$4
1
6
,
0
9
0
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
$
6
9
7
,
7
1
7
$
5
9
6
,
4
1
8
$
5
9
2
,
5
6
4
$
2
7
9
,
0
3
5
$
2
8
1
,
0
8
3
$
2
8
2
,
1
6
2
$
2
8
3
,
0
8
3
$
2
,
3
1
4
,
3
4
5
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
$
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Wa
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
/
T
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
A
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
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
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
7
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
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
0
,
9
6
5
-
$
1
5
7
,
1
1
8
-
$
4
3
6
,
2
8
0
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
$
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
2
3
,
9
6
5
$
4
4
5
,
8
8
2
$
1
6
3
,
7
2
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
$
9
9
6
,
4
1
8
$
8
9
2
,
5
6
4
$
9
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
2
3
,
9
6
5
$
4
4
5
,
8
8
2
$
1
6
3
,
7
2
0
To
t
a
l
D
e
b
t
($
6
9
7
,
7
1
7
)
(
$
5
9
6
,
4
1
8
)
(
$
5
9
2
,
5
6
4
)
(
$
2
7
9
,
0
3
5
)
(
$
2
8
1
,
0
8
3
)
(
$
2
8
2
,
1
6
2
)
(
$
2
8
3
,
0
8
3
)
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
($
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
(
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
)
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
2
0
,
9
6
5
-
$
1
5
7
,
1
1
8
-
$
4
3
6
,
2
8
0
(
$
7
1
9
,
3
6
3
)
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
2
0
1
3
-
2
0
1
8
49Packet Page 363 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved
Capital Projects and Acquisitions
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,146,126
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on:
City Hall: $417,000 (2010-2012), $312,000 (2013-2014), debt retired end of 2014
Marina Beach / Library Roof: $182,428
PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $69,185
Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $29,777
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $697,717 $596,418 $592,564 $279,035 $281,083 $282,162 $283,083
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
50Packet Page 364 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open
Space/Land
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,300,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquisition of properties when feasible that will benefit citizens
that fit the definitions and needs identified in the Parks Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Fulfills needs of citizens for parks, recreation and open
space.
SCHEDULE: 2012 – 2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000
51Packet Page 365 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront/Tidelands
Acquisition
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,200,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Acquire waterfront parcels and tidelands wherever feasible to
secure access to Puget Sound for public use as indentified in the Parks, Recreation & Open
Space Comprehensive Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public ownership of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000
52Packet Page 366 of 413
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
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
$0
$
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
$
5
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
Cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
T
o
u
r
a
n
d
W
a
y
-
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
$
1
9
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
,
5
0
0
$5
5
,
5
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
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$
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
/
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
$
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Ha
z
e
l
M
i
l
l
e
r
P
l
a
z
a
(
O
l
d
M
i
l
l
t
o
w
n
)
$
9
5
,
1
2
0
$0
Ci
t
y
P
a
r
k
R
e
v
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
$
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
4
,
1
2
0
$
1
,
8
8
7
,
5
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
9
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
$
1
2
,
5
6
2
,
5
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
)
$8
6
,
6
0
2
$
3
0
9
,
2
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
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
0
f
o
r
W
a
y
-
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
S
i
g
n
a
g
e
G
r
a
n
t
M
a
t
c
h
$1
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
4
t
h
A
v
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
$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
R
e
v
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
i
n
f
r
o
m
F
u
n
d
1
2
5
f
o
r
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Tr
a
n
s
f
e
r
t
o
F
u
n
d
1
2
5
f
o
r
O
l
d
M
i
l
l
t
o
w
n
e
n
d
i
n
g
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
($
8
5
,
1
4
3
)
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$3
8
2
,
9
6
0
$
8
3
3
,
7
1
3
$
4
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
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
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
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
,
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
4
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
9
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
R
e
v
i
t
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
$5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Sn
o
h
o
m
i
s
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
T
o
u
r
i
s
m
f
o
r
W
a
y
-
F
i
n
d
i
n
g
$2
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
4
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
9
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
5
6
,
5
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
9
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
$9
4
3
,
3
3
3
$
2
,
1
9
0
,
2
1
3
$
5
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
1
,
4
5
2
,
7
1
3
$
1
,
7
2
7
,
7
1
3
$
8
,
2
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
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
4
,
1
2
0
.
0
0
)
(
$
1
,
8
8
7
,
5
0
0
)
(
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
)
(
1
,
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
)
(
$
1
,
4
2
5
,
0
0
0
)
(
7
,
9
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
)
$0
En
d
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
$3
0
9
,
2
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
$
3
0
2
,
7
1
3
*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
53Packet Page 367 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: 4th Avenue
Corridor Enhancement
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,600,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Begin 4th Avenue site development with temporary and/or moveable
surface elements and amenities to begin drawing attention and interest to the corridor and create
stronger visual connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Possible
projects may include surface art, interpretive signage and wayfinding, or low level lighting. The
Cultural Heritage Walking Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park
Service Preserve America grant program, will be implemented in 2011-12.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection along 4th Ave. Improvements will
enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the economic vitality in the
downtown by encouraging the flow of visitors between the downtown retail & the Edmonds Center for
the Arts. Timing for 30% design phase is crucial as the City addresses utility projects in the area & will
assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the total project
implementation phase.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study $25,000
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $100,000 $1,150,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $25,000 $100,000 $1,150,000 $1,425,000 $2,900,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
54Packet Page 368 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Cultural Heritage Tour and
Way-Finding Signage
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $74,500
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create a downtown Edmonds walking tour highlighting a dozen historic
sites with artist made interpretive markers, and add way-finding signage for the downtown area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Promote tourism and economic development in the core
downtown. The walking tour and interpretive signage focuses on local history and as unique artist
made pieces also reflect the arts orientation of the community. Improved way-finding signage which
points out major attractions and services/amenities such as theaters, museums, beaches, train station,
shopping, dining and lodging promotes both tourism and economic vitality in the downtown /waterfront
activity center.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study $19,000 $55,500
Engineering & Administration
Construction
1% for Art
TOTAL $19,000 $55,500
55Packet Page 369 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Dayton Street Plaza ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $168,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Renovate small park and plaza at north end of old public works
building, 2nd & Dayton Street. Improve landscaping, plaza, and accessibility.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Capital improvements to public gathering space and
creation of additional art amenities and streetscape improvements in downtown on main
walking route. Financial support from Edmonds Arts Festival Foundation, Hubbard Foundation
and Edmonds in Bloom.
SCHEDULE: 2012
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $168,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $168,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
56Packet Page 370 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Interurban Trail
Improvements
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,933,000
Matching Grant Funds WWRC/ IAC, additional funding from PSRC / CMAQ
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Trail Improvements
Major construction improvements to this abandoned interurban railway link including 1.37 miles of
trail, upgraded shared roadway, trail spur to Mathay Ballinger Park, and the creation of Ballinger
Station to house a shelter, kiosk, historical interpretation, water fountain and solar bollards.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Final trail system missing link to connect already completed
sections in Shoreline and Mountlake Terrace through the Ballinger neighborhood of Edmonds.
Increased safety and public enjoyment for recreationalists and bicycle commuters.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $352,000 $7,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $352,000 $7,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the Arts.
57Packet Page 371 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Senior Center Parking
Lot/Drainage
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $500,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rehabilitate South County Senior Center parking lot including
pavement re-surfacing, storm water/drainage management, effective illumination and
landscaping. Seek grant opportunities and partnership opportunities.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Improvements to retain capital assets and provide safety
and better accessibility for Seniors.
SCHEDULE: 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction $500,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $500,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1% for the Arts
58Packet Page 372 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Hazel Miller Plaza (Old
Milltown)
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $124,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Redevelop the small courtyard/gathering area in front of Old Milltown at 5th and Dayton. The site
is a key gateway into downtown. Elements of the design include raised bed gardens, artistic
elements, a water feature, seating areas, small stage/amphitheatre for performers, integration of
Old Milltown into the gathering area, large boulders for kids to climb on, and a look, smell, feel
educational garden area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE:
As a goal in the PROS plan, this project will develop a downtown gathering area, providing an
attractive gateway and entrance area to downtown.
SCHEDULE: 2012-2018
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $95,120
1% for Art
TOTAL $95,120
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
59Packet Page 373 of 413
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: City Park Revitalization
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,300,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Revitalize City Park play area with new play equipment and addition
of a spray park amenity to be used in the summer. Spray parks have become very popular in
many communities as replacements for wading pools that are no longer acceptable to increased
health department regulations. These installations create no standing water and therefore require
little maintenance and no lifeguard costs. Staff will seek voluntary donations for construction
costs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: This project combines two play areas and the completion of
the master plan from 1992. This is very competitive for State grant funding, as it will be using a
repurposing water system. This will be a much valued revitalization and addition to the City’s
oldest and most cherished park.
SCHEDULE: 2013
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction $1,300,000
1% for Art
TOTAL $1,300,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1% for the arts
60Packet Page 374 of 413
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
61Packet Page 375 of 413
FU
N
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
CF
P
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
11
2
5
t
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
.
Ov
e
r
l
a
y
5
t
h
A
v
e
f
r
o
m
W
a
l
n
u
t
S
t
.
t
o
E
l
m
W
a
y
,
w
h
e
r
e
a
n
e
w
w
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
w
a
s
re
c
e
n
t
l
y
a
d
d
e
d
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
f
u
n
d
e
d
b
y
a
$
5
5
1
,
0
0
0
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
g
r
a
n
t
a
n
d
C
i
t
y
wa
t
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
f
u
n
d
s
.
11
2
S
R
-
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
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
g
u
a
r
d
r
a
i
l
o
n
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
u
e
a
1
0
'
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
d
r
o
p
.
11
2
1
5
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
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
i
s
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
n
o
n
-
m
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
11
2
C
i
t
y
w
i
d
e
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
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
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
,
i
n
d
i
c
i
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
re
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
.
11
2
A
u
d
i
b
l
e
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
S
i
g
n
a
l
s
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
A
u
d
i
b
l
e
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
S
i
g
a
l
s
a
t
b
u
s
y
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
r
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
11
2
S
R
-
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
Ad
d
m
i
d
-
b
l
o
c
k
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
~
4
0
0
'
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
S
R
-
1
0
4
@
P
i
n
e
S
t
.
11
2
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
Cr
e
a
t
e
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
11
6
A
n
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
Co
n
t
r
o
l
s
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
a
n
d
b
o
i
l
e
r
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
co
v
e
r
a
g
e
.
11
6
M
i
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
Re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
p
a
i
n
t
e
d
s
p
r
i
n
k
l
e
r
h
e
a
d
s
a
n
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
p
a
i
r
,
a
n
d
ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
i
r
e
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
f
o
u
r
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
11
6
P
u
b
l
i
c
S
a
f
e
t
y
R
a
i
l
i
n
g
s
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
e
t
a
l
s
a
f
e
t
y
r
a
i
l
i
n
g
s
a
t
t
w
o
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
t
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
e
n
d
o
f
t
h
e
Po
l
i
c
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
41
2
-
1
0
0
P
i
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
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
c
o
s
t
t
o
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
a
n
d
s
l
o
p
e
t
h
a
t
w
a
s
d
a
m
a
g
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
wa
t
e
r
m
a
i
n
b
r
e
a
k
t
h
a
t
h
a
p
p
e
n
e
d
o
n
P
i
o
n
e
e
r
W
a
y
i
n
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
1
.
41
2
-
1
0
0
2
0
1
9
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
w
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
41
2
-
2
0
0
S
t
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
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
0
.
N
e
w
p
l
a
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
5
41
2
-
2
0
0
S
t
o
r
m
S
y
s
t
e
m
V
i
d
e
o
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
As
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
o
f
e
n
t
i
r
e
s
t
o
r
m
s
y
t
e
m
i
n
2
0
1
4
.
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
w
i
l
l
f
e
e
d
i
n
t
o
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
ne
e
d
s
i
n
S
t
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
f
o
r
2
0
1
5
.
41
2
-
3
0
0
2
0
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
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
c
o
s
t
s
f
o
r
s
e
w
e
r
l
i
n
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
CF
P
/
C
I
P
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
(
2
0
1
2
T
O
2
0
1
3
)
AD
D
E
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
11
2
11
2
C
o
n
v
e
r
t
E
B
a
n
d
W
B
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
s
p
l
i
t
p
h
a
s
i
n
g
t
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
-
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
v
e
ph
a
s
i
n
g
,
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
.
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
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
A
d
d
T
y
p
e
2
R
a
i
s
e
d
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
r
k
e
r
s
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
of
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
9/28/2012
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
37
6
of
41
3
FU
N
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
CF
P
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
11
2
2
0
0
9
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
1
11
2
D
a
y
t
o
n
S
t
.
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
1
11
2
S
R
-
5
2
4
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
X
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
1
11
6
F
A
C
E
n
e
r
g
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
t
u
d
y
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
.
11
6
EV
C
h
a
r
g
i
n
g
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
.
11
6
Li
b
r
a
r
y
A
D
A
D
o
o
r
s
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
.
11
6
W
a
d
e
J
a
m
e
s
G
u
t
t
e
r
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
2
t
o
b
e
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
of
t
h
e
D
r
i
f
t
w
o
o
d
P
l
a
y
e
r
s
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
l
e
a
s
e
t
e
r
m
s
.
11
6
Wa
d
e
J
a
m
e
s
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
R
o
o
f
Mi
n
o
r
r
e
p
a
i
r
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
l
a
s
t
y
e
a
r
.
12
5
P
a
r
k
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
S
t
u
d
y
No
t
a
l
l
o
w
a
b
l
e
u
s
e
o
f
R
E
E
T
13
2
O
l
d
M
i
l
l
t
o
w
n
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
41
2
-
1
0
0
S
y
s
t
e
m
-
w
i
d
e
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
R
e
l
i
e
f
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
A
d
d
e
d
t
o
2
0
1
3
&
2
0
1
4
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
i
n
c
e
t
h
e
s
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
a
r
e
d
o
n
e
a
s
pa
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
41
2
-
1
0
0
A
n
n
u
a
l
P
R
V
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
d
d
e
d
t
o
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
i
n
c
e
t
h
e
s
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
ar
e
d
o
n
e
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
41
2
-
1
0
0
F
i
r
e
H
y
d
r
a
n
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
A
d
d
e
d
t
o
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
i
n
c
e
t
h
e
s
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
ar
e
d
o
n
e
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
41
2
-
1
0
0
G
F
C
S
t
u
d
y
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
1
41
2
-
1
0
0
5
C
o
r
n
e
r
s
P
u
m
p
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
1
41
2
-
1
0
0
B
N
S
F
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
s
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
1
41
2
-
1
0
0
A
l
d
e
r
w
o
o
d
M
e
t
e
r
,
S
e
a
v
i
e
w
&
Y
o
s
t
I
m
p
r
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
1
41
2
-
2
0
0
N
P
D
E
S
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
P
e
r
m
i
t
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
B
u
l
i
d
i
n
g
G
r
a
n
t
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
a
r
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
n
e
e
d
s
n
o
t
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
n
e
e
d
s
.
41
2
-
2
0
0
P
u
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
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
w
a
s
h
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
l
e
t
e
d
.
C
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
a
w
a
s
h
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
u
s
i
n
g
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
a
n
d
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
g
r
a
n
t
m
o
n
e
y
a
t
a
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
ca
p
i
t
o
l
c
o
s
t
.
41
2
-
3
0
0
L
i
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
7
&
8
a
n
d
W
e
s
t
D
a
y
t
o
n
S
e
w
e
r
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
1
41
2
-
3
0
0
GF
C
S
t
u
d
y
Co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
2
0
1
1
CF
P
/
C
I
P
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
(
2
0
1
2
T
O
2
0
1
3
)
DE
L
E
T
E
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
9/28/2012
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
37
7
of
41
3
FU
N
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
CF
P
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
11
2
2
2
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
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
w
a
s
a
d
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
s
c
o
p
e
:
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
l
a
y
o
n
2
2
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
f
r
o
m
8
0
t
h
Av
e
.
W
t
o
~
1
,
0
0
0
e
a
s
t
o
f
7
2
n
d
A
v
e
.
W
(
p
a
r
t
o
f
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
i
n
M
o
u
n
t
l
a
k
e
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
)
an
d
o
n
7
6
t
h
A
v
e
.
f
r
o
m
2
2
8
t
h
S
t
.
S
W
t
o
S
R
-
9
9
.
11
2
2
1
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
Th
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
l
i
m
i
t
s
w
a
s
a
d
d
e
d
to
t
h
e
s
c
o
p
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
11
3
E
d
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
Th
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
w
o
p
h
a
s
e
s
.
P
h
a
s
e
1
w
i
l
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
ve
h
i
c
l
e
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
u
n
d
e
r
p
a
s
s
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
e
r
r
y
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
l
.
P
h
a
s
e
2
w
i
l
l
b
e
th
e
E
d
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
.
11
6
A
n
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
Be
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
,
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
s
t
h
a
s
be
e
n
r
a
i
s
e
d
t
o
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
11
6
A
n
d
e
r
s
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
R
o
o
f
Th
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
d
e
l
a
y
e
d
a
y
e
a
r
o
n
t
h
e
C
I
P
a
n
d
i
t
s
c
o
s
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
b
e
t
t
e
r
de
f
i
n
e
d
b
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
.
12
5
W
o
o
d
w
a
y
F
i
e
l
d
s
X
St
a
r
t
i
n
g
t
o
s
e
t
a
s
i
d
e
f
o
r
f
i
e
l
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
12
5
E
d
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
-
Fe
a
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
Ca
r
r
y
o
v
e
r
t
o
2
0
1
3
12
5
C
i
t
y
P
a
r
k
P
l
a
y
A
r
e
a
R
e
v
i
t
a
l
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
C
a
r
r
y
o
v
e
r
a
n
d
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
m
a
t
c
h
s
t
a
t
e
g
r
a
n
t
41
2
-
2
0
0
P
u
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
Gr
a
n
t
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
E
c
o
l
o
g
y
t
o
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
W
a
s
t
e
H
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
T
h
i
s
w
o
r
k
w
i
l
l
be
d
o
n
e
i
n
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
3
.
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
W
a
s
h
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
m
o
v
e
d
t
o
2
0
1
4
.
41
2
-
2
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
t
n
s
o
u
t
h
o
f
P
u
g
e
t
Dr
.
-
A
s
s
e
m
e
n
t
An
a
s
s
e
s
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
f
i
r
s
t
t
o
s
e
e
i
f
a
s
t
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
a
b
a
n
d
o
m
e
n
t
i
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
41
2
-
2
0
0
P
e
r
i
n
v
i
l
l
e
H
i
g
h
F
l
o
w
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
t
u
d
y
Wa
s
"
S
W
P
e
r
r
i
n
v
i
l
l
e
C
r
e
e
k
B
a
s
i
n
S
t
u
d
y
.
"
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
en
t
i
r
e
b
a
s
i
n
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
a
r
t
i
n
L
y
n
n
w
o
o
d
.
CH
A
N
G
E
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
So
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
B
a
s
i
n
S
t
u
d
y
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
1
&
3
-
Co
n
n
e
c
t
S
u
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
In
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
w
i
t
h
R
a
i
n
G
a
r
d
e
n
s
a
n
d
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
)
.
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
/
9
5
t
h
/
9
3
r
d
St
.
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
Ad
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
f
l
o
o
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
u
s
e
L
o
w
I
m
p
a
c
t
De
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
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
c
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
(
p
i
p
e
s
a
n
d
c
a
t
c
h
b
a
s
i
n
s
)
.
41
2
-
2
0
0
41
2
-
2
0
0
X X
SW
E
d
m
o
n
d
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
1
a
n
d
3
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
f
o
r
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
.
R
a
i
n
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
a
d
d
e
d
t
o
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
.
CF
P
/
C
I
P
C
O
M
P
A
R
I
S
O
N
(
2
0
1
2
T
O
2
0
1
3
)
9/28/2012
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
37
8
of
41
3
AM-5153 13.
City Council Meeting
Meeting Date:10/02/2012
Time:45 Minutes
Submitted For:Rob Chave Submitted By:Sandy Chase
Department:Planning
Review Committee: Planning/Parks/Public Works Committee Action: Recommend
Review by
Full Council
Type: Action
Information
Subject Title
Continued discussion regarding step-backs.
Recommendation
Provide direction to staff to develop an ordinance for consideration.
Previous Council Action
This item was scheduled on the August 6, 2012 City Council Agenda, however, due to the late hour, the
item was forwarded to the Parks, Planning & Public Works Committee on August 20, 2012. Full Council
discusion followed on August 21, 2012, with a follow-up scheduled for October 2nd.
Narrative
PLEASE REFER TO THE AGENDA MEMO AND ATTACHMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE
AUGUST 6, 2012 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
Previous discussion focused on the relationship of step-backs to height and building design and the
appropriate building design standards for downtown buildings. The current regulations in the BD zones
do not require step-backs for buildings in the retail core (BD1 zone), but do for certain circumstances in
other BD zones.
Attached as Exhibit 1 is the staff presentation from the 8/21/2012 Council work session, with Exhibit 2
containing the minutes of that meeting.
Exhibit 3 provides the design standards that apply to buildings in the BD1 zone. These standards are
requirements for buildings constructed in that zone, and do not apply to buildings in any of the other BD
zones. Current guidance for the other BD zones is contained in more generalized Comprehensive Plan
language -- the Downtown Design Objectives contained in the Downtown Waterfront Plan section of the
plan (see Exhibit 4).
Depending on the types of buildings the city wants to see, staff believes it would make more sense to rely
on specific design standards (similar to those that apply to the BD1 zone) rather than the current more
generalized system applicable to everything but the BD1 zone. Specific design standards should promote
better building design than mandatory step-backs that don't acknowledge historic building types present in
Packet Page 379 of 413
the downtown (and on the city's Historic Register). The intent of this work session is to further discuss
this idea.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Staff presentation from 8/21/2012
Exhibit 2: City Council minutes of 8/21/2012
Exhibit 3: ECDC BD1 design standards
Exhibit 4: Comprehensive Plan downtown design objectives
Form Review
Inbox Reviewed By Date
Mayor Dave Earling 09/27/2012 08:50 PM
Finalize for Agenda Sandy Chase 09/28/2012 08:35 AM
Form Started By: Rob Chave Started On: 09/27/2012 04:07 PM
Final Approval Date: 09/28/2012
Packet Page 380 of 413
DI
S
C
U
S
S
I
O
N
OF
BD
ZO
N
I
N
G
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Me
e
t
i
n
g
| Au
g
u
s
t
21
,
20
1
2
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
38
1
of
41
3
St
e
p
‐ba
c
k
s
in
BD
Zo
n
e
s
St
e
p
ba
c
k
s
in
BD
Zo
n
e
s
Pl
i
Bd
di
Pl
an
n
i ng
B oa
r
d re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d at
i on
:
El
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
th
e
st
e
p
‐ba
c
k
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
in
the
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
(B
D
)
zo
n
e
s
.
Th
e
r
e
is
no
st
e
p
‐ba
c
k
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
fo
r
BD1.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
38
2
of
41
3
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
38
3
of
41
3
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
St
y
l
e
s
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
38
4
of
41
3
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Tr
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
St
y
l
e
s
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
38
5
of
41
3
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
38
6
of
41
3
“Ch
a
n
t
e
r
e
l
l
e
” –
31
6
Ma
i
n
Ch
a
n
t
e
r
e
l
l
e
31
6
Ma
i
n
15
f
t
.
30
f
t
.
30
f
t
.
6
i
n
.
25
f
t
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
38
7
of
41
3
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
38
8
of
41
3
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
38
9
of
41
3
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
Pl
a
n
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
Pl
a
n
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
De
s
i
g
n
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
Si
t
e
De
s
i
g
n
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ac
c
e
s
s
,
en
t
r
i
e
s
,
se
t
b
a
c
k
s
,
id
e
n
t
i
t
y
,
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
ac
c
e
s
s
,
en
t
r
i
e
s
,
se
t
b
a
c
k
s
,
id
e
n
t
i
t
y
,
we
a
t
h
e
r
pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
si
g
n
a
g
e
…
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g fo
r
m
g
He
i
g
h
t
/
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
sc
a
l
e
,
ma
s
s
i
n
g
,
mo
d
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
…
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
fa
c
a
d
e
s
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
fa
c
a
d
e
s
Fa
ç
a
d
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
& ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
ac
c
e
n
t
s
/
t
r
i
m
…
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
39
0
of
41
3
Sa
m
p
l
e
De
s
i
g
n
Gu
i
d
a
n
c
e
Sa
m
p
l
e
De
s
i
g
n
Gu
i
d
a
n
c
e
Ma
s
s
i
n
g
Ma
s
s
i
n
g
a.
L
a
r
g
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
ma
s
s
e
s
sh
a
l
l
be
av
o
i
d
e
d
in
th
e
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
wa
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
ce
n
t
e
r
.
La
r
g
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
ma
s
s
e
s
sh
o
u
l
d
be
su
b
d
i
v
i
d
e
d
ve
r
t
i
c
a
l
l
y an
d
/
o
r
ho
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
l
y to
re
p li
c
a
t
e
th
e
smaller
y
y
p
sc
a
l
e
st
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
fo
u
n
d
al
o
n
g
do
w
n
t
o
w
n
’
s
pedestrian
st
r
e
e
t
s
.
b.
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
hu
m
a
n
sc
a
l
e
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
in
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
th
a
t
reinforce
th
e
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
st
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
an
d
the upper
th
e
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
st
r
e
e
t
s
c
a
p
e
an
d
the upper
le
v
e
l
s
of
a bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
c.
U
s
e
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
of
ot
h
e
r
te
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
,
su
c
h
as
ro
o
f
an
d
wall
mo
d
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
or
co
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
of
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
wa
l
l
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
with
wi
n
d
o
w
s
an
d
tr
i
m
,
to
br
e
a
k
up
ap
p
a
r
e
n
t
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
ma
s
s
e
s
into
sm
a
l
l
e
r
el
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Wh
e
n
th
e
si
z
e
or
co
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
a site does
no
t
le
n
d
it
s
e
l
f
to
va
r
y
i
n
g
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
ma
s
s
,
th
e
s
e
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
te
c
hn
i
qu
e
s
s h ou
l d be
e m p l oy
e
d
to
ob
t
a
in
a pe
d
e
s
t
ri
a n ‐fri e n d l y
te
c
q
u
e
s
so
u
d
be
ep
o
y
e
d
to
ob
t
a
a
pe
d
e
s
t
a
edy
re
s
u
l
t
.
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
39
1
of
41
3
TH
A
N
K
YO
U
!
Ed
m
o
n
d
s
Ci
t
y
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Me
e
t
i
n
g
| Au
g
u
s
t
6,
20
1
2
Pa
c
k
e
t
Pa
g
e
39
2
of
41
3
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 21, 2012
Page 16
Councilmember Bloom commented the amendment is titled retail only but the uses being considered are
nail salons, banks, real estate, etc. She suggested the definition not be retail only but a prohibition on
offices. Mr. Clifton agreed this proposal was about the uses that would not be allowed.
Councilmember Bloom asked who and how property owners and/or businesses were surveyed and how
the conclusion was reached that they were all supportive of the proposed change. Mr. Clifton responded
not all property owners were surveyed. His conversations with a few major property owners indicated
they were supportive. Councilmember Bloom recalled one of the reasons this amendment was delayed
was to ensure property owners and tenants were supportive of the proposal. Mr. Clifton commented more
outreach could be done as part of the EDC process. Councilmember Bloom shared other
Councilmembers’ concern with buildings in the BD1 zone that are not suitable for retail.
Councilmember Johnson recalled the EDC and Planning Board discussed this issue approximately a year
ago. She referred to the Planning Board’s recommendation to prohibit drive-through services in the BD1
zone. She recalled one of the questions at that time was what services would be allowed and how
appropriate services would be determined. She recommended this issue be remanded to the Planning
Board and EDC for further discussion along with additional research by staff.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO REFER THIS ISSUE TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION TO LOOK AT RETAIL ONLY IN THE BD1 ZONE FURTHER,
SPECIFICALLY SERVICE USES, AND ANY OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT THEY FEEL ARE
APPROPRIATE.
As this had been considered by the EDC and Planning Board previously, Council President Peterson
preferred it be referred to only the EDC. This has been before the Council previously and is the Council’s
decision to make. One of the reasons it has been before the Council a number of times is to ensure
property and business owners were aware of the proposal; there has not been a huge outcry from property
or business owners.
Councilmember Johnson relayed she has been involved in the discussion at both the EDC and Planning
Board. The EDC has approximately 50% new members and the Planning Board is well versed on the
subject. She suggested a joint EDC/Planning Board meeting.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED TO AMEND THE MOTION, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS, TO HAVE THIS ISSUE CONSIDERED AT A JOINT
MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING NO.
THE VOTE ON THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED (6-1), COUNCIL PRESIDENT
PETERSON VOTING NO.
It was the consensus of the Council to move the executive session regarding labor negotiations to next
week prior to the City Council meeting.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 45 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
12. DISCUSSION REGARDING STEP-BACKS
Interim Development Services Director Rob Chave explained the difference between a setback and step-
backs; a setback is the entire building is set back a distance from the property line; a step-back is a portion
of the building is stepped back at a certain height, providing a notch in the building. In most of the BD
Packet Page 393 of 413
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 21, 2012
Page 17
zones, there is a 15-foot step-back requirement at 25 feet for a maximum building height of 30 feet above
the average grade. That provision was inserted in approximately 2006, until that time the height limit was
30 feet with pitched roof or modulated building façade. No buildings have been constructed using the
step-back regulations. Step-backs are not required in the BD1 zone.
He relayed the Planning Board’s recommendation:
• Eliminate the step-back requirement in the downtown BD zones
Mr. Chave displayed a map identifying the BD1 zone (downtown core), BD2 zone (surrounding the retail
core), BD3 (auto oriented retail uses south up 5th Avenue), BD 4 (contains a substantial number of
residential uses) and BD5 (along 4th Avenue). The step-back requirement allows building height to be
increased from 25 feet to 30 feet. He displayed photographs of traditional commercial building styles,
pointing out there are a variety of ornamentation and detail but they have a common pedestrian scale
street front.
He provided photographs of historic downtown Edmonds buildings, pointing out there are no setbacks or
step-backs. He highlighted the false front on the Chanterelle building to create a block presence at the
street front. He identified the location of a 15-foot step-back at 25-feet on the Chanterelle building, noting
that requirement would make it difficult to reproduce historic downtown buildings. He provided
photographic examples of pedestrian street fronts, commenting the upper stories are less obvious to
pedestrians, they notice the street level. The Comprehensive Plan contains design objectives related to
downtown site design, building form, building facades, etc. He suggested revisiting the design objectives.
Councilmember Petso relayed the Public Works, Planning, and Parks Committee discussed her perception
that the amendment as drafted resulted in a 5-foot building height increase for most of the BD2 – BD5
because the language is a 25-foot height plus an additional 5 feet with a step-back. She suggested
removing the building height issue and focusing on the step-back language by redrafting the amendment
so that it eliminated the step-back and the extra 5 feet. Mr. Chave answered if the Council wanted a 25-
foot building height, the height discussion could be eliminated. A 25-foot building would be lower than
the City has had in the past; the building height has essentially been 30 feet. The Chanterelle building is
approximately 30 feet. Lowering the building height to 25 feet may eliminate some historical options.
One option would be a 30-foot height limit with design parameters to achieve 30 feet.
Councilmember Petso recalled the Public Works, Planning and Parks Committee discussed alternatives to
the 15-foot step-back such as reducing the size of the step-back, stepping back the entire floor or making
the additional 5-foot height dependent on something other than the step-back. Mr. Chave answered there
are many options such as allowing a 30-foot building height but with more specificity regarding the street
front at the pedestrian level. He referred to drawings and diagrams provided by Mr. Hinshaw that could
be reintroduced into the design guidelines to provide more clarity.
Councilmember Petso referred to Comprehensive Plan general objectives, observing not all of them
would be required for a single development. Mr. Chave answered some are worded as shall, others are
encouraged. They apply to any proposal in the downtown area and are part of the criteria that downtown
building designs are viewed against. The design review chapter in the code refers to the design objectives
in the Downtown Waterfront Plan.
Councilmember Petso asked whether the City could be sued for applying guidelines that use words such
as minimize, optimize or improve. Mr. Chave answered application of the guidelines is defensible.
Councilmember Yamamoto noted existing height limits already limit development downtown and
limiting building heights to 25 feet would further limit development. Developers need to have the
Packet Page 394 of 413
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 21, 2012
Page 18
opportunity to propose a building with 30-foot height limit; that cannot be done with the current step-
back.
Councilmember Buckshnis did not object to eliminating the required step-back. She disagreed with
Councilmember Petso that it was an increase in the building height as the building height was already 30
feet. She suggested language that states the overall building height in the BD1 – 4 zones is a maximum of
30 feet. Mr. Chave agreed that was an option. He agreed essentially the building height was 30 feet now;
the code describes what happens between 25 feet and 30 feet. Developers have a right to a 30-foot
building height as long as they meet the requirements.
Councilmember Buckshnis pointed out the 15-foot step-back was a change in the architectural design. Mr.
Chave commented height is a surrogate for design in discussions in Edmonds; height is a poor arbiter of
design and does not automatically result in good design. It provides a certain scale but not necessarily a
desirable streetscape. The 30-foot building height has worked reasonably well but the 30-foot buildings
that have been constructed have not always been what the community wanted. A number of revisions
were made to the code in 2006 to encourage viable building design for a pedestrian environment. He
noted historic buildings do not have a step-back.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented requiring a step-back would change the architectural design of
buildings. Mr. Chave commented step-backs are typically required on much taller buildings to reduce the
apparent mass of the building.
Councilmember Bloom relayed her understanding was the building height was 25+5 in the BD zones and
the +5 feet could be achieve with modulation and now with a step-back. In the BD1 zone, a 15-foot
ground floor was required to achieve a 30 foot building height which she noted that precludes three
stories. Mr. Chave answered it would depend on topography.
Councilmember Bloom agreed with Councilmember Petso that eliminating the step-back would allow a
30-foot building without modulation or step-back. Recognizing citizens’ sensitivity regarding building
heights, she suggested a public hearing.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas recalled the Committee discussed a 5-foot step back. Mr. Chave offered
to provide photographs of buildings with a 5-foot step-back. Typically 5-foot step-backs are at the 4-5
story level to make the lower portion of the building more prominent. Councilmember Fraley-Monillas
recalled discussion regarding step-backs at Firdale Village. Mr. Chave explained step-backs at Firdale
Village were intended to provide a reduction in building mass adjacent to residential. The Planning
Board’s concern with a 15-foot step-back downtown was it would make residential uses on upper stories
very challenging on narrow lots.
Councilmember Petso clarified she viewed this as a height increase because the existing code states the
base height is 25 feet; a developer can construct a 25-foot box without a step-back or pitched roof. The
code as proposed would allow a 30-foot box without a step-back or modulated roof which she equated to
a height increase. She preferred to develop options for achieving a 30 foot building height.
Councilmember Petso expressed concern with the language for the BD5 zone if the step-back requirement
were removed. Mr. Chave agreed the BD5 zone is unique and establishing a historic corridor will require
the involvement of the Historic Preservation Commission. Councilmember Petso recommended
beginning that process along with this amendment. Mr. Chave answered that was a long term process that
will require a great deal of public input, workshops, etc.
For Councilmember Fraley-Monillas, Mr. Chave offered to return with drawings and language for
increasing building heights in BD zones from 25 to 30 feet to reinforce the pedestrian scale. He also
Packet Page 395 of 413
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 21, 2012
Page 19
offered to provide photographs of 5-foot step-back. He asked whether the intent was to review that
information at a full Council work session.
Councilmember Buckshnis agreed with Mr. Chave providing the information at a Council work session.
She supported including language regarding building architecture. Mr. Chave pointed out in 2005 a
developer could build a 30-foot box with a modulated façade. He referred to examples such as the 3rd &
Bell building that was constructed under those regulations.
Councilmember Petso preferred this be referred to the Planning Board.
Councilmember Johnson commented when this was first presented to the Planning Board, it was one of
four items that were considered together. The fourth item, performance standards, is scheduled for the
September 25 Council meeting. She suggested combining this discussion with the discussion on
September 25. She recalled the Planning Board unanimously found the 15-foot step-back not
architecturally desirable but there was no discussion regarding building heights. Mr. Chave responded a
September work session would be acceptable to staff.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
BUCKSHNIS, TO MOVE THIS ITEM TO THE SEPTEMBER 25 WORK SESSION.
Council President Peterson agreed this discussion dovetails with development agreements; however,
when the previous items were on the same Council agenda, the Council requested they be separated. City
Attorney Jeff Taraday is preparing a white paper on development agreements and incentive zoning.
Council President Peterson preferred the two topics not be combined. The September 25 Council meeting
already includes a one hour budget review and a one hour discussion regarding incentive zoning.
Mayor Earling suggested delaying this discussion until the end of October. Council President Peterson
suggested September 18.
Councilmember Johnson commented it would be more productive to have the incentive zoning discussion
occur prior to the 25-foot versus 30-foot building height discussion. As the code currently exists,
additional building height can be achieved via a step-back; there may be other tradeoffs that are more
desirable.
COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS WITHDREW HER MOTION WITH THE
AGREEMENT OF THE SECOND.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
YAMAMOTO, TO DISCUSS STEP-BACKS ON SEPTEMBER 18 AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENTS/INCENTIVE ZONING ON SEPTEMBER 25.
Councilmember Petso preferred to delay the discussion to October 23 or the fifth Tuesday, October 30.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas preferred to discuss development agreements prior to removing the 15-
foot step-back requirement
Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Taraday to describe the white paper he is preparing for the September
25 presentation regarding incentive zoning. Mr. Taraday stated his office is preparing a memo that will
explain terminology in more detail. When the Council has discussed development agreements, it appeared
what the Council really wanted was incentive zoning. The Council wants to allow flexibility in
development regulations in exchange for a developer providing certain types of public benefits.
Packet Page 396 of 413
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
August 21, 2012
Page 20
UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE ON THE MOTION FAILED (3-4), COUNCILMEMBERS
YAMAMOTO AND BUCKSHNIS AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON VOTING YES; AND
COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, BLOOM, PETSO AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING NO.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM,
TO MOVE THE DISCUSSION REGARDING STEP-BACKS TO OCTOBER 2. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT PETERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PETSO, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 14, 2012
Finance Committee
Councilmember Buckshnis reported the majority of items discussed by the Committee were approved on
the Consent Agenda or discussed by the Council tonight. Public comment addressed the reserve policy,
REET revenue and the WCIA presentation.
Public Works, Parks, and Planning Committee
Councilmember Petso reported most agenda items were on tonight’s Consent Agenda. The Committee
discussed whether the City is interested in subsidizing solar panel projects by waiving the permit fee; that
item is scheduled for full Council discussion. At yesterday’s meeting, the Committee discussed retail only
in BD1 and step-backs; the Committee did not provide a recommendation to Council.
Public Safety and Personnel Committee
Councilmember Bloom reported the Committee discussed renewal of the Domestic Violence Coordinator
Interlocal Agreement with the City of Mill Creek which was approved on the Consent Agenda. The
Domestic Violence Coordinator, Kari Hovorka, works 19 hour/week, divided 2/3 to Edmonds and 1/3 to
Mill Creek. She and Councilmember Johnson were impressed with the amount of work done by Ms.
Hovorka.
14. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported students from Hekinan, Japan, visited Edmonds this week. He found the students
to be extremely polite and full of energy. He recognized Parks & Recreation Director Carrie Hite, her
staff and the Sister Cities Commission for organizing the event, and the families who hosted students.
Mayor Earling referred to trees cut last week on the hillside below Pt. Edwards. An arborist report was
due today. Trees were definitely cut and there may be fines imposed or replanting required.
Mayor Earling referred to yesterday’s Public Works, Parks and Planning Committee meeting, noting
committee meetings are intended to be two Councilmembers; four Councilmembers attended yesterday’s
meeting. Although it was legal to have four Councilmembers attend because the meeting was noticed, he
expressed concern with what appeared to be a robust discussion between four Councilmembers that
excluded three Councilmembers. He encouraged the Council to avoid that situation in the future,
preferring to have full Council discussion occur at a regular Council meeting.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas responded the two Councilmembers who do not serve on the Committee
were allowed to provide input as was staff and the guest but Councilmember Petso and she tried to limit
discussion. She questioned what could have been done differently other than ask one of the
Councilmembers to leave. Mayor Earling answered that option should have been considered.
Packet Page 397 of 413
Chapter 22.43
DESIGN STANDARDS
FOR THE BD1 ZONE
Sections:
22.43.000 Applicability.
22.43.010 Massing and articulation.
22.43.020 Orientation to street.
22.43.030 Ground level details.
22.43.040 Awnings/canopies and signage.
22.43.050 Transparency at street level.
22.43.060 Treating blank walls.
22.43.070 Building HVAC equipment.
22.43.000 Applicability.
The design standards in this chapter apply to all development within the BD1 downtown retail
core zone. [Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008].
22.43.010 Massing and articulation.
A. Intent. To reduce the massiveness and bulk of large box-like buildings, and articulate the
building form to a pedestrian scale.
B. Standards.
1. Buildings shall convey a visually distinct base and top. A “base” can be emphasized by
a different masonry pattern, more architectural detail, visible plinth above which the wall
rises, storefront, canopies, or a combination. The top edge is highlighted by a prominent
cornice, projecting parapet or other architectural element that creates a shadow line.
Buildings should convey a distinct base and top.
Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS
1http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds22/edmonds2243.html
Packet Page 398 of 413
The base can be emphasized by a different material.
[Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008].
22.43.020 Orientation to street.
A. Intent. To reinforce pedestrian activity and orientation and enhance the liveliness of the
street through building design.
B. Standards.
1. Buildings shall be oriented to the adjacent street, rather than to a parking lot.
2. Entrances to buildings shall be visible from the street and accessible from the adjacent
sidewalk.
3. Entrances shall be given a visually distinct architectural expression by one or more of
the following elements:
a. Higher bay(s);
b. Recessed entry (recessed at least three feet);
c. Forecourt and entrance plaza.
Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS
2http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds22/edmonds2243.html
Packet Page 399 of 413
Buildings shall be oriented to the street.
Entrances shall be given visually distinct expression.
[Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008].
22.43.030 Ground level details.
A. Intent. To reinforce the character of the streetscape by encouraging the greatest amount of
visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing pedestrian streets.
B. Standards.
1. Ground-floor, street-facing facades of commercial and mixed-use buildings shall
incorporate at least five of the following elements:
a. Lighting or hanging baskets supported by ornamental brackets;
b. Medallions;
c. Belt courses;
Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS
3http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds22/edmonds2243.html
Packet Page 400 of 413
d. Plinths for columns;
e. Bulkhead for storefront window;
f. Projecting sills;
g. Tile work;
h. Transom or clerestory windows;
i. Planter box;
j. An element not listed here, as approved, that meets the intent.
2. Ground floor commercial space is intended to be at grade with the sidewalk, as
provided for in ECDC 16.43.030.
Ground floor details encourage visual interest along the ground level of buildings facing
pedestrian streets.
Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS
4http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds22/edmonds2243.html
Packet Page 401 of 413
[Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008].
22.43.040 Awnings/canopies and signage.
A. Intent.
1. To integrate signage and weather protection with building design to enhance business
visibility and the public streetscape.
2. To provide clear signage to identify each business or property, and to improve way-
finding for visitors.
3. To protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered, and to minimize distraction from
overuse of advertisement elements.
B. Standards.
1. Structural canopies are encouraged along pedestrian street fronts. If a canopy is not
provided, then an awning shall be provided which is attached to the building using a
metal or other framework.
2. Awnings and canopies shall be open-sided to enhance visibility of business signage.
Front valances are permitted. Signage is allowed on valances, but not on valance
returns.
3. Marquee, box, or convex awning or canopy shapes are not permitted.
4. Retractable awnings are encouraged.
5. Awnings or canopies shall be located within the building elements that frame
storefronts, and should not conceal important architectural details. Awnings or canopies
should be hung just below a clerestory or transom window, if it exists.
6. Awnings or canopies on a multiple-storefront building should be consistent in
character, scale and position, but need not be identical.
Open-sided nonstructural awning with front valance.
Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS
5http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds22/edmonds2243.html
Packet Page 402 of 413
Open-sided structural canopy.
7. Nonstructural awnings should be constructed using canvas or fire-resistant acrylic
materials. Shiny, high-gloss materials are not appropriate; therefore, vinyl or plastic
awning materials are not permitted.
8. Signage should be designed to integrate with the building and street front.
Combinations of sign types are encouraged, which result in a coordinated design while
minimizing the size of individual signs.
9. Blade or projecting signs which include decorative frames, brackets or other design
elements are encouraged. This type of detail can be used to satisfy one of the required
elements under ECDC 22.43.030(B).
10. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large expanses of lettering.
11. Instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign, signage should be indirectly lit, or
backlit to only display lettering and symbols or graphic design.
12. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent with or
contributes to the historic character of sites on the National Register, the Edmonds
Register of Historic Places, or on a city council-approved historic survey.
13. Signage shall include decorative frames, brackets or other design elements. An
historic sign may be used to meet this standard.
Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS
6http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds22/edmonds2243.html
Packet Page 403 of 413
Retractable and open-sided awnings allow signage to be visible.
Examples of projecting signs
using decorative frames and
design elements.
Awning or
canopy
shapes:
Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS
7http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds22/edmonds2243.html
Packet Page 404 of 413
[Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008].
22.43.050 Transparency at street level.
A. Intent. To provide visual connection between activities inside and outside the building.
B. Standards.
1. The ground level facades of buildings that are oriented to streets shall have
transparent windows with a minimum of 75 percent transparency between an average of
two feet and 10 feet above grade.
2. To qualify as transparent, windows shall not be mirrored or darkly tinted glass, or
prohibit visibility between the street and interior.
3. Where transparency is not provided, the facade shall comply with the standards under
ECDC 22.43.060.
Ground level facades of buildings should have transparent windows between two to 10 feet
above grade.
Windows shall provide a visual connection between activities inside and outside the building,
and therefore should not be mirrored or use darkly tinted glass.
Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS
8http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds22/edmonds2243.html
Packet Page 405 of 413
4. Within the BD1 zone, ground floor windows parallel to street lot lines shall be
transparent and unobstructed by curtains, blinds, or other window coverings intended to
obscure the interior from public view from the sidewalk.* [Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008].
*Code reviser’s note: Subsection (B)(4) of this section was formerly codified as ECDC
16.43.030(B)(10)(g).
22.43.060 Treating blank walls.
A. Intent. To ensure that buildings do not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting
street.
B. Standards.
1. Walls or portions of walls on abutting streets or visible from residential areas where
windows are not provided shall have architectural treatment (see standards under ECDC
22.43.050). At least four of the following elements shall be incorporated into any ground
floor, street-facing facade:
a. Masonry (except for flat, nondecorative concrete block);
b. Concrete or masonry plinth at the base of the wall;
c. Belt courses of a different texture and color;
d. Projecting cornice;
e. Decorative tile work;
f. Medallions;
g. Opaque or translucent glass;
h. Artwork or wall graphics;
i. Lighting fixtures;
j. An architectural element not listed above, as approved, that meets the intent.
Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS
9http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds22/edmonds2243.html
Packet Page 406 of 413
Buildings shall not display blank, unattractive walls to the abutting street.
[Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008].
22.43.070 Building HVAC equipment.
A. Intent. To ensure that HVAC equipment, elevators, and other building utility features are
designed to be a part of the overall building design and do not detract from the streetscape.
B. Standards.
1. Rooftop HVAC equipment, elevators and other rooftop features shall be designed to fit
in with the materials and colors of the overall building design. These features shall be
located away from the building edges to avoid their being seen from the street below. If
these features can be seen from the adjoining street, building design shall use screening,
decoration, plantings (e.g., rooftop gardens), or other techniques to integrate these
features with the design of the building.
2. When HVAC equipment is placed at ground level, it shall be integrated into building
design and/or use screening techniques to avoid both visual and noise impacts on
adjoining properties.
Rooftop equipment should be screened from view.
[Ord. 3697 § 2, 2008].
Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS
10http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds22/edmonds2243.html
Packet Page 407 of 413
This page of the Edmonds City Code is current through Ord.
3868, passed December 20, 2011.
Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the
Edmonds City. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for
ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above.
City Website: http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
(http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us)
City Telephone: (425) 771-0245
Code Publishing Company
(http://www.codepublishing.com/)
Chapter 22.43 DESIGN STANDARDS
11http://www.mrsc.org/mc/edmonds/edmonds22/edmonds2243.html
Packet Page 408 of 413
56 Land Use
a transition between the more intensive commercial uses along Main Street and the residential
uses along Sunset Ave. Because the area of this designation is located adjacent to commercial
development to the south, the railroad to the west, and is near both multiple family and single-
family residential development, this area should act as a transition between theses uses. Building
design for this area should be sensitive to the surrounding commercial, multiple family and
single-family character.
Downtown Design Objectives. As a companion to the districts outlined above, general design
objectives are included for the downtown waterfront area. These objectives are intended to
encourage high quality, well designed projects to be developed in the downtown waterfront area
that reflect the values of the citizens of Edmonds.
1. SITE DESIGN
The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral
part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and
site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential
negative impacts to adjacent development, reinforces the character and activities within a
district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment.
Vehicular Access and Parking
a. Minimize the number of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto
safety by reducing the number of potential points of conflict. When alleys are present, these are
the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there
is no reasonable alternative available.
b. Design site access and circulation routes with pedestrians’ comfort and ease of access in mind.
c. Provide adequate parking for each development, but keep cars from interfering with the
pedestrian streetscape.
d. In the Retail Core, adopt a “park and walk” policy to reinforce pedestrian safety and ease of
access. Within the Retail Core, new curb cuts should be discouraged and there should be no
requirement to provide on-site parking.
e. Create parking lots and building service ways that are efficient and safe for both automobiles
and pedestrians, but that do not disrupt the pedestrian streetscape.
f. Provide safe routes for disabled people.
Pedestrian Access and Connections
a. Improve streetscape character to enhance pedestrian activity in downtown retail, general
commercial, and residential areas.
b. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings close to the street and
pedestrian sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key intersections should be
accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving treatments.
c. In all of the retail and commercial downtown districts, pedestrian access to buildings should be
maximized, enabling each retail or commercial space at street level to be directly accessed from
the sidewalk.
d. Encourage the use of mass transit by providing easy access to pleasant waiting areas.
Packet Page 409 of 413
Land Use 57
Building Entry Location
a. Create an active, safe and lively street-edge.
b. Create a pedestrian friendly environment.
c. Provide outdoor active spaces at the entry to retail/commercial uses.
d. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and oriented to
the pedestrian streetscape by being located at sidewalk grade.
Building Setbacks
a. Provide for a human, pedestrian-friendly scale for downtown buildings.
b. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition
to tie each site to its neighbor.
c. Provide enough space for wide, comfortable and safe
pedestrian routes to encourage travel by foot.
d. Create public spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the
development and encourage outdoor interaction.
Building/Site Identity
a. Do not use repetitive, monotonous building forms and
massing in large mixed use or commercial projects.
b. Improve pedestrian access and way-finding by providing variety in building forms, color,
materials and individuality of buildings.
c. Retain a connection with the scale and character of the Downtown Edmonds through the use of
similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements.
d. Encourage new construction to use design elements tied to historic forms or patterns found in
downtown.
Weather Protection
a. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians
traveling along public sidewalks in
downtown.
b. Protect shoppers and residents from rain
or snow.
c. Provide a covered waiting area and
walkway for pedestrians entering a building,
coming from parking spaces and the public
sidewalk.
Lighting
a. Provide adequate illumination in all areas used by pedestrians, including building entries,
walkways, bus stops, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces to ensure a feeling of
security.
b. Special attention should be paid to providing adequate public lighting to encourage and
support nighttime street activity and safety for pedestrians.
c. Minimize potential for light glare to reflect or spill off-site.
d. Create a sense of welcome and activity.
Packet Page 410 of 413
58 Land Use
Signage
a. Protect the streetscape from becoming cluttered.
b. Minimize distraction from the overuse of advertisement elements.
c. Provide clear signage to identify each distinct property or business and
to improve orientation and way-finding downtown.
d. Use graphics or symbols to reduce the need to have large letters.
e. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display
lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the
face of the sign.
f. Signage and other way-finding methods should be employed to assist
citizens and visitors in finding businesses and services.
g. Signage should be given special consideration when it is consistent
with or contributes to the historic character of sites on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places.
Site Utilities, Storage,
Trash and Mechanical
a. Hide unsightly utility boxes, outdoor storage of equipment, supplies, garbage, recycling and
composting.
b. Minimize noise and odor.
c. Minimize visual intrusion.
d. Minimize need for access/paving to utility areas
Art and Public Spaces
a. Public art and amenities such as mini parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., should be
provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. Whenever possible, these elements should be
continued in the portion of the private streetscape that adjoins the public streetscape.
b. Art should be integrated into the design of both public and private developments, with
incentives provided to encourage these elements.
c. In the Arts Center Corridor, art should be a common element of building design, with greater
design flexibility provided when art is made a central feature of the design.
2. BUILDING FORM
Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms,
minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance
with policies in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building
entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of
Edmonds character and urban form.
Height
a. Maintain the human, pedestrian scale and character of historic Edmonds.
b. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Unless more specific provisions
are contained in the descriptions for specific downtown districts, buildings shall be generally two
stories in exterior appearance, design and character. However, incentives or design standards
may be adopted which are consistent with the pedestrian scale of downtown Edmonds and which
allow for additional height that does not impact the generally two-story pedestrian-scale
appearance of the public streetscape. Note that the Downtown Master Plan district described on
pages 36-37 could allow a design which provides for higher buildings outside current view
corridors.
Packet Page 411 of 413
Land Use 59
c. Preserve public view corridors along east-west downtown streets – such as Main Street and
Dayton Street – that afford views to the mountains and Puget Sound to the west.
Massing
a. Large building masses shall be avoided in the downtown waterfront activity center. Large
building masses should be subdivided vertically and/or horizontally to replicate the smaller scale
streetscape elements found along downtown’s pedestrian streets.
b. Require human scale elements in building design that reinforce the difference between the
pedestrian streetscape and the upper levels of a building.
c. Use combinations of other techniques, such as roof and wall modulation or combinations of
different wall materials with windows and trim, to break up apparent building masses into
smaller elements. When the size or configuration of a site does not lend itself to varying building
mass, these alternative techniques should be employed to obtain a pedestrian-friendly result.
Roof Modulation
a. Use combinations of roof types and decorative elements such as parapets or architectural
detailing to break up the overall massing of the roof and add interest to its shape and form.
b. Create and reinforce the human scale of the building.
c. Use roof forms to identify different programs or functional areas within the building.
d. Provide ways for additional light to enter the building.
e. Encourage alternate roof treatments that improve and add interest to building design. Features
such as roof gardens, terraces, and interesting or unique architectural forms can be used to
improve the view of buildings from above as well as from the streetscape.
Wall Modulation
a. Create a pedestrian scale appropriate to Edmonds.
b. Break up large building masses and provide elements that accentuate the human scale of a
facade.
c. Avoid blank, monotonous and imposing building facades.
d. Design the building to be compatible with the surrounding built environment.
e. Encourage designs that let more light and air into the building.
3. BUILDING FAÇADE
Building facade guidelines ensure that the exterior of buildings, the portion of buildings that
defines the character and visual appearance of a place, is of high quality and demonstrates the
strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds.
Facade Requirements
a. Improve the pedestrian environment in the Downtown retail/commercial area by differentiating
the pedestrian-oriented street level of buildings from upper floors.
b. Ensure diversity in design.
c. Reinforce historic building patterns found in Downtown Edmonds.
d. Provide a human scale streetscape, breaking up long façades into defined forms that continue a
pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed use areas.
e. Improve the visual and physical character and quality of Downtown Edmonds.
f. Create individual identity in buildings.
Packet Page 412 of 413
60 Land Use
Window Variety and Articulation
a. Windows help define the scale and character of the building. In the
retail and mixed commercial districts, building storefronts must be
dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and
encourage pedestrians to walk past and look into the commercial space.
b. Upper floors of buildings should use windows as part of the overall
design to encourage rhythm and accents in the façade.
Building Façade Materials
A. The materials that make up the exterior facades of a building also
help define the scale and style of the structure and provide variation in
the facade to help reduce the bulk of larger buildings. From the foundation to the roof eaves, a
variety of building materials can reduce the scale and help define a building’s style and allows
the design of a building to respond to its context and client’s needs. It is particularly important to
differentiate the lower, street level of a building from the upper floors that are less in the
pedestrian’s line of sight.
Accents/Colors/Trim
A. Applied ornament and architectural detail, various materials and
colors applied to a façade as well as various decorative trim/surrounds
on doors and windows provide variation in the scale, style and
appearance of every building facade. Awnings and canopies also add to
the interest and pedestrian scale of downtown buildings. The objective
is to encourage new development that provides:
• Compatibility with the surrounding environment,
• Visual interest and variety in building forms,
• Reduces the visual impacts of larger building masses,
• Allows identity and individuality of a project within a neighborhood.
Packet Page 413 of 413