2019-11-26 City Council - Full Agenda-24891.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
o Agenda
Edmonds City Council
snl. ,nyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
NOVEMBER 26, 2019, 7:00 PM
"WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH)
PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE
HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR
SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL
CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER. - CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
PRESENTATION
1. Small Business Saturday Proclamation (5 min)
AUDIENCE COMMENTS (3-MINUTE LIMIT PER PERSON) - REGARDING MATTERS NOT LISTED ON
THE AGENDA AS CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OR AS PUBLIC HEARINGS
APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA
1. Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2019
2. Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2019
3. Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
4. Increase of Tourism Promotion Area Lodging Fee
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Housing (15 min)
2. Public Hearing on the 2020 Proposed Budget (10 min)
9. ACTION ITEMS
1. Authorization for Mayor to sign the Water Quality Stormwater Capacity grant from the Dept. of
Ecology (5 min)
2. Wastewater Treatment Disposal and Transport Contract (10 min)
3. Proposed Capital Facilities Plan and 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (20 min)
4. Renewal of City Attorney Contract (45 min)
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. 2020 Budget Review (60 min)
Edmonds City Council Agenda
November 26, 2019
Page 1
11. REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS
1. Monthly Council Subcommittee Reports and Minutes (10 min)
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
14. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION PER RCW
42.30.110(1)(1).
15. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN EXECUTIVE
SESSION.
ADJOURN
Edmonds City Council Agenda
November 26, 2019
Page 2
5.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/26/2019
Small Business Saturday Proclamation
Staff Lead: Mayor Earling
Department: Mayor's Office
Preparer: Carolyn LaFave
Background/History
Observed on the first Saturday after Thanksgiving, in between Black Friday and Cyber Monday, Small
Business Saturday encourages holiday shoppers to patronize brick and mortar businesses that are small
and local.
Staff Recommendation
Narrative
This year is the 10th anniversary of Small Business Saturday. Since its inception it has become the
biggest sales day of the year for many small companies. Over the years, Small Business Saturday
spending has now reached a reported estimate of $103 billion since the day began in 2010.
Attachments:
SBS_2019
Packet Pg. 3
O
s� City of Edmonds ■ Office of the Mayor
O
SMALL Small Business Saturday
� Y
WHEREAS: the government of Edmonds, Washington, celebrates our local small businesses
and the contributions they make to our local economy and community; and
WHEREAS: according to the United States Small Business Administration, there are 30.7
million small businesses in the United States, representing 99.7 percent of all
firms with paid employees in the United States, which are responsible for 64.9
percent of net new jobs created from 2000 to 2018; and
WHEREAS: small businesses employ 47.3 percent of the employees in the private sector in
the United States; and
WHEREAS: 94% of consumers in the United States value the contributions small businesses
make in their community; and 3
m
WHEREAS: 96% of consumers who plan to shop on Small Business Saturday said the day
inspires them to go to small, independently -owned retailers or restaurants that they cn
have not been to before, or would not have otherwise tried; and
WHEREAS: 92% of companies planning promotions on Small Business Saturday said the day
0
NI
helps their business stand out during the busy holiday shopping season; and
m
U)
WHEREAS: 59% of small business owners said Small Business Saturday contributes significantly
to their holiday sales each year; and
E
WHEREAS: Edmonds, Washington, supports our local businesses that create jobs, boost our
a
local economy and preserve our communities; and
WHEREAS: advocacy groups, as well as public and private organizations across the country,
have endorsed the Saturday after Thanksgiving as Small Business Saturday;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, David O. Earling, Mayor of Edmonds, do hereby proclaim, November 30, 2019 as:
Small Business Saturday
And urge the residents of our community, and communities across the country, to support small
businesses and merchants on Small Business Saturday ay�d throughout the year.
Dave marling,
November 26, 2019
Packet Pg. 4
7.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/26/2019
Approval of Council Special Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2019
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Nicholas Falk
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
City Council Special Meeting Minutes 11-19-2019
Packet Pg. 5
7.1.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MEETING
APPROVED MINUTES
November 19, 2019
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
Diane Buckshnis, Council President Pro Tern
Mike Nelson, Councilmember
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
ELECTED OFFICIALS ABSENT
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Scott James, Finance Director
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
1. CALL TO ORDER/CONVENE IN JURY MEETING ROOM
At 6:50 p.m., the Edmonds City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Pro Tern Fraley-
Monillas in the Council Chambers, 250 5t' Avenue North, Edmonds.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION, RCW
42.30.110(1)(1)
The Council then adjourned to the Jury Meeting Room in closed session to discuss pending or potential
litigation per RCW 42.30.140(1)(i).
3. ADJOURN
At 7:00 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.
DAVID O. EARLING, MAYOR
SCOTT PASSEY, CITY CLERK
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
September 3, 2019
Page 1
Packet Pg. 6
7.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/26/2019
Approval of Council Meeting Minutes of November 19, 2019
Staff Lead: Scott Passey
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Nicholas Falk
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve the draft meeting minutes on the Consent Agenda.
Narrative
N/A
Attachments:
11-19-2019 Draft Council Meeting Minutes
Packet Pg. 7
7.2.a
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL DRAFT MINUTES
November 19, 2019
ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT
Dave Earling, Mayor
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas, Council President
(by phone)
Michael Nelson, Councilmember
Kristiana Johnson, Councilmember (arrived 7:50 p.m.)
Thomas Mesaros, Councilmember
Diane Buckshnis, Councilmember
Dave Teitzel, Councilmember
Neil Tibbott, Councilmember
ALSO PRESENT
Zach Bauder, Student Representative
1. CALL TO ORDER/FLAG SALUTE
STAFF PRESENT
Jim Lawless, Assistant Police Chief
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev & Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Scott James, Finance Director
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks & Recreation Dir
Frances Chapin, Arts & Culture Program Mgr.
Rob English, City Engineer
Mike DeLilla, Senior Utilities Engineer
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Nickolas Falk, Deputy City Clerk
Jerrie Bevington, Camera Operator
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Mayor Earling in the Council
Chambers, 250 5' Avenue North, Edmonds. The meeting was opened with the flag salute.
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Councilmember Buckshnis read the City Council Land Acknowledge Statement: "We acknowledge the
original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes,
who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land
and water."
3. ROLL CALL
Deputy City Clerk Nickolas Falk called the roll. All elected officials were present with the exception of
Councilmember Johnson (arrived at 7:50 p.m.).
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO ADD RENEWAL OF CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT AS A STUDY ITEM, ITEM 9 AND
RENUMBER THE REMAINDER OF THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
(Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.)
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL TO
APPROVE THE AGENDA IN CONTENT AND ORDER AS AMENDED. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember Johnson was not present for the vote.)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 1
Packet Pg. 8
7.2.a
5. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Michael Reagan, Edmonds, said every day for the past several years he has walked from Meadowdale to
the rock outside to commune with the friends he served with in the military. He recognized the hard work
of the Council, Mayor and community to open the Veterans Plaza where he spends every evening with his
friends; their pavers are just outside the door. As he said when he first christened the plaza, he finally felt
at home in Edmonds. Edmonds is about to go through a major change and because some Councilmembers
will not be here next year, he wanted to say thank you for what they did and how much it meant to him. As
a sign of his appreciation, he gave Mayor Earling a portrait he drew of him. He reiterated his appreciation
for the Veterans Plaza, commenting it was the result of a lot of hard work by a lot of people. A lot of
incredible moments happen in the plaza; often when he walks down, there is a gentleman who looks like
he is at peace sitting on his bench reading. The plaza is a place of peace for him as well.
Mayor Earling thanked Mr. Reagan for the portrait, commenting it touched his heart in many ways
especially coming from him and he will be sure to find a place for it in his home.
Tom Nicholson, Edmonds, spoke regarding the utility rate package proposal. The report prepared by FCS
Group proposes a rate increase of 5% on sewer and 4.5-5% on water. In reviewing his bimonthly water and
sewer bills, he found they have increased significantly over the last 5 years, sewer increasing from $60 to
$90 every 2 months which is becoming challenging for many to pay. The water and sewer bill has become
more expensive than PSE, PUD and garbage combined for his family. He will provide further comment
about the increases at next week's public hearing. He requested the issue be fully vetted and wait until the
new Council is in place to allow them to have input before the increase is adopted. There needs to be
creativity and different alternatives offered before the Council votes to further increase rates. These rates,
combined with the 14% PSE natural gas increase, and property tax increases due to the Edmonds School
District levy make it more challenging to continue to live in Edmonds.
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL, TO
APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Councilmember
Johnson was not present for the vote.) The agenda items approved are as follows:
1. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 12, 2019
2. APPROVAL OF CLAIM, PAYROLL AND BENEFIT CHECKS, DIRECT DEPOSIT AND
WIRE PAYMENTS
3. ORDINANCE REQUIRING OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT TRAINING FOR BOARDS
AND COMMISSIONS
4. AMENDMENT #3 TO HERRERA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -
WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT
5. WALKER MACY AMENDMENT #1 FOR CIVIC FIELD DESIGN CONTRACT
6. POLICY ON ACCOUNTING FOR LEASES
7. A/R WRITE-OFF
8. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER (CHC) PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 2
Packet Pg. 9
7.2.a
9. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
KPG FOR THE CITYWIDE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ENHANCEMENTS PROJECT
10. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH
WHPACIFIC, INC. FOR THE 84TH AVE OVERLAY PROJECT
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2020 PROPOSED BUDGET
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing.
Liz Brown, Edmonds, referred to DP #94, Construction of a Carbon Recovery Project at the Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) which will replace the incinerator at the plant with a new thermal chemical
process, pyrolysis. The $11M in the decision packet is called a placeholder with the total cost described as
more than $24M, although she believed the true cost of the project may be much higher. This project
represents a considerable risk for Edmonds and others entities who fund the WWTP including Ronald
Wastewater District, Olympic View Water & Sewer District and Mountlake Terrace. A 2018 review in
Energies - Open Access, a peer reviewed journal of scientific research, called the use of pyrolysis for
sewage treatment "still at infancy stage with downsides including high capital and operation costs, a
complex reaction process to manage and an uncertain economic viability of biochar, the charcoal -like end
product of the process." When City staff toured a plant in California that includes pyrolysis to treat sewage
sludge, the process not working. During the two-year construction process, Edmonds must truck smelly
sewage for disposal elsewhere, increasing truck traffic and decreasing air quality. This will also be required
if the pyrolysis process does not work. While the project in in the design phase, reportedly the new structure
to house the equipment will project five feet above the City's current height limit. While the City can seek
a variance from this rule, she doubted any residents who live around the plant have been alerted to the
potential impact on their properties and views. She was not opposed to technology or innovation, but feared
Edmonds will be a guinea pig. This project may put Edmonds in the headlines with the project billed either
as a shining success or a costly boondoggle. She urged the outgoing and incoming Councilmembers to
scrutinize this project. She provided a copy of the research paper she referenced.
Greg Irvine, Edmonds, President/CEO, Edmond Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the budget
item supporting the Edmonds Chamber. The Edmonds Chamber has been in existence for 112 years and
produces several community events including the Clam Chowder Cook -Off, 4t' of July, car show,
Halloween, Tree Lighting and Taste Edmonds. With the upcoming construction of Civic Park, two of those
events will need to be relocated including Taste Edmonds which is the Chamber's biggest fundraising event
and helps to support production of 4t' of July events. With the change in venue, the event size will also
change which has the potential to reduce fundraising. He thanked the Council for the budget proposal and
looked forward to producing these beloved events in 2020 and beyond.
Joe Scordino, Edmonds, thanked the City Council for continuing to include funding for Students Saving
Salmon in the budget which covers the cost of equipment, supplies, etc. He referred to a letter from a Shell
Creek resident who had not seen any Coho salmon in the creek on his property for the past two years. The
resident expressed his appreciation for the students identifying the problem and clearing a culvert on his
property. With regard to funding proposed for the final design for the Willow Creek Daylighting project,
he supported moving quickly to get the restoration project underway, he did not support going to final
design at this point with the uncertainties with the Unocal property including whether the City will get some
or all of the property or if compensation will be required. He referred to a report from Unocal regarding
additional hot spots they found on the site, two of which are in the path of the proposed daylighted channel
as proposed in Shannon & Wilson's report. He urged the City to take a step back and rethink the project as
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 3
Packet Pg. 10
7.2.a
information becomes available. Another missing piece is outdoor recreation which needs to be part of the
restoration package.
Hearing no further comment, Mayor Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
2. 2020 BUDGET REVIEW
Finance Director Scott James referred to the process for taking Council questions outlined in the agenda
bill (round robin). Under the proposed schedule, tonight and the November 26' Council meeting are
intended to be the final opportunities for questions and amendments and for the Council to vote on
amendments.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked staff for responding to the questions she and other Councilmembers
have asked. Mr. Scott advised the questions will be on website after tonight's meeting. Councilmember
Buckshnis referred to DP #2 Human Services Coordinator and asked why it is the Mayor's office and how
it will work with Police Department's social worker. She questioned asked why not have one full-time
position instead of two part-time, one in the Mayor's office and one in the Police Department. Economic
Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty said the response to Council questions in the
packet explains the position: This part-time Human Services Coordinator position is envisioned as a
"community resource guide" by providing direct information and referral to inquiring citizens of Edmonds
in need. Many services, resources and programs are not readily visible or accessible and may require a
guide or navigator for optimal access.
Mr. Doherty explained this differs from the social worker in the Police Department (which is shared with
Lynnwood Police Department), which is a point of contact individual when the Police Department finds an
individual in the field as a result of a crime, homelessness, immediate distress, etc. and the social worker is
able to provide in -the -moment services to redirect that person. The people the social worker encounters
may not have the resources or wherewithal to come to the City to speak with a human services coordinator.
He assured there would be a relationship between the human services coordinator and the social worker;
the human services coordinator would have access to services that are a next step beyond the immediate
needs discovered in the field. He concluded there is a relationship between the positions but they are not
the same.
Mayor Earling said he decided to put the position under the Mayor's office until the new Mayor is seated
and he can make that determination. Councilmember Buckshnis observed a job description will be
developed. Mr. Doherty agreed.
Council President Fraley-Monillas commented the job description likely can be figured out based on what
other cities are doing as many cities have a human services position. One of the differences between the
human services coordinator and the social worker is the only way to get into treatment in Everett is to go
through the imbedded social worker. The social worker deals with different issues, primarily criminal
mental health issues, drug addictions, etc. Conversely, the human services coordinator could assist with
making connections and identifying resources, such as a recent example where an older citizen's roof was
caving in. The human services coordinator would also write grants for various programs, hopefully enough
to cover their position as happens in other cities.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if the City receives inquiries and how are they customarily handled. Mr.
Doherty answered the City very occasionally get inquiries like Council President Fraley-Monillas
mentioned such as a problem with a citizen's home, assistance with tax preparation, etc. The City may not
have an immediate response other than try to determine a resource. In his experience in Federal Way which
had a human services coordinator, once the position is created, advertising and a presence on the website
will beget inquiries. When that is not an identified resource in City government, the City will not get as
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 4
Packet Pg. 11
7.2.a
many inquiries. The number of inquiries has been low but that does not mean the need is low, simply that
there is nothing on the website about it.
Councilmember Tibbott asked how this position would assist someone looking for housing. Mr. Doherty
answered this position would be part of a network of resources, countywide and beyond if necessary, for
citizens and businesses. He pointed out the Chamber's program to assist businesses who have experienced
a break-in or vandalism. The human services coordinator is tapped into a network that helps people identify
resources. Council President Fraley-Monillas said the position would also coordinate with the county and
surrounding cities. The problem is Edmonds does not have a social services department but most of the
surrounding cities have some type of community services. The human services coordinator is proposed to
be part-time and is less costly than a social worker.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to DP #40, a consultant for the development code update, expressing
concern that $30,000 was not a good use of funds and illustrates a low priority for a high priority project.
He was concerned the City would be spending $30,000 to throw a consultant at a problem that needs a
much bigger remedy. He suggested eliminating the $30,000 budget item and wait until the code rewrite
could be taken seriously and resources put behind that effort. If the intent was to that this year, he suggested
establishing a budget for that effort.
Development Services Director Shane Hope answered staff has tried to be careful about resources and
believes the process would move forward more efficiently by having staff work on the code update, instead
of a consultant, due to the amount of staff input that is required. An option would be to hire another staff
person to work on the code or relieve existing staff to work on the code or continuing to make amendments
like has been done over the last couple years. Staff has been working on amendments related to the adoption
of the Urban Forest Management Plan which will be presented to Council in 2020. The $35,000 for a
consultant, combined with carry -forward from 2019, would be used to work on specific parts of the code
related to Council priorities. She summarized the $35,000 combined with staff resources could go a long
way.
Councilmember Tibbott relayed his concern that in the past outside consultants have provide answers that
were not that helpful. He feared going down that same path with $35,000 when the code update was a
project that needed to be prioritized. Ms. Hope did not view it as putting out bad money; she envisioned
carefully prioritizing the things that were the most important such as trees, the subdivision code, electric
vehicle infrastructure, etc. She acknowledged $35,000 would not cover all the potential issues but it could
address the priorities. Councilmember Tibbott said he may submit an amendment related to that. Finance
Director Scott James clarified DP #40 is $25,000.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to DP #80, $750,000 to further design the Willow Creek Daylighting
project through the Edmonds Marsh. A press release today announced the City received a $450,000 grant
from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) that is designated for design of the Willow Creek
Daylighting project. He asked whether the grant reduced the need for City funding, whether it affected the
timing of the funding, etc. Mr. Williams said staff applied for that grant from the Coastal Resiliency Fund
which is managed by NFWF. The grant requires a $450,000 match so the proposal would be to build up the
resources to execute that large project particularly while waiting for the property issue to be resolved which
hopefully will occur in the coming year. DP #80 could be viewed as setting aside $450,000 to match the
grant, a total of $900,000. There is already $1.3M set aside which increases the total to $2.2M. The
remaining $300,000 could be used to continue design. How and when the property issue will be revolved
is unknown, but discussions are underway with the consultant about what can be done without access to the
site. The key on -site needs are additional survey and sampling of hot spots to design a channel that avoids
those areas.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 5
Packet Pg. 12
7.2.a
Councilmember Teitzel asked if there was a deadline for spending the grant funds. Mr. Williams assumed
there would be; the City was just informed of the grant award and a Q&A period will follow. The funds
can be used for design or construction. He did not know definitively about the timing, but it seems like a
flexible funding source. Mayor Earling pointed out NFWF awarded $28M in grants; Edmonds was one of
three projects in Washington. NFWF's national reputation should help leverage other potential grants. Mr.
Williams agreed, recalling funding for the Waterfront Center was compiled by building momentum one
step at a time. Staff plans to apply for three sizable grants in 2020. The property will continue to be an issue
until it is resolved, but he was hopeful the City would have additional success with funding in 2020.
Councilmember Buckshnis suggested rewriting DP #80 because she did not believe any design should be
done at this time. She asked if the grant could be used for Marina Beach. Mr. Williams answered it was for
marsh restoration. Councilmember Buckshnis said there was $250,000 in stormwater last year for the
Edmonds Marsh. With regard to the timing of design, Mr. Williams agreed a detailed design may not be
possible in 2020. As staff s written answer to Councilmember Buckshnis' question stated, none of the
money will be spent without additional comment/approval from Council and opportunity for input from the
public. The goal is to build up the available resources. The current estimate is $16.65M and it was assumed
75% could be funded with grants. That is an aggressive goal but still leaves over $4M to be generated
locally. The closer the City can be to having match funds secured, the easier the path forward related to
funding will be.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented she has seen much larger projects get far more than 75% funding
from grants. The land issue needs to be resolved as well as whether the City purchases or leases some of
the land and negotiating more than the narrow parcel next to the railroad tracks. Mr. Williams answered the
goal for several years has been to get an agreement with the State, who own the property once the cleanup
is finished, to sign an ILA or MOU to allow certain things to occur once they get ownership. The State
Attorney has said the State cannot enter into an agreement until the it owns the property.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to DP #42, Construction Review Consultant, services from experts such
as structural engineer which the City does not have on staff. He observed these construction services
theoretically would be used on a regular basis and paid for via application fees. He questioned whether a
dollar amount needed to be included and did it need to be for a consultant. He preferred it be contracting
for services with a provider. Ms. Hope agreed it could say contracting for services as this is different than
a typical consultant but it is professional services. Ms. Hope recommended including a dollar amount; in
the last couple years, a basic amount has been budgeted and every quarter additional funds are requested.
For 2020, the proposal is for the full amount. Councilmember Tibbott recalled every time additional funds
are requested, the source of revenue is highlighted. Ms. Hope assured if the funds were allocated, it would
only be spent on professional services for expert reviews.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if the more complex reviews could be handled with a construction service
and free up staff time to be more expedient on other applications. Ms. Hope answered that could be done
but there are pros and cons. On smaller residential reviews, staff can do those and more money remains in
the City's pocket instead of paid to a consultant. The City has the resources available to handle basic reviews
but not for more specialized aspects such as structural engineering, advanced commercial, complicated new
school projects, etc. Because it is on an as -needed basis, the amount spent varies. The City has used
professional services in the past rather than hire a staff person.
(Councilmember Johnson arrived at 7:50 p.m.)
Councilmember Teitzel referred to DP #10, doubling the City's contribution to Snohomish Health District.
He observed all cities receive great benefit from the Health District and all should share a comparable
burden. He asked what other cities are paying. Mr. James assumed other cities were currently discussing
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 6
Packet Pg. 13
7.2.a
that as part of their budgets. Council President Fraley-Monillas said there is a list of cities that contribute.
Most cities provide $1/capital, one provides $2/capita. Without funding for opioid related programs the
Health District provides, the Police Department will have to provide those services. Mayor Earling said
some cities pay none. Mr. James said a Health District resolution states they will pass on costs to cities that
do not pay $1 /capita.
Councilmember Nelson referred to budget book page 9 Ext A, 2020 Budget Summary by Fund that states
revenue for 2020 of $109,200,000; expenditures of $131,427,000, a difference of approximately
$22,226,000. He asked if that was a large number in Mr. James' experience in Edmonds. Mr. James agreed
it was a very large number; items that comprise that number include carryforwards of over $7M, large
projects that the City has been saving for over a number of years such as Civic ($12M), and the pyrolysis
project which is budgeted at $11M with a transfer of $5M. The expenditures are large in 2020 and will
significantly utilize fund balance. Another large project in the 2020 budget is the Waterfront
Redevelopment project. He referred to the Budget in Brief that lists expenditures in capital funds (Streets,
Construction Fund, Parks Construction Fund, and REET Funds) which account for $20M in 2020.
Councilmember Johnson observed a trolley could be purchased for $50,000; she asked about the cost of
insurance, maintenance and the driver. Mr. Doherty answered $50,000 is a placeholder; if approved, it is
hoped a trolley can be purchased for less. With regard to M&O, information from inhouse engineering as
well as the former operator estimate it at about $25,000 including a fare contingency. That amount includes
staff, fuel, maintenance and insurance costs to operate the trolley Saturdays and Sundays during 26
weekends (Farmers Market season (Mother's Day to October) and the holiday weekends). The Lodging
Tax Advisory Committee has offered $20,000 toward the project; the Council could decide whether to use
those funds to purchase the trolley or for O&M. The Downtown Alliance has pledged up to $11,000 to
assist with M&O. There are also other opportunities for partnerships; if approved, staff will seek other funds
such as from the Port. The decision package is approving the budget authority, the purchase would require
subsequent City Council approval. Councilmember Johnson observed it appeared there will be enough
partners to cover the costs. Mr. Doherty said that was the hope.
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to the pyrolysis project, recalling Mr. Williams said the current
equipment has a 5-7 year remaining life. She asked if the project could be pushed out 1-2 years until more
scientific information is available. Mr. Williams said he did not necessarily agree with the comments made
about the lack of scientific validity. With regard to the life of the current incinerator, it is well past its
expected useful life and the cost of repairs is huge. For example, the cost to replace a Schwing pump
recently was $340,000. The other issues is regulatory pressure; the incinerator will never fully meet the
current regulations
Councilmember Buckshnis referred to Mountlake Terrace's plans to expand; Mountlake Terrace currently
has 23% capacity but is adding a large complex. Mr. Williams explained for the last 30 years, each partner
in the WWTP, Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline/Ronald and Olympic View Water & Sewer District, has
essentially purchased capacity in the plant and own the right to consume that capacity; the City owns about
half the capacity. For any capital project that the City, the managing partner, decides is necessary, the
partners provide their share. For example, a partner that owns 30% of the capacity pays 30% of the cost of
the project. The same will be true for this project; Edmonds ratepayers will pay approximately half and the
other three partners will pay the other half.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented Mountlake Terrace is expanding by 13,000-15,000 people. Mr.
Williams acknowledged growth was a possibility in any of the partner communities. If Mountlake Terrace
gets to the point where they do not have enough purchased capacity to serve their population, they will have
to contact the other partners and either buy another partner's capacity or find another answer.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 7
Packet Pg. 14
7.2.a
Councilmember Buckshnis asked if the current incinerator could operate for 1-2 more years. Mr. Williams
said the City should not count on that. The timing is right, the pyrolysis project is at 60% design and
construction could begin late 2020 or early 2021. He did not see putting it on hold, commenting it had been
pretty well thought through.
Councilmember Tibbott referred to the pyrolysis project and relayed his understanding that there were
significant energy savings associated with the process which indicates it would be better to do the project
sooner rather than later Mr. Williams answered there are a number of savings associated with it. This an
ESCO project; once a higher level design is completed in February, AMERESCO will give a GMAX price
(price not to exceed) and guarantee the project will do what they say it will do. AMERESCO takes the risk
for those two aspects, cost and guaranteed function. The pyrolysis project will save energy and dramatically
reduce the carbon footprint of the WWTP, the City's single biggest carbon footprint source as well as
produce a usable final product. The ability to market that product is not well known but it potentially has
great value.
Councilmember Teitzel observed the employee count is increasing by 3.5 in 2020; salary and benefits is
approximately $100k per employee, a total of $300,000. He observed an economic downturn is coming and
expressed concern with adding employees when hard decisions about expenses will need to be made that
may involve headcount. He asked if the City was taking a risk by prioritizing the 3.5 headcount in the 2020
budget. Mr. James agreed there should be dialogue about how to pay for ongoing expenses when adding
new expenses; if the City had a budget policy, that likely would be required. Later on the agenda, the
Council will discuss a property tax increase that would help alleviate ongoing expenses. One of the positions
will be paid from the Utility Funds; a rate increase is proposed to cover increasing costs. The other positions
would be offset by development related revenue and property taxes.
Councilmember Johnson referred to DP #30 federal lobbyist, recalling the City had hired him the past 3-4
years, a total of $280,000. As funding for state and local governments seems to be at a standstill due to the
political climate in Washington DC, she questioned the need to hire the federal lobbyist in 2020 and
suggested waiting until things loosen up. Mr. Doherty pointed out the NFWF grant the City just received
was a federal grant. He clarified this is not approval to rehire the current lobbyist, that is the new Mayor's
prerogative; it is placeholder for the Mayor to reengage the current federal lobbyist or hire a new lobbyist.
The federal lobbyist is an important resource in DC to assist with seeking federal funds on any and all
capital projects the City may be pursuing, including the Edmonds Marsh restoration, Highway 99, etc., as
well as monitoring and responding to legislation of importance to the City. Most of the cities in Snohomish
County have federal lobbyists under contract.
Councilmember Johnson asked how much the lobbyist has produced for the City in the past. Mr. Doherty
said the City had been pursuing a project for which federal funds were anticipated and that project was
canceled. If that project had continued, the City potentially could have received a fair amount in federal
funds. The focus now is Hwy 99 and the Edmonds Marsh.
Councilmember Johnson said those two projects were added to the legislative agenda last year. She
questioned the value of the federal lobbyist to the City, noting she understood the potential but had not seen
any results. Mr. Doherty said state and federal funding requests often take years and the City's continued
presence in Washington DC is important. Visits to Washington DC have been greatly facilitated by the
lobbyist who knows the congressional delegation's staff and agency staff and help with strategic meetings.
Councilmember Johnson suggested funding a trip rather than a lobbyist. Mr. Dougherty was unsure anyone
would respond to that small opportunity.
3. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 2019 PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE
Mr. James reviewed:
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 8
Packet Pg. 15
7.2.a
• Where do your taxes go?
0
7.7% County
0
40.6% Edmonds Schools
0
4.3% EMS
0
8.8% Library and Other
0
11.0% City
0
27.7% State Schools
• Where the Money Comes From
o
Fines & Penalties 1.3%
o
Transfers 3.2%
o
Miscellaneous 1.9%
o
Service Fees 13.4%
o
Other Gov. & Grants 2.0%
o
License & Permits 4.7%
o
Excise & Other Taxes 0.6%
o
Amusement & Utility Tax 14.2%
o
Sales Tax 19.1%
o
Property Tax 30.8%
o
Use of Fund Balance 9.0%
• Where the Money Goes
o
General Governmental Services 22.8%
o
Quality of Life 17.0%
o
Public Safety 52.0%
o
Other 8.1 %
• 2020 Regular Property Tax Levy
0 2020 Budget Includes 1 % Property Tax Increase
o Assessor Shows City of Edmonds Assessed Values Increasing 6.9% (Increase in AV before
adding in new construction)
o New Construction adds $80,104,200 Assessed Value
• Assessed Value History
2011
$6,433,258,853
2013
$5,545,239,847
2019
$10,223,133,972
2020
$11,038,455,287
• Tax Rate History
o Rate er $1,000 of AV
2011 $1.48
2013 $1.76
2019 $1.02
2020 $0.95
• Graph comparing assessed value to tax rate
• 2020 Regular Property Tax Calculation
o Ste 1: Be in with Prior Year Le
$10,446,823
o Step 2: Add Property Tax from New Construction:
81,857
o Step 3: Add allowance for Assessor's Office Adjustment:
10,633
o Step 4: Add 1% increase from Prior Year's Levy:
104,470
o And the Property Tax Levy for 2020 will be:
$10,643,784
• 2008-2020 EMS Tax Levy Overview
o In 2008, Citizens voted to make the EMS Levy a Permanent $0.50 Levy
o During 2010 — 2013 we saw our Assessed Property Values decline 31%
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 9
Packet Pg. 16
7.2.a
o In a declining AV environment, the City's EMS Levy Revenue also declined
o EMS Levy cannot exceed $0.50
Levy Rate History
2011-2016
$.050
2017-2019
De lining
2020
$0.37
• EMS Tax Levy Calculation
o Step 1: Begin with Prior Year Levy
$4,039,975
o Step 2: Add EMS Property Tax from New Construction:
31,656
o Ste 3: Add allowance for Assessor's Office Adjustment:
8,260
o Ste 4: Add 1% increase from Prior Year's Levy:
40,400
o And the EMS Property Tax Levy for 2020 will be:
$4,138,092
Impacts of Tax increase
0 2019 Average Residence Value is $594,300
0 1% Regular Tax Levy Increase = $5.73
0 1 % EMS Levy Tax Increase = $2.23
o Average Residence would pay $7.96 in 2020
o Or about $0.66 per month extra
Mayor Earling opened the public participation portion of the public hearing. Hearing no comment, Mayor
Earling closed the public participation portion of the public hearing.
After Councilmember Mesaros attempted to make a motion, Councilmember Johnson raised a point of
order that this was a public hearing and presentation; it was not scheduled as an action item. Mr. James said
the Council held a public hearing; the next step is Council discussion. Mayor Earling said the narrative does
not identify this as decision tonight. Mr. James referred to the agenda memo that states staff s
recommendation for the Council to make two motions:
1. Motion to approve Ordinance XXXX providing for the annual tax levy by increasing the regular
property tax levy by the current 101% levy limit, thereby levying an estimated regular property tax
levy of $10,643,784 .
2. Motion to approve Ordinance XXXX providing for the annual tax levy by increasing the
Emergency Medical Service property tax levy by the current 101 % levy limit, thereby levying an
estimated Emergency Medical Service levy of $4,120,255.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said this was purposely not scheduled for action; the intent was to hold
the public hearing and vote in 1-2 weeks. Mr. James said that was not how it has been done in years past.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPERTY TAX LEVY AS
PRESENTED BY MR. JAMES, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY INCREASING
THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE CURRENT 101% LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY
LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $10,643,784. MOTION DIED
FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Councilmember Tibbott asked the total amount raised with the 1% increase in the EMS levy. Mr. James
answered approximately $100,000. Councilmember Tibbott asked how much the City's emergency medical
services will increase in 2020. Mr. James referred to the decision package for the Regional Fire Authority
$407,000. Typically the EMS portion is 70% of the cost of the RTA so approximately $280,000 for EMS.
Councilmember Tibbott said if the Council passed a 1 % increase in the EMS levy, it would still be less than
half the cost of emergency medical services. Mr. James agreed. He clarified the EMS property tax from
new construction, allow for assessor's Office Adjustment and 1% increase total approximately $100,000;
the 1% increase generates approximately $40,400.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 10
Packet Pg. 17
7.2.a
COUNCILMEMBER NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO. 4163, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY BY REDUCING THE
REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY TO 100% OF THE CURRENT LEVY LIMIT, THEREBY
LEVYING AN ESTIMATED REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVY OF $10,539,209, PRESERVING
FUTURE LEVY CAPACITY AND FIXING A TIME WHEN THE SAME SHALL BECOME
EFFECTIVE.
Councilmember Nelson clarified his motion would mean no increase in the regular property tax.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to the early discussion that decided this was public hearing and the Council
would not take action. He was concerned it was premature to take a vote on this motion as it was scheduled
as a public hearing.
Councilmember Johnson asked if it was possible to approve the 1% increase in the EMS levy without
approving a 1% increase in regular property taxes. Mr. James said the Council packet includes three
ordinances, 1) the regular property tax, 2) the EMS levy and 3) no increase in the regular property tax levy.
The Council can adopt the EMS levy separately. Councilmember Johnson recalled in the past instead of
adopting a 1% increase, the Council has authorized banking that capacity for access in the future if
necessary. Mr. James said that is included in the third ordinance. Councilmember Johnson said she would
prefer to take action at future meeting.
Councilmember Teitzel commented the Council was on the threshold of passing an all-time record budget
in expenditures, approximately $130M that will require dipping into reserves. He asked the impact on
reserves if the Council did not pass a 1 % increase in the regular property tax. Mr. James said the proposed
motion would allow banking the capacity. The General Fund reserves will have to make up the $104,000
in 2020 without the benefit of the extra revenue.
UPON ROLL CALL, MOTION CARRIED (5-2), COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS
AND COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, NELSON, BUCKSHNIS AND TIBBOTT VOTING YES;
COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS AND TEITZEL VOTING NO.
COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NO.4164, ADOPTING AN EMS TAX LEVY INCREASE OF 1% FOR
2020. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. PRESENTATION
1. EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE 2020 WORK PLAN AND BUDGET
Economic Development/Community Services Director Patrick Doherty introduced President Downtown
Alliance Advisory Board Matt McCullough. He explained the Downtown Edmonds Alliance was created
by the City Council in 2013. ECC 3.75.120 requires the Alliance present a proposed work plan for the
following year and corresponding budget by October 31, 2019, which they did. The packet includes details
regarding the Alliance's budget as well as expenditures since 2013 as requested by Councilmember
Buckshnis at last year's presentation.
Mr. McCullough reviewed:
• Members Advisory Board
o President - Matt McCulloch, Peoples Bank
o Vice President - Apple Catha, Apple Catha Massage Therapy
o Secretary — Carol Sheldon, Carol Sheldon Hair Design
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 11
Packet Pg. 18
7.2.a
o Treasurer — Jenny Shore, The Wooden Spoon
o Mark VonGunten, Ten Gun Design
o Pam Stuller — Walnut Street Coffee
o Cheryl Farrish — Certa Law Group
o Tracey Strom — Affinity Contemporary Dentistry
o Carrie Hulbert, Program Manager (Contract)
• 2019 Work Plan Implementation
o Marketing Campaign
o Holiday Campaign
o Member Engagement & Outreach
o Umbrella Program
• Marketing strategy
o Continue to build Ed! messaging to increase awareness of Edmonds as a day trip destination
o Create compelling content on EdmondsDowntown.org to highlight Ed! businesses, including
services
o Increase exposure with a robust digital campaign
o Build social media audience, keeping Edmonds top of mind
• Display Ad Campaign Jan -Oct
o Promoted features on website
o Delivered over 707,000 impressions
o The campaign delivered 470 clicks with a clickthrough rate of 0.07%; this is in line with
industry standard of .06%-.08%
o "Mother's Day", "Food Scene" & "Edmonds Creativity" had the highest number of
conversions
• Social Media Ad Campaign Jan -Oct
o Also promoted features on website
o Campaign delivered:
■ 1.8 million impressions
■ 9,000 clicks
■ .49% clickthrough rate
o "Summer Events", "Family Owned Business", and "Food Scene" ads had highest conversion
rates
• EdmondsDowntown.org Traffic
o Year over year increases during digital campaign (Jan -Oct):
■ Users up 31%
■ Sessions up 24%
■ New users up 31%
• Social Media
o Facebook
12/1/18
1 11/18/19
1,904 followers
12,256 followers
18% increase in page followers
o Instaaram
12/1/18
11/18/19
257 posts
455 posts
1,205 followers
1,884 followers
56% increase in followers
• Edmonds Holiday Campaign
o Images of advertising
o Thanked Council for considering trolley in 2020 budget
• Love, Edmonds Digital Campaign
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 12
Packet Pg. 19
7.2.a
0 88,000 impressions Jan -Oct
0 2.05% Click through Rate
• Grant program
o Mural project
o Find Waldo in Edmonds
• Member Outreach
o Regular communication with members via Annual Meeting, Year in Review brochure, email
newsletter, new member information
• Umbrella program
o New design on umbrellas with Love, Edmonds logo
o Continued annual commitment to fund this program
• Parking — After Hours Parking Program
0 100 After Hours spots available
0 4locations:
■ Bank of America (NEW)
■ Sound Credit Union
■ WA Federal
■ US Bank
• 2020 Proposed Work Plan
Administration
$24,925
Marketing
$37,505
Communication and Outreach
$3,930
Small Grant Program
$1,500
Appearance & Environment
$12,650
Total Budgeted Expenditures
$80,510
Projected Assessments
$79,209
• 2013-2020 budget summary
• Advisory board meetings 2nd Thursday of the month at ECA
Councilmember Buckshnis commended the Alliance for doing a good job and she thanked Mr. McCullough
for the summary. She observed there was a tremendous drop in assessments in 2019 between budget and
actual, $30,000 less. Mr. McCullough responded the projections were not accurate. It is difficult for a
volunteer organization to have time to get an accurate count of businesses, their square footages, the
assessments they should be paying and whether they are paying their assessments. He said some businesses
are not paying their assessments. Mr. Doherty said there has been turnover with new businesses in the last
year; new businesses are given grace period from assessments for one year. There are some delinquent
businesses, the same small fraction of businesses.
Councilmember Johnson recalled thinking this was a great idea in 2013 but it was a 4-3 vote to establish
the Business Improvement District (BID). The BID has done a good job. She pointed out the 2020 budget
did not include $11,000 for the trolley. Mr. Doherty said the PowerPoint does not include the details; in the
spreadsheet in the packet for the 2020 includes $2,000 for trolley support. The Alliance's contribution to
the trolley is a pledge of up to $11,000 (which includes $2,000 from the Alliance) based on sponsors for
the holiday trolley.
Councilmember Johnson asked how much the holiday trolley cost. Mr. McCullough answered the cost was
fully covered by sponsors which is why the Alliance is confidence pledging $11,000 for the year-round
trolley. Councilmember Johnson asked the weekly cost. Mr. Doherty answered $1400 in weekly hard costs.
Councilmember Johnson asked how long the holiday trolley season was. Mr. Doherty answered it was four
Saturdays this year.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 13
Packet Pg. 20
7.2.a
Councilmember Teitzel relayed the City is looking at downtown parking including ways to better utilize
the existing parking inventory. The Alliance's after-hours parking program plays into that. He asked if the
number of additional parking spaces have been maximized or are other businesses considering after hours
parking. Mr. McCullough answered there are multiple business that have not yet joined the after-hours
program. No funds are budgeted in 2020 for after-hours signage but the Alliance is still working on that.
Councilmember Tibbott commended Ed! for enhancing the visitor experience downtown via the umbrellas,
the trolley, marketing etc. He requested the Council's appreciation be relayed to the Alliance members.
Councilmember Nelson thanked Ed! for their support of the trolley in the past and for the after-hours
parking program, noting his wife and he utilized one of the parking lots while downtown for dinner.
Mr. Doherty advised the Council can approve the work plan; the Alliance's budget is incorporated in the
budget as DP #113.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON,
TO APPROVE THE EDMONDS DOWNTOWN ALLIANCE 2020 WORK PLAN. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Earling expressed his thanks to Ed!, the Chamber, DEMA, and the creative work done by staff and
the contract person Carolyn Douglas who has created visibility through media, noting those efforts create
a feeling of a special place in Edmond and contribute greatly to Edmonds being a destination which is
reflected in increased in sales tax, new businesses, etc. All those things create a chemistry and result in
great benefits.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
9. STUDY ITEM
1. RENEWAL OF CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT
Councilmember Mesaros distributed information to Council related to renewal of the City Attorney
Contract. He recalled at the November 4t' meeting the Council reviewed a contract proposed by the City
Attorney. At that meeting, Councilmembers raised issues with some of the provisions in the contract and
requested Councilmember Teitzel and he meet with Mr. Taraday. Lighthouse has returned with a second
proposal. Councilmember Teitzel and he suggested Mr. Taraday propose a three-year contract to provide a
sense of stability; past Lighthouse contracts have a 60 days cancellation clause, making it a 60 day contract,
renewable every day. A three-year contract provides certainty for the City as well as continuity of price.
Councilmember Teitzel and he are still pursuing comparisons with other cities regarding contract city
attorney and in-house services.
Councilmember Mesaros reviewed the information provided to Council:
1. Agenda cover memo
• Historical City Attorney fees
0 2009: $530,079
0 2010:: $605,363
• Proposed Contract (Lighthouse)
0 2020: $598,596
0 2010: $622,536
0 2011: $647,436
2. 2020, 2021 and 2022 scenarios due to lookback provision in the contract
3. Performance Evaluation Process
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 14
Packet Pg. 21
7.2.a
4. Summary Scores from City Attorney Services Evaluation
At Councilmember Mesaros' request, Mr. Taraday reviewed Paragraph 3b related to Lighthouse having the
option to convert the flat fee compensation arrangement to an hourly compensation if any of the triggering
options occur. He explained in response to concern the Council expressed regarding their last contract
proposal, he met with his partners to discuss how to protect themselves and provide the City clarity
regarding a possible hourly scenario if the City made one of the changes that triggered the hourly billing
scenario. He reminded Lighthouse does not provide the flat fee to any other client; only the City of
Edmonds. There is a lot of associated risk that Lighthouse takes on, for example, the City pays same amount
when a case is taken to trial and Lighthouse bears all the risks with regard to the cost of litigation.
Lighthouse is happy to do that for a long term client; it is basically a loyalty discount. In light of discussions
about going inhouse, a legitimate policy discussion that Councilmembers should have, Lighthouse felt it
was important to propose an hourly fee scenario should the Council take an action that triggers that
arrangement.
Due to concern raised at the previous meeting about the amount of an entire year of hourly billing, Mr.
Taraday explained Lighthouse proposed a framework. If the City makes one of option -triggering events
(terminate the contract or approve an inhouse position) in 2020, Lighthouse would have the option to do 8
months of hourly billing, and the 8 months only go back to January 1. For example if it happened May 1,
2020, there would only 4 months of hourly billing. If the option -triggering event occurred in 2021,
Lighthouse would have the option to do 4 months of hourly billing and if the option -triggering event occur
in 2022, Lighthouse would have the option to do 2 months of hourly billing.
Mr. Taraday explained the contract was structured that way because Lighthouse knows they are good
attorneys, the best municipal attorney around and offer their services at a reasonable rate. There will be a
lot of change next year and Lighthouse has not yet had an opportunity to build a relationship with the newly
elected officials. Lighthouse knows once that is done, it is likely Lighthouse will continue to serve the City
over the long term which is what contract intends to reflect. If Lighthouse is still the City Attorney in 2022,
he will not be worried about their job security because they will have developed relationships/trust with the
new Councilmembers which is the reason for decreasing the hourly lookback as the years progress because
he did not see as much risk in the out years versus in 2020.
Councilmember Mesaros referred to the scenarios, pointing out the calculations are based on assumptions
not facts. If the contract were cancelled June 30, 2020, the lookback would be 6 months at an additional
cost of $282,000, which is still a pretty good rate considering what the City paid in 2010 for the Ogden
Murphy contract. Under the 2021 scenario, the lookback cost for 4 months would be $217,000 if the contract
was canceled in May. Under the 2022 scenario, the lookback cost for 2 months would be $104,000 if the
contract were canceled September 30t1i. Mr. Taraday pointed out the scenarios were based on assumptions
and the estimates were on the high side because the assumed hourly rate is the higher hourly rate when in
reality about half the work is at the higher rate and half is at the lower rate. Councilmember Mesaros said
the intent of the scenarios was to consider worst case.
Councilmember Teitzel pointed out the evaluation of the City Attorney is a two-step process; Part A, the
internal satisfaction survey has been completed and in general the internal clients at the City are satisfied
with Lighthouse. There are a few outliers and issues that Mr. Taraday is aware of and will be addressing.
Part B is whether the City is getting proper value for what is paid to Lighthouse. The total expenditure for
2017, 2018 and 2019 divided by total hours results an average hourly rate of $165. That seems like a good
deal but the work Councilmember Mesaros and he are doing will verify that but that study will not be
completed for 3-4 weeks.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 15
Packet Pg. 22
7.2.a
Finance Director Scott James agreed the scenarios are purely speculation based on assumptions because the
hours worked vary year to year. For example, there is a fairly significant case next year, the Ebbtide. The
scenarios could be recalculated using a blended hourly rate.
Councilmember Mesaros assumed using the information Councilmember Teitzel and he are developing,
the Council would make a choice whether to continue with contract city attorney services or an in-house
city attorney early in year, hopefully by March/April so the lookback would be much less than 8 months.
Councilmember Buckshnis commented on the element of stability and collaboration; with four new
Councilmember and a new Mayor, the City needs a City Attorney with a history. She did not favor an
inhouse attorney because they report directly to the Mayor. The directors provided primarily good reviews.
She preferred to retain Lighthouse to provide stability, fearing a new City Attorney with four new
Councilmembers could be a catastrophic risk.
Councilmember Teitzel reinforced that tonight was only discussion but he wanted to ensure it was on next
week's agenda. That will allow the public to see the contract and offer any questions. The contract with
Lighthouse expires at the end of year and the Council needs to take action well before then.
Councilmember Tibbott affirmed what Councilmember Buckshnis said regarding stability. He expressed
appreciation for the work Councilmembers Teitzel and Mesaros have done. The proposed contract provides
flexibility as well as security for ongoing attorney services that serve the City well. Flexibility and security
will give the future Council the confidence they need to make good decisions.
Councilmember Mesaros echoed Councilmember Teitzel's comment; they plan to submit this as an action
item on next week's agenda. He encouraged Councilmembers to contact Mr. Taraday with any specific
questions.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said Councilmembers Mesaros and Teitzel requested this be on the
agenda this week but she did not think it was quite ready because not all the questions had been answered.
The Council needs to do their due diligence. Lighthouse has been fine but they have worked for the City
for 8'/z years and it's important to occasionally look at what the City is getting. She said making assumptions
related to money makes her nervous.
For Council President Fraley-Monillas, Mr. James reviewed the 2020 scenario:
Assumptions:
1) Date City Terminates: Select from drop down menu
6/30/2020
2) Total Annual Hours Worked by Lighthouse (fill-in)
3,930
Steps to Calculate "Look Back" Costs
Step 1) Calculate hours worked during "Look Back" period
(i) average monthly hours worked = Total Annual Hours Worked / 12 months
328
Step 2) Calculate hours worked during "Look Back" period
(i) Number of months in "Look Back" period'
6
it (ii) Number of hours worked during ""Look Back"" period
= average monthly hours worked X number of months in ""Look Back"" period"
1,976
Ste 3a) Calculate "Look Back" costs
(i) Select hourly rate from drop down menu:
$295
(ii) Hours worked during "Look Back" period
1,976
(iii) Calculation of Hourly Cost = Hourly Rate X Number of hours worked in "Look
Back" period
$582,895
(iv) Number of months in "Look Back" period
6
(v) Deduct flat fee @ $49,833/month X number of months in "Look Back" period
($300,661)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 16
Packet Pg. 23
7.2.a
Look Back cost 1 $282,234
'Note: 2020 "Look Back" period contractually limited to 8 months
Mr. Taraday clarified under the proposed contract, there could be an 8-month lookback. If the contract were
terminated July 1st, there would only be a 6-month lookback; however, if it was terminated in October, there
would be an 8-month lookback. The lookback the first year is no more than 8 months; it could be less than
8 months depending on when the contract was terminated as the lookback could not go into 2019. Mr.
James advised that was not clear in paragraph 3.e.i.
As Council President Fraley-Monillas, who was participating by phone, was unable to access the materials
provided by Councilmember Mesaros, Mayor Earling suggested she meet with Mr. Taraday and/or Mr.
James when was she back in town. Councilmember Mesaros said the information was emailed to Council
President Fraley-Monillas.
Councilmember Johnson suggested Mr. Taraday provide his annual report during the Council's discussion
about city attorney services. Mr. Taraday advised in the past, the annual report has been provided in the
first quarter so it can include the entire prior 12 month period. Councilmember Johnson suggested it may
be advantageous for Mr. Taraday to provide information sooner than that. Mr. Taraday offered to email
Councilmembers the number of hours worked year-to-date 2019.
Councilmember Johnson summarized the results of the scores from the city attorney evaluation.
0 Scores ranged from 7 to 1 and no responses below 4
• Most of the responses were 7
• 25 responses were at the highest level
• 14 responses at 6
0 5 responses at 6.5
0 9 response at 4-5
• Performance Evaluation Categories
o Trustworthiness/Integrity/Ethical Compliance
■ All scores 6 and 7
o Legal Consultation
■ One question received a 5 rating: Are city staff and the City Council advised on key
changes in municipal law as it pertains to the City's activities?
o Document Review and Preparation
■ All responses 6-7 except for one 5 rating: Does the City Attorney make beneficial suggestions
about how the city code should be updated or revised? Does the City Attorney accurately
identify and address all legal issues within documents and items that it reviews?
o Cost/Fiscal Accountability Control
■ Six responses had 7 rating, one had a 6.5 rating
■ One question received a 4 rating: Are standard forms developed and used where possible to
minimize preparation of legal documentation
■ One question received a 5 rating: Does the City Attorney display the ability and knowledge to
research issues in a minimum amount of time?
o Responsiveness/Timeliness of Actions:
■ Questions that received a 5 rating
- Are requested legal work and assignments completed within a clearly established time
frame?
- Is the City attorney accessible in person when needed to respond to requests for legal
information and assistance?
- Are legal review and requests for information completed in time to avoid delays to City
projects, programs and other tasks?
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 17
Packet Pg. 24
7.2.a
o Communications and Interpersonal Relations
■ Seven responses had 7 rating, three had 6 rating and one had a 4.5 rating (Are timelines for
follow up to requests clearly communicated?)
Councilmember Johnson summarized overall it was a pretty good review.
Councilmember Teitzel agreed Councilmember Mesaros and he submitted this as action item for tonight's
agenda last week and Council President Fraley-Monillas opted not to include it on the agenda for the reasons
she stated. Councilmember Mesaros and he think the contract is reasonable, is good for the City, gives
stability and good quality and gives next year's Council the flexibility to take action if they choose. It is
important that the contract be on next week's agenda as an action item.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS, TO
ADD RENEWAL OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT TO NEXT WEEK'S AGENDA AS AN
ACTION ITEM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. James said the reason he was questioning the 8-month lookback was there were no 2019 rates in Section
3b. If Council wanted to consider a 2019 lookback, a 2019 hourly rate should be included in the contract.
Mr. Taraday clarified there was no 2019 lookback; the lookback in 2020 cannot exceed 8 months. An 8-
month lookback could occur if the contract were terminated October 1st, November 1" or December 1 S ; if
the contract were terminated July I", there would only be a 6-month lookback.
10. ACTION ITEMS
1. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURE FOR HISTORIC INFORMATIONAL PANEL
Councilmember Teitzel introduced Arts & Culture Program Manager Frances Chapin. He explained the old
Edmonds High School was built in 1909 in the north parking lot of what is now the Edmonds Center for
the Arts (ECA). The school was demolished in 2005 and the old terracotta portico at the entrance to the
high school was removed. Some consideration was given to installing it near the ECA building but it was
determined that would not work and neither the City nor the Edmonds School District had any other use
for the portico. The portico was stored at the old Public Works location for several years and was destined
for the landfill until the Echelbarger family asked to take possession as they felt it was important to preserve
it as part of the City's history and decided to install it at the southeast corner of the Salish Crossing parking
lot.
Councilmember Teitzel explained there is nothing to describe to passersby what the structure is, it does not
match the design of the Salish Crossing building and people often inquire about it. There are a lot of
pedestrians in the area and putting an informational panel will explain the portico. It was presented to the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) who determined they were unable to take an official position
because the item was not in its original location and therefore was outside their charter. The HPC asked
him to take it to the Museum Board. The Museum Board felt it was within their scope and supported an
informational panel to explain the history. Ms. Chapin and he took the panel concept to the Finance
Committee who liked the idea and suggested funding it from the Council Contingency Fund. The cost to
design, fabricate, and install the sign using in-house labor would not exceed $4,000.
Councilmember Johnson said she has never supported this project for several reasons. It is not the old
Edmonds High School portico, there was no portico at the Edmonds High School. This is the Salish
Crossing portico that includes the terracotta feature that was on the old Edmonds High School building
which was also the junior high where she attended school and has a special significant to her. The HPC
indicated they could not approve or disapprove it because it is clearly out of place. The HPC follows the
Secretary of Interior's guidelines related to preservation. She said it was fake history to put up an
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 18
Packet Pg. 25
7.2.a
informational sign that says this was the old Edmonds High School portico and it serves no purpose to have
inaccurate informational signs that are not approved by the HPC. She referred to the Walk Back in Time
that was developed without the blessing of the HPC; the HPC was presented with the materials but did not
have an opportunity to review the actual sites.
Councilmember Johnson summarized it was not about the money, it was about the issue itself. She felt very
strongly about this because it was her old junior high and she wanted it to be properly respected. If that
same material had been incorporated at the ECA, then it could be recognized. A fake portico located a half
mile away did not qualify in her mind.
Councilmember Teitzel referred to a photograph in the packet of the old Edmonds High School in 1909;
the portico on the building is what is installed in the Salish Crossing parking lot. He asked for clarification
of Councilmember Johnson's comment that the portico did not exist. Councilmember Johnson said this is
an architectural feature, a fagade on face of building of the building, it is not the portico at Salish Crossing.
The two pictures do not align and it gives a false impression. Ms. Chapin said an informational panel
provides information in cultural context. Taking a piece of a building and re -erecting somewhere else is not
in its original context and therefore is not something the HPC would support with a historic preservation
plaque. The community is interested in an explanation of what the structure is. When Councilmember
Teitzel brought this up, she acknowledged she is frequently asked what the structure is and how it relates
to the community. That is very different from a plaque that identifies a historic building or something that
still has the integrity of the entire building.
Councilmember Mesaros said the informational sign is a good idea because it answers the questions Ms.
Chapin referenced, what is this and what does it represent? It represents piece of history several blocks
away and allows people to reflect on the past. He expressed support for the informational sign.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she was contacted by a couple members of the HPC who were
annoyed that this moved on after they said it wasn't a historic piece. She had no issue with the proposed
sign but was concerned with setting a precedence for signage on private property and questioned whether
that was allowed under City code. She summarized it seemed like an inappropriate amount of money to
spend for signage on private land and there was something that she was inherently uncomfortable with.
Councilmember Teitzel said he presented the concept to the HPC; they were not annoyed at that meeting,
they just said it was it was outside their charter and for that reason they could not take a position for or
against the sign. The HPC asked him to take it to the Museum Board which he did and they felt it was
within their charter and supported it.
Council President Fraley-Monillas reiterated a couple members of the HPC approached her and said that
this was undermining the HPC because it was not going through them.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the confusion may be because it was called a historical information panel.
She also had HPC members call her. She wanted to ensure the signage accurately reflected that the portico
was not in its original location. This does not set a precedent; there are other informational panels on private
property. She suggested the informational panel could reference the old Safeway building which is historic.
She reiterated it was an informational panel regarding historic architecture.
Councilmember Tibbott commented on the walkability of the City; the portico is a very interesting feature
on an otherwise uninteresting corner. The sign will add to the ambiance of the City for tourists and citizens.
He supported the informational sign, commenting on the importance of ensuring the information on the
sign was accurate.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 19
Packet Pg. 26
7.2.a
Councilmember Johnson reiterated this is fake history and it does not serve the City well. She recalled a
suggestion at the HPC to locate an old cedar stump from Woodway somewhere downtown. It was decided
that would be inappropriate because history cannot be moved to serve a purpose. An old cedar stump was
identified in Yost and there is an information panel there describing the history. An informational panel
could be erected at the old Edmonds High School with directions to the portico. Even if it was an
informational panel, it was inappropriate in her opinion. Councilmember Teitzel said he was also a
commissioner on the HPC and understood things need to be in their original location for the HPC to
designate them as historic. The portico is not so it is definitely not in the scope of the HPC which is reflected
in the minutes of their meeting which are attached to packet. As Councilmember Tibbott said, an
informational panel provides information about the structure and is helpful to passersby.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS,
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE UP TO $4,000 FOR AN INFORMATIONAL PANEL OF
THE OLD EDMONDS HIGH SCHOOL FEATURE THAT IS NOW INSTALLED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SALISH CROSSING PARKING LOT. MOTION CARRIED (5-
2), COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTING
NO.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS,
TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:30 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (6-1), COUNCILMEMBER
JOHNSON VOTING NO.
Council President Fraley-Monillas discontinued her participation by phone at 10:00 p.m.
2. FRONTIER CABLE FRANCHISE TRANSFER TO NW FIBER
City Attorney Jeff Taraday relayed the PPW Committee considered this at their meeting. Frontier is in the
process of transferring its assets to NW Fiber. The City has an opportunity to review the qualifications of
NW Fiber but cannot unreasonably withhold consent of the transfer of the franchise. The packet includes a
resolution that conditionally approves transfer. Adoption of the resolution is better than taking no action
because there are conditions in the resolution that Frontier has already agreed to comply with. In the absence
of a vote to approve the resolution, the transfer would be deemed approved under federal law without
conditions. The packet contains information about concerns that were raised about the buildout of the cable
system and why Frontier does not carry KIRO 7. He clarified early iterations of this agenda items were
mislabeled as being a transfer to WAVE; the transfer is actually to NW Fiber.
Councilmember Teitzel relayed there have been complaints about Frontier Cable not living up to their
franchise agreement. With the transfer to NW Fiber, they are obligated to provide the service per the
contract agreements that Frontier allegedly did not do. Mr. Taraday answered all the City's right under the
franchise remain in effect. NW Fiber would have the same legal obligations that Frontier had before the
transfer. In that respect there is no downside to approving the resolution.
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT,
APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 1436. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Council President
Fraley-Monillas did not participate in the vote. )
3. UTILITY RATES PACKAGE PROPOSAL
Council President Fraley-Monillas joined meeting by phone at 10:06 p.m.
Mr. Williams introduced City Engineer Rob English, Senior Utilities Engineer Mike DeLilla and Chris
Gonzalez, Senior Project Manager, FCS Group. He explained 2019 is the third year of the third 3-year rate
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 20
Packet Pg. 27
7.2.a
package; the 9-year history of rate adjustments has generated capital to begin replacing pipes and buried
infrastructure on an annual basis. The rate package addresses needs in the coming years. He reviewed:
• Key assumptions
o Annual Cost inflation
■ General (CPI): 2.5%
■ Benefits:10.0%
■ Alderwood Water Purchase Costs:
-8% in 2020; (21.8%)
-8.5% in 2021; (4.4%)
-8%in 2022; (5%)
-5% Thereafter
■ Construction Costs: 4.0%
o Annual Growth
■ Water/Sewer: z 85 ERUs per year
■ Stormwater: z 55 ESUs per year
Utility Policies (Goals)
o Rate analysis policy on a 3-year cycle to:
■ Improve ability to weather financial cycles, risks and disruptions
■ Stabilize rates over time
■ Account for changes that are outside our control (Alderwood Rates)
■ Account for large future projects
o Capital Fund Policy
■ Meet all utility financial obligations
■ `Pay as you go' Rate funding for replacement/maintenance give significant savings to the
program.
- Repayment of Interest on a $10M bond for WWTP at 3.5% interest over lifetime is
approx. $3.9M (2019 dollars)
■ Avoid deferral of maintenance responsibilities
■ Accounts for seasonal fluctuations in spending
■ *Target in the future needs to include reserves for R&R, cost overruns and emergencies
Setting up Policies (exam les)
Policy
Purpose
Policy Target
Operating Reserve
Minimum cash reserve to accommodate
Water = 90; Sewer = 45-90
varied revenue and expenditure timing
Storm; Solid Waste=30 Days
O&M
Capital Reserve
To meet emergency repairs, unanticipated
1-2% of capital assets (original
capital and project cost overruns
cost)
Replacement Reserve
Rate funded capital - annual basis
Original Cost Depreciation;
Funding (RRF)
Replacement Cost
Depreciation
Equipment Reserve
To fund ongoing vehicle and equipment
Estimated replacement value
replacement
Debt Service Coverage
Compliance with existing debt covenants
Target 2.0 or higher
ad maintain credit worthiness for future
Minimum 1.25
debt needs
Revenue Sufficiency
Set rates to meet the total annual financial
Rates shall be set to cover
obligations of the utility and be self-
O&M, debt service, reserves
supporting
and fiscal policy achievement
0 Capital Needs Forecast - Water
o $21,867,000 in capital projects from 2019-2024
■ Water Mains: $20,072,000
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 21
Packet Pg. 28
7.2.a
■ Reservoirs: $1,795,000
o Cash resources are expected to fully cover the projected capital costs
■ Reflects pay-as-you-go (cash -only) funding philosophy
Water Revenue Requirement Forecast
o Graph of O&M Expenses, Debt Service, System Reinvestment, Reserve Funding, Revenue @
Existing Rates, and Revenue @ Proposed Rate
Proposed
Projected
Existing
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Water Rate Increase
4.5%
4.5%
4.5%
4.0%
4.0%
Monthly single-family bill @ 7ccf
$45.66
$47.71
$49.85
$52.11
$54.19
$56.36
Tax
6.41
$6.05
$4.99
$5.21
$5.42
$5.64
Total
$52.07
$53.76
$54.85
$57.32
$59.61
$61.99
o Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
• Comparison of 2019 sewer rates (1 Occf Usage)
Lake Forest Park (via SPU)
$94.15
Shoreline (via SPU)
$94.15
Woodinville WD
$78.87
*2020 Mountlake Terrace
77.93
Seattle
77.65
*2019 Mountlake Terrace
72.16
Kirkland
66.55
Edmonds
65.32
Arlington
52.73
Mukilteo W&S Dist Westside
49.47
Everett
44.82
Olympic View W&S Dist
44.69
Redmond
44.44
Lynnwood
41.88
Alderwood Water &WW
38.73
*Mountlake Terrace 95% increase in 2019 and 8% increase in 2020 to $77.93
Capital Needs Forecast - Stormwater
o $26,807,000 in capital projects from 2019 to 2024
o Cash resources are expected to cover - 99% of projected capital costs
■ Reflects pay-as-you-go (cash -only) funding philosophy
■ City received $545,000 loan from Snohomish County Public Works Assistance Fund
- Part of loan already drawn ($408,750 of proceeds remaining)
- Increases stormwater utility's annual debt service by z $33,000
Stormwater Revenue Requirement Forecast
o Graph of O&M Expenses, Debt Service, System Reinvestment, Reserve Funding, Revenue @
Existing Rates, and Revenue @ Proposed Rate
Proposed
Projected
Existing
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Annual Stormwater Rate Increase
9.5%
9.5%
9.5%
4%
4%
Monthly single-family bill
$17.18
$18.81
$20.60
$22.56
$23.46
$24.40
Tax
1.72
1.88
2.06
2.26
2.35
2.44
Total
$18.09
$20.69
$22.66
$24.82
$25.81
$26.84
o Rate increases are needed to generate funding for capital needs (system reinvestment)
2019 Storm Rates (1 EUR)
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 22
Packet Pg. 29
7.2.a
Seattle
43.06
Everett
24.14
*2020 Mountlake Terrace
22.33
Shoreline
21.78
Mukilteo
21.57
Kirkland
19.34
Edmonds
18.90
Lake Forest Park
16.96
Redmond
16.56
Lynnwood
13.91
*2019 Mountlake Terrace
11.45
Woodinville
7.26
Arlington
6.89
*Mountlake Terrace 95% increase in 2020 to $22.33
Capital Needs Forecast - Sewer
o $49,782,000 in capital projects from 2019 to 2024
■ WWTP Projects: $28,895,000
■ Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer: $6,746,000
■ Sewer Mains: $14,019,785
■ Lift Station No. 1 Study: $121,215
*excludes $15M replacement cost expected to occur within 10 years
o Cash resources are expected to fully cover the projected capital costs
■ Reflects pay-as-you-go (cash -only) funding philosophy
■ Olympic View WSD, Mountlake Terrace, Ronald WWD pay for =49% of net WWTP costs
Sewer Financial Plan Scenarios
Existing
Proposed
Projected
2020-
25
Annual Sewer Rate Increase
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
22024
2025
Total
Status Quo: Full Cash funding for CIP
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
0%
+46.9%
$1OM WWTP Bond
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
+34.0%
$1OM WWTP Bond (3% increases 2020-22)
3%
3%
3%
7%
7%
7%
+33.9%
$1 OM WWTP Bond (No increases 2020-22P
0%
0%
0%
11 %
10%
9%
+33.1 %
Debt for Large Projects' (3% increases
2020-22)
3%
3%
3%
4%
4%
4%
+22.9%
Debt for Large Projects' (No increases 2020-
22)
0%
0%
0%
6%
6%
6%
+19.1%
Existing
Pro osed
Projected
2020-25
Annual Sewer Rate Increase
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Total
Status Quo: Full Cash funding for CIP
43.65
47.14
50.91
54.98
59.38
6.13
64.13
+$20.48
$1OM WWTP Bond
43.65
45.83
48.12
50.53
53.06
55.71
58.50
+$14.85
$10M WWTP Bond (3% increases
2020-22)
43.65
44.96
46.31
47.7
51.04
54.61
58.43
+14.78
$1OM WWTP Bond (No increases 2020-
22P
43.65
43.65
43.65
43.65
48.45
53.30
58.10
+14.45
Debt for Large Projects' (3% increases
2020-22)
43.65
44.96
46.31
47.7
49.61
51.59
53.65
+$10.000
Debt for Large Projects' (No increases
2020-22)
43.65
43.65
43.65
43.65
46.27
49.05
51.99
+8.34
'Assumes the following bond issues:
2020: $10.0 million bond for City share of WWTP improvements
2024: $6.5 million bond for Lake Ballinger Trunk Sewer
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 23
Packet Pg. 30
7.2.a
2030: $10.3 million bond for Lift Station No. 1 Replacement
• Long -Term Sewer Rate Forecast
Cumulative Sewer Rate Increase Over Period
2020-
25
Total
2026-
30
Total
2031-
35
Total
2036-
40
Total
2041-
45
Total
2046-
50
Total
Status Quo: Full Cash funding for CIP
46.9%
0%
10.4%
15.9%
17.0%
21.7%
$1OM WWTP Bond
34.0%
26.4%
0%
7.2%
21.7%
21.7%
$1OM WWTP Bond (3% increases 2020-22)
33.9%
32.6%
0%
3%
20.5%
21.7%
$1OM WWTP Bond (No increases 2020-22P
33.1%
40.2%
0%
0%
14.7%
25.2%
Debt for Large Projects' (3% increases 2020-22)
22.9%
21.7%
18.2%
13.7%
15.9%
15.9%
Debt for Large Projects' (No increases 2020-22)
19.1%
27.6%
21.7%
12.5%
8.2%
21.7%
Monthly Single -Family Bill at End of Period
2020-
25
Total
2026-
30
Total
2031-
35
Total
2036-
40
Total
2041-
45
Total
2046-
50
Total
Status Quo: Full Cash funding for CIP
64.13
64.13
70.80
82.07
96.06
116.88
$1OM WWTP Bond
58.5
73.96
73.96
79.26
96.44
117.33
$1OM WWTP Bond 3% increases 2020-22
58.43
77.47
77.47
79.79
96.15
116.99
$1OM WWTP Bond o increases 2020-22P
58.1
81.47
81.47
81.47
93.48
117.05
Debt for Large Projects' 3% increases 2020-22
53.65
65.27
77.15
87.71
101.68
117.87
Debt for Large Projects' o increases 2020-22
51.99
66.35
80.72
90.85
98.26
119.55
• 2019 Sewer Rates (10ccf Usage)
ON
Seattle
$144.8
Kirkland
$107.33
Alderwood W & WW
$76.06
Woodinville WD
$72.48
Arlington
$70.15
*2020 Mountlake Terrace
$68.40
Mukilteo W&S Dist Westside
$65.21
Lake Forest Park
$63.27
Shoreline
$59.50
Redmond
$59.48
Everett
$49.44
Lynnwood
$48.93
Edmonds
$48.02
*2019 Mountlake Terrace
$48.00
Olympic View W&S Dist
$39.10
lountlake Terrace 95% increase in 2020 to
922.33
• 2019 Total Bill -1/4" single family @ 10ccf*
City
2019
Seattle
$265.51
Kirkland
$193.22
Shoreline* * * *
$175.43
Lake Forest Park
$174.38
2020 Mountlake Terrace
$168.66
Woodinville
$158.61
Mukilteo
132.38
Edmonds
$132.23
2019 Mountlake Terrace***
$131.61
Arlington* *
$129.77
Redmond
$120.48
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 24
Packet Pg. 31
7.2.a
Everett* * * * $118.40
Lynnwood $104.72
*Rates assume 10 ccf/month usage for water/sewer as applicable
** Has not had a rate adjustment in at least the past 6 years.
*** 8% Water, 42.5% Sewer and 95% Storm increase 12020
* * * * 10% total increase expected in 2020
* * * * * 10% increases in storm rates for 2020 and 2021
Graph of historical capital spending and forecast for 423 Sewer, 422 Storm, 421 Water,
Transportation and Parks 2011-2018, 2019 est, 2020 budget
List of City Capital Projects 2012-2019
o Total Award Amount: $46,240,294
o Total Construction Budget: $51,251,790
o Total Actual Cost: $47,370,387
o Percent Over Award: 2.4%
o Percent over total budget: -7.6%
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 11:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED (5-2) COUNCILMEMBERS
JOHNSON AND NELSON VOTING NO.
Mr. Williams reviewed the recommendation
• Issue debt to yield approx. $10,000,000 for support of the WWTP Pyrolysis/Incinerator
replacement project now
• Raise sewer rates 5% in 2020, 2021, 2022 to continue to meet the capital needs of the City's Sewer
Utility Fund (Fund 423)
• Consider additional revenue bond issuances in approx. 2024 and 2030 for the Ballinger sewer and
PSI, respectively
• Water Rates at 4.5% in 2020, 2021, 2022 due to Alderwood increases over the next three years
• Storm rates as presented at 9.5% to meet capital and maintenance needs for the Stormwater Fund
and increased NPDES permit requirements
Councilmember Buckshnis said the Edmonds Marsh restoration is not a $16.6M stormwater project, but
the $16.6M is included in the stormwater capital projects. She hoped next year the City Council will scrub
the CIP/CFP because she did not believe utility ratepayers should pay the lion's share of that project. Mr.
Williams said it was not anticipated that stormwater will pay $16.65M; it is assumed to be 75% grant
funded. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested it if was in Parks it might be 100% grant funded. She
reiterated the numbers were distorted because it is not a stormwater project; it is a marsh restoration project
with a stormwater component. Mr. Williams was disappointed Councilmember Buckshnis felt that way. It
is a big capital project that has been an idea up until recently; there are no immediate plans to go into design
or construction but the project has to be housed in some fund and Public Works will be who delivers the
capital project, manages the project, manages the contract, provides administration, etc. It is a City project
not a Public Works, stormwater or a Parks project, it is all of those.
Councilmember Buckshnis said it affects the utility rates. Just like the pyrolysis project, the entire amount
is included when the City will only pay $15M. Last year there was only $5M in the CIP/CFP for the
Edmonds Marsh restoration and now it is up to $16M. Mr. Williams said the pyrolysis project is in the
Sewer fund. Councilmember Buckshnis agreed but suggested only the Edmonds portion be included and
not the $6M paid by Mountlake Terrace, $4M from Olympic and $2M from Ronald. Mr. Williams said the
project will cost $20M-25M and half will be paid by the WWTP partners and half by the City. The budget
includes the total expenditure, $11.067M for 2020 and revenue to offset their half. That is how capital
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 25
Packet Pg. 32
projects should be budgeted, showing all outside revenue, the total cost and Edmonds paying the difference.
Stormwater is the same; the project total is $16.65M and it is assumed it will be 75% grant funded so
another $4M will need to be identified. He did not assume that would come from the General Fund so it
was assumed to come from the Stormwater Utility. The marsh does provide stormwater services to a large
part of Edmonds.
Councilmember Buckshnis said the CIP/CFP should reflect the park construction and stormwater aspects
of the Edmonds Marsh. It is primarily a parks project that Public Works will manage. Mr. Williams said it
is a civil engineering project. Councilmember Buckshnis suggested he accompany her to WRIA 8 grant
funding discussions.
For Councilmember Mesaros, Mr. Williams said staff is seeking consensus on an ordinance creating a rate
package for the next three years that would be presented at public hearing. Councilmember Mesaros
observed staff was seeking direction on Recommendations #2, #4 and #5. He observed part of the issue is
the philosophy of how to fund projects over the long term. The problem with pay as you go is users pay
more now but with bonds, users pay a lot more later. There is also the discussion that people moving to
Edmonds in 10 years will pay higher rates than the current residents, essential backloading. He has never
been a fan of backloading and prefers pay as you go because there will be more projects in the future that
need to be funded. If it's backloaded, the price will be even higher because those future projects will need
to be funded and ratepayers are still paying the bonds for the previous projects. Mr. Williams agreed there
will be future projects that need to be funded.
Councilmember Mesaros was glad that Alderwood Water had lowered their rates. He summarized these are
the right rates and even though he didn't like to pay them, he has to have water and sewer service and storm
rates are important from an environmental standpoint.
Councilmember Tibbott asked about the life expectancy of the capital projects such as the pyrolysis project.
Mr. Williams expected a 30+ year life span, noting it was mechanical/electrical equipment so it would not
be 100 years like a pipe. He estimated 30+ years for the Ballinger sewer, and the pump station which is an
electrical/mechanical system has that shorter lifespan. Mr. Williams said it appears the best option would
be to eliminate the pump station which provides a much longer expected lifespan. Councilmember Tibbott
asked if the bonds are 30 years; Mr. Williams said they are 20 year bonds. Councilmember Tibbott observed
the bonds would be paid off and the projects would still have some life expectancy. He suggested that be
incorporated into the discussion.
Councilmember Johnson said the bottom line for her in reviewing the options is pay as you go for the
normal maintenance/rehabilitation of sewer, water and stormwater, and to consider bonding for large
projects. At first she didn't think that was a good idea because it increased the cost by one-third but she did
not like the other option which doubled the rate increases. A combination of bonding and gradual rate
increases would be beneficial to current residents. She referred to the choices related to financing and
favored debt for large 2022 with a 34% increase 2020-22 and 15.9% by 2046. She referred to Sewer
Financial Plan Scenarios, suggesting the debt for large project 3% increase in 2022 and 4% in 2023-24 was
a gentle approach. Mr. Williams said this is a six year outlook, the Sewer Financial Plan Scenarios illustrates
the long term rate increases. He pointed out in 2046-50, the monthly single family bill is about the same
under all the funding scenario. Councilmember Johnson summarized the question was who pays — pay now
or pay later.
Councilmember Johnson referred to the Capital Needs Forecast — Stormwater, observing $8.5M in
stormwater projects were forecast to be constructed in 2022 versus $3M in 2021. Mr. Williams anticipated
there would be marsh costs, the annual stormwater replacement and several other projects. Councilmember
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 26
Packet Pg. 33
7.2.a
Johnson observed that under Mayor Earling's guidance, the City has a 1% replacement program for all
three utilities.
Councilmember Nelson pointed out since 2010 utility taxes for Edmonds residents have increased 57% for
sewer, 75% for stormwater and 84% for water and that does not include any further rate increases. Adding
all the water, sewer and stormwater projects over the next five years, residents will be asked to pay for
$98.3M in projects. That is asking a lot of citizens and needs to be reevaluated. He did not support a pure
pay as you go funding policy.
Council President Fraley-Monillas said she did not support an increase, commenting citizens have been
overtaxed in the last 4-5 years. She has received a number of calls and emails about this. The bigger issue
is she sees this as a regressive tax because it hurts the most vulnerable in the community, the low income,
seniors, veterans and disabled who do not receive increases in their income to help pay for these increases.
Every time they pay more to the City, they have less for other expenses. It disproportionately effects people
of color on the Hwy 99 corridor. She did not support regressive taxation for that reason.
Councilmember Buckshnis preferred to have a public hearing and let the public weigh in rather than the
Council providing direction. Mr. Williams recalled in the past a specific proposal is provided for the public
to react to and adjustments can be made after public comment.
Council President Fraley-Monillas suggested the City go to the voters for a bond like other cities do. Mr.
Williams said he had never seen that done for utilities.
Councilmember Mesaros suggested bringing two proposals to the public hearing instead of six such as pay
as you go and bonding for some capital projects. He did not support keeping water rates artificially low
because that would hurt ratepayers more in the long run.
With regard to Councilmember Nelson's comment, Mr. Williams said the recommendation is not pay as
you go, it is to consider debt for the three big capital projects. It is a blend of pay as you go and bonding
for sewer. He asked if there was concern with the proposed rate increase for water and/or storm.
Councilmember Johnson said for the public hearing it is important to put things in perspective. For example
there is a proposed 9.5% increase in stormwater, but it is 9.5% on a very low amount. She suggested 2-3
options and identifying the cost per billing period.
Mayor Earling said the City is significantly better off with a pay as you go policy that keeps funding fairly
current. No one likes to pay additional fees that come with increased rates but Edmonds is a 129 year old
city that needs to care for its infrastructure. On a year by year basis, keeping costs under control and meeting
obligations has been very successful and he advocated that the Council consider that in the future.
Mr. Williams commented borrowing creates additional expenses that do not go toward pipes in the ground
or other improvements, it go toward interest, a total of $15M in interest to bond for those three projects.
Pay as you go is appropriate on the 1%/year pipe replacement which is not really a capital project but a
large maintenance bill. Retaining pay as you go for that and considering debt for larger projects seems to
make sense. He summarized it is a tough reality, the costs are there and will be paid; to some extent it is
pay now or pay more later. Edmonds' rates are fairly well positioned compared to other cities/districts. The
City does not want to get to a point where rates need to be raised 95% in a single year as has happened in
other places. The City Council has done a great job financially managing the utilities over the past 9 years;
there have been difficult decisions but the City is much better off than it was nine years ago and it would
be nice to continue that. He advised a public hearing is scheduled next week.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 27
Packet Pg. 34
Councilmember Johnson asked when need a decision on the rate increase is needed. Mr. Williams said by
the end of the year.
Due to the late hour, Items 10.4, 10.5 and 11.1 were postponed to a future Council meeting.
4. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN THE WATER QUALITY STORMWATER
CAPACITY GRANT FROM THE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
5. WASTEWATER TREATMENT DISPOSAL AND TRANSPORT CONTRACT
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
1. MONTHLY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MINUTES
12. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
Mayor Earling reported on a meeting held today with Mr. Williams, Mr. Doherty, the newly elected
Councilmembers and the City's State Lobbyist Debra Mongolia regarding legislative items.
13. COUNCIL COMMENTS
There were no Council comments.
14. CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PENDING OR POTENTIAL LITIGATION
PER RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)
This item was not needed.
15. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION. POTENTIAL ACTION AS A RESULT OF MEETING IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
This item was not needed.
16. ADJOURN
With no further business, the Council meeting was adjourned at 11:02 p.m.
Edmonds City Council Draft Minutes
November 19, 2019
Page 28
Packet Pg. 35
7.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/26/2019
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Nori Jacobson
Background/History
Approval of claim checks #239600 through #239691 dated November 21, 2019 for $799,409.37 and wire
payments of $18,147.04 and $11,683.67.
Approval of payroll direct deposit and checks #63992 through #63996 for $573,505.12, benefit checks
#63997 through #64001 and wire payments of $573,214.49 for the pay period November 1, 2019
through November 15, 2019.
Staff Recommendation
Approval of claim, payroll and benefit checks, direct deposit and wire payments.
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.
Attachments:
claims 11-21-19
wire 11-15-19
wire 11-21-19
payroll summary 11-21-19
payroll benefits 11-21-19
Packet Pg. 36
7.3.a
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239600 11/21/2019 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
81668
INV 81668 - EDMONDS PD-
K.GON2
NAVY TIE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
81669
INV 81669 - EDMONDS PD-
T.LOCK
NAVY TI E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
81670
INV 81670 - EDMONDS PD-
R.STRA
NAVY TIE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
81671
INV 81671 - EDMONDS PD
- H.CRY;
NAME TAPE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
BLAUER SOFTSHELL FLEECE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
81679
INV 81679 - EDMONDS PD-
W.MOR
NAVY TIE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
81680
INV 81680 - EDMONDS PD-
E.MART
NAVY TI E
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
81681
INV 81681 - EDMONDS PD
- HATS
CUSTOM EMBROIDERY
Page: 1
aD
L
3
c
�a
.y
Amoun o
a
aD
r
CU
d
9.9� :a
N
1.0(
m
z
v
9.9�
c
1.0(
c
�a
N •.
E
M
8.0( ,-
0
119.9�
1.0(
V)
E
9.9�
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 37
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239600 11/21/2019 076040 911 SUPPLY INC
239601 11/21/2019 065052 AARD PEST CONTROL
239602 11/21/2019 071634 ALLSTREAM
239603 11/21/2019 065568 ALLWATER INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
3 LOGO CAPS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
10.0% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
Total
27307
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI
MEADOWDALE CC PEST CONTROI
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
27502
WWTP: 11/19/19 PEST CONTROL S
11/19/19 Pest Control Service
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
16494668
C/A 768328
PR1-1 & 2 City Phone Service
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
Tourism Toll free lines 877.775.6929;
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
Econ Devlpmnt Toll free lines
001.000.61.558.70.42.00
Total
111319019
FINANCE DEPT WATER
Finance dept water
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
111319020
PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE
PARKS & RECREATION DEPT WATE
7.3.a
Page: 2
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
24.0( 'D
U
d
35.9
6.0(
261.71 44)
m
c
90.0( �
9.3E
0
73.0( a
7.5£
179.9:
0
Ta
0
968.5< a
a
Q
10.6(
rn
10.6( N
98917
E
85.4(
c
8.8£ E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 38
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239603 11/21/2019 065568 ALLWATER INC
239604 11/21/2019 008835 ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
111319021 WWTP: 11/15/19 DRINK WATER SEI
DRINK WATER SERVICE
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
50492731 UNIT 18 - PARTS
UNIT 18 - PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
SERVICE CHARGE
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
239605 11/21/2019 001375 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 035353-19106
040706-19106
040706-191108PBM
239606 11/21/2019 065419 ANIMAL CARE EQUIP & SERV INC 76808
Total
MEMBERSHIP
APA Membership Cat. 1 & WA chapte
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
CONSULTING: PLANNING ADVISOF
Planning Advisory Service and Zoninc
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
APA MEMBERSHIP
APA Membership, WA Chapter & Gro
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
Total
INV 76808 - EDMONDS PD
A/C BLOWPIPE KIT
001.000.41.521.70.35.00
Freight
001.000.41.521.70.35.00
7.3.a
Page: 3
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
27.3E 'D
r
U
d
2.81
N
21.9( 4)
z
U
2.2£ 4
148.6E c
c
�a
1,061.4� o
25.0( a
110.4(
1,196.86
0
Ta
0
668.0( a
a
Q
790.0( r'
665.0( N
2,123.0( E
U
c
275.0( E
t
U
21.0,
Q
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 39
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
239606 11/21/2019 065419 065419 ANIMAL CARE EQUIP & SERV INC (Continued)
239607 11/21/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1991490811
• . 7iP1* 1
1991500539
1991500540
Wl=71111-HIP1
PO # Description/Account
Total
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
WWTP: 11/13/19 UNIFORMSJOWE
Uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
Mats/Towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
PARKS MAINT UNIFORM SERVICE
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.24.00
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
FACILITIES DIVISION UNIFORMS
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.24.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
7.3.a
Page: 4
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
296.0: 0
U
d
L_
29.1 ,
N
3.0<
3.5( c
5.3E -a
c
�a
0.3E o
51.4E a
E
59.5( U
0
6.1E �a
0
L
a
a
29.1 , Q
rn
3.0<
N
1.6- V)
E
6.1-
6.1- y
E
t
6.1-
Q
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 40
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239607 11/21/2019 069751 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC LOBBY MATE
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.41.00
1991506116
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS & MAT
FLEET DIVISION UNIFORMS
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
FLEET DIVISION MATS
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.41.00
1991510358
WWTP: 11/19/19 UNIFORMSJOWE
Mats/Towels
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Uniforms
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.24.00
Total
7.3.a
Page: 5
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
aD
6.1- 'D
r
U
d
6.0E
m
z
0.61 u
0.6z c
d
0.6-
�a
0.6z o
L
�a
0.6z
E
9.2� u
0
19.1( >
0
L
0.91 a
Q
1.9f CD
N
51.4E
3.5(
5.3E
0.3E t
318.2E
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 41
7.3.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
11/21/2019 9:11:51AM City of Edmonds
a�
L
3
Bank code :
usbank
c
�a
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun N
239608
11/21/2019 071124 ASSOCIATED PETROLEUM
0132313-IN
WWWP: 11/5/19 DIESEL FUEL
0
ULSD #2 DYED - BULK fuel (include
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
2,239.2, u
10.4% Sales Tax
L
423.000.76.535.80.32.00
232.9(
Total:
2,472.1,
m
239609
11/21/2019 064341 AT&T MOBILITY
287283883350
WIRELESS SERVICE FOR AIRCARE
v
Mobile Aircards
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
14.5(
Total :
14.5(
239610
11/21/2019 001777 AURORA PLUMBING & ELECTRIC
INV302141
LIBRARY - PARTS
LIBRARY - PARTS
—
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
86.7E
10.1 % Sales Tax
a
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
8.7E
Total :
95.51 •�
239611
11/21/2019 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER
112248
OUT SOURCING OF UTILITY BILLS
UB Outsourcing area Printing 718
0
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
Ta
46.2( o
UB Outsourcing area Printing 718
a
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
46.2( Q
UB Outsourcing area Printing 718
.r
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
47.6- r'
UB Outsourcing area Postage 718
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
N
137.9-
UB Outsourcing area Postage 718
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
137.9( E
10.1 % Sales Tax
M
422.000.72.531.90.49.00
4.6 � U
10.1 % Sales Tax
c
423.000.75.535.80.49.00
4.8( E
10.1 % Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.49.00 4.6
Q
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 42
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO #
239611 11/21/2019 070305 070305 AUTOMATIC FUNDS TRANSFER (Continued)
239612 11/21/2019 001527 AWWA 0001964590
239613 11/21/2019 066891 BEACON PUBLISHING INC 31560/31629
239614 11/21/2019 075734 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH & CRISIS CON 11/11/2019
239615 11/21/2019 071421 BIO CLEAN INC
239616 11/21/2019 076741 BLOSSMAN SERVICES INC
Description/Account
Total ;
WWTP: AWWA COMP SURVEY BO(
AWWA COMP SURVEY BOOKS FOF
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
Total
HOLIDAY MARKET ADVERTISING M
Holiday Market advertising Mukilteo
001.000.61.558.70.41.40
Total
EDMONDS PD - THIRD QTR PEER
PEER SUPPORT QTRLY MEETING
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
PEER SUPPORT 1:1 CONTACT
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
INTERVIEW/SELECT TEAM MEMBE
001.000.41.521.10.41.00
Total
10426 INV 10426 - EDMONDS PD
CLEAN BIO HAZARDS - P9
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.48.00
Total
SO0041831 UNIT 10 CONNECTOR REPAIR KIT
UNIT 10 CONNECTOR REPAIR KIT
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Freight
511.000.77.548.68.31.10
Total
7.3.a
Page: 7
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
429.9E 0
U
d
L_
485.8(
N
34.0-
519.81
m
c
d
510.0( -a
510.0(
0
L
�a
150.0( a
E
50.0(
487.5( o
687.5(
0
Q
a
Q
325.0( c)
33.8" N
358.81
V)
E
5.0-
aD
9.6E E
14.6, U
Q
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 43
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239617 11/21/2019 072005 BROCKMANN, KERRY
239618 11/21/2019 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
8039 8547 PILATES
8039 8547 PILATES INSTRUCTION
8039 PILATES INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
8547 PILATES CLASS INSTRUCTIOI
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
8051 8054 YOGA
8051 8054 YOGA INSTRUCTION
8051 YOGA GENTLE WED CLASS If
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
8054 YOGA WED W/ KERRY CLASS
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
8057 YOGA
8057 YOGA INSTRUCTION
8057 YOGA TH W/ KERRY CLASS N
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
Total
20773708 INV 20773708 - EDMONDS PD
11/2019 CONTRACT CHARGE-IR62E
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10/2019 BW METER USAGE-IR6255
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
11/2019 CONTRACT CHARGE-IRC3
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10/2019 BW METER USAGE-IRC334'
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10/2019 CLR METER USAGE-IRC33
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
11/2019 CONTRACT CHARGE-IRC5,
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10/2019 BW METER USAGE-IRC42E
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10/2019 CLR METER USAGE-IRC52
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
20773709 CANNON NOVEMBER 2019
7.3.a
Page: 8
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
490.9E u
41.5E 13
N
m
t
561.3, u
841.5( c
c
534.6(
2,470.0( 0
L
a
151.8 ,
87.6 1 0
�a
60.7( o
a
a
25.81 Q
rn
187.3E
N
160.0(
64.5E .
R
U
184.6E
aD
95.9; _
U
�a
Q
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 44
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239618 11/21/2019 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
contract charge
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
bw meter usage
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
20773710
C/A 572105 CONTRACT# 3091 /0521
Finance dept copier contract charge
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
B&W Meter usage IRC5250
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
Color Meter usage IRC5250
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
20773711
CONTRACT CHARGE/METER USAC
contract charge/meter usage novemb
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.45.00
20773712
PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON'
PARKS & REC C5250 COPIER CON'
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
20773713
CANON 5250
contract charge Nov 2019
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
contract charge Nov 2019
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
contract charge Nov 2019
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
bw meter Oct 2019
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
7.3.a
Page: 9
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
59.5, u
180.2E
N
24.9<
v
209.6E c
a�
128.7(
�a
134.0E o
L
�a
49.1 ,
E
950.6( u
0
98.8E >
0
L
Q
a
525.4.E Q
rn
54.6,
N
167.6E
M
20.9E Z
c
20.9E E
34.4,
Q
Page: 9
Packet Pg. 45
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239618 11/21/2019 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
bw meter Oct 2019
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
bw meter Oct 2019
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
clr meter Oct 2019
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
clr meter Oct 2019
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
clr meter Oct 2019
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.22.518.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
20773714
WWTP: 11/2019 MO CHG+ 10/2019
11/2019 MO CHG+ 10/2019 METER 1
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.45.00
20773715
CANON 2501
contract charge Nov 2019
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
bw meter Oct 2019
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
clr meter Oct 2019
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.45.00
20773718
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
P&R PRINTER IRC2501F CONTRAC'
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
7.3.a
Page: 10
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
4.3- u
4.3(
N
200.6(
U
25.0E
m
c
25.0
c
41.8E f°
0
L
5.2z
a
5.2<
U
4-
264.1E 0
�a
27.4E
a
a
Q
26.4z c�
4.1, N
29.8,
M
6.2�
c
aD
165.7E t
U
�a
Q
Page: 10
Packet Pg. 46
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
239618 11/21/2019 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued)
20773719
20773720
20773723
20773724
20773725
PO # Description/Account
001.000.64.571.21.45.00
PARK MAINT IRC2501F COPIER COI
PARKS IRC2501F COPIER CONTRAi
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.45.00
FLEET COPIER
Fleet Copier
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
INV 20773723 - EDMONDS PD
11/19 CONTRACT CHARGE-IRC5551
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10/19 BW METER USAGE- IRC5550
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10/19 CLR METER USAGE- IRC555(
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
WATER SEWER COPIER
Water Sewer Copier
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
Water Sewer Copier
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
PW ADMIN COPIER
PW Office Copier for
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
PW Office Copier for
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
7.3.a
Page: 11
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
17.2E 'D
U
m
L
143.9 -, 13
N
14.9E
v
58.4'
a�
6.01
�a
0
185.7, `>,
M
a
87.4E E
311.9E u
4-
0
60.8E
0
a
a
106.7, Q
rn
106.7'
N
11.1'
11.1E •�
c
51.5E
t
51.5E L)
Q
Page: 11
Packet Pg. 47
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
239618 11/21/2019 073029 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES (Continued)
20773726
20777655
239619 11/21/2019 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA 7958 HOLIDAY CARDS
PO # Description/Account
PW Office Copier for
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
421.000.74.534.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.75.535.80.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
511.000.77.548.68.45.00
PW Office Copier for
001.000.65.518.20.45.00
PW Office Copier for
111.000.68.542.90.45.00
PW Office Copier for
422.000.72.531.90.45.00
INV 20773726 - EDMONDS PD
11/19 CONTRACT CHARGE-FAXBOi
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.45.00
ENG. COPIER NOVEMBER 2019
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.67.518.21.45.00
Eng. Copier November 2019
001.000.67.518.21.45.00
Total
7958 CUSTOM ART HOLIDAY CARD
7958 CUSTOM ART HOLIDAY CARD
7.3.a
Page: 12
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
51.5E u
L
13.4(
N
7.6(
v
7.6(Im-
W
c
5.3E m
c
5.3E f°
0
L
5.3E
a
128.9( E
73.0E ,-
0
73.0E >
0
a
a
36.0, Q
rn
3.7E
N
92.0E
M
885.2E
7,127.9F
W
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 12
Packet Pg. 48
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
239619 11/21/2019 071816 CARLSON, JESSICA (Continued)
239620 11/21/2019 069813 CDW GOVERNMENT INC VRR6899
239621 11/21/2019 069457 CITY OF EDMONDS 2002459.009
239622 11/21/2019 019215 CITY OF LYNNWOOD 15405
15418
15598
15627
15628
239623 11/21/2019 004579 COMPAAN, ALAN D COMPAAN IACP
PO # Description/Account
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total :
WWTP: PO 106 - POWER MODULE
PO 106 - POWER MODULE PW917C
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
REFUND YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: T
REFUND YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP: T
001.000.239.200
Total
WWTP: 5/2019 M/O+SEWER
5/2019 M/O & SEWER
423.000.75.535.80.47.20
WWTP: 7/2019 M/O+SEWER
7/2019 M/O & SEWER
423.000.75.535.80.47.20
WWTP: 8/2019 M/O+SEWER
8/2019 M/O+SEWER
423.000.75.535.80.47.20
WWTP: 9/2019 M/O+SEWER
TP: 9/2019 M/O & SEWER
423.000.75.535.80.47.20
WWTP: 10/2019 M/O+SEWER
10/2019 M/O & SEWER
423.000.75.535.80.47.20
Total
CHIEF COMPAAN IACP EXPENSE C
AIRFARE TO CHICAGO - IACP CON
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
7.3.a
Page: 13
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
132.0( -0
132.0( m
L_
N
1,824.0( y
t
U
189.7(
2,013.7( c
d
c
�a
52.0( —
52.0(
�a
a
E
42,307.0(
0
42,307.0( c
a
a
42,307.0( Q
rn
42,307.0(
E
42,307.0( 'M
211,535.0(
c
aD
E
t
170.3(
Q
Page: 13
Packet Pg. 49
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
239623 11/21/2019 004579 COMPAAN, ALAN D (Continued)
239624 11/21/2019 072700 CURVATURE LLC 90353648
239625 11/21/2019 006200 DAILYJOURNALOF COMMERCE 3353251
239626 11/21/2019 047450 DEPTOF INFORMATION SERVICES 2019100036
239627 11/21/2019 006635 DEPTOF LICENSING
239628 11/21/2019 077297 DERRICK, MICHAEL
239629 11/21/2019 064531 DINES, JEANNIE
4UZBVG110KGKX8807
MDERRICKI I -2019
19-3974
PO # Description/Account
AIRFARE TO SEATTLE FR. IACP CC
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
5 NITES CHICAGO HOTEL @a GSA R
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
Total
NETWORK FIBER SITE SURVEY
Wireless Site Survey for Network Fib(
512.000.31.518.87.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.87.41.00
Total
E8GA.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT
E8GA.RFQ Advertisement
423.000.75.594.35.65.41
Total
CUSTOMER ID# D200-0 SWV#0098
Scan Services for October 2019
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
Total
VEHICLE SALES TAX AND REGISTF
VEHICLE SALES TAX AND REGISTF
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
Total
WWTP: MICHAEL DERRICK 11/201�
Mileage Reimbursement for 11/13/19
423.000.76.535.80.43.00
Total
CITY COUNCIL MTG. MIN/TRANSCF
City Council Meeting Minutes and
001.000.25.514.30.41.00
7.3.a
Page: 14
a�
L
3
c
(a
Amoun N
0
a
m
81.3( u
1,145.0(
1,396.6(
m
v
4,490.0(
a�
466.9E
4,956.9E (0a
0
�a
a
453.6(
453.6( •�
0
�a
285.0( c
285.0( a
a
Q
rn
22,374.1,
22,374.1 , N
E
21.1' U
21.11 +:
c
(D
t
U
483.0(
Q
Page: 14
Packet Pg. 50
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
239629 11/21/2019 064531 064531 DINES, JEANNIE (Continued)
239630 11/21/2019 076517 DUENAS, ERIC EDUENAS11-2019
239631 11/21/2019 076610 EDMONDS HERO HARDWARE 1495
1497
1499
1503
239632 11/21/2019 065805 EDMONDS THEATER 11152019
239634 11/21/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION 6-00025
PO # Description/Account
Total :
WWTP: ERIC DUENAS 11/2019 EXF
Eric Duenas - 11/2019 EXPENSE CL,
423.000.76.535.80.43.00
Total
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
HISTORIC PLAQUES
HISTORIC PLAQUES
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: EXTENSION CORD
PM SUPPLIES: EXTENSION CORD
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
PM SUPPLIES: NUTS, BOLTS, SCRE
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
DIVERSITY COMMISSION FILM SEF
Diversity Commission Film Series
001.000.61.557.20.45.00
Total
MARINA BEACH PARK SPRINKLER
MARINA BEACH PARK
7.3.a
Page: 15
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
483.0(
U
d
L_
19.2(
19.2E
m
z
4.1m
c
d
0.4<
c
�a
3.7( o
�a
a
0.3E
U
8.9E c
1i
0.9< c
L
a
a
Q
4.7E
rn
0.5( N
23.7<
E
M
600.0(
600.0(
aD
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 15
Packet Pg. 51
7.3.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 16
11/21/2019 9:11:51AM City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
239634 11/21/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
0
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
as
334.0E -0
6-00200
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
FISHING PIER & RESTROOMS
L
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
869.1 E
6-00410
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
BRACKETT'S LANDING SOUTH SPF
d
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
494.8E U
6-00475
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
ANWAY PARK RESTROOMS
c
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,232.9'
6-01127
WWTP: 9/16-11/15/19 METER 2088:
9/16-11/15/19 200 2ND AVE S / METE
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
210.4E p
6-01130
WWTP: 9/16-11/15/19 METER 9439:
L-,
9/16-11/15/19 200 2ND AVE S / MET
a
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
24.6,
6-01140
WWTP: 9/16-11/15/19 METER 50104
9/16-11/15/19 200 2ND AVE S / MET
423.000.76.535.80.47.64
2,598.4E 0
6-01250
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
CITY PARK BALLFIELD SPRINKLER
o
L
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
475.3( 0-
6-01275
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
Q
CITY PARK PARKING LOT
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
1,487.0'
6-01280
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
N
CITY PARK SPRAY PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
966.9E ,n
6-02125
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
E
PINE STREET PLAYFIELD SPRINKL
f°
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
424.4E ;
6-02727
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
a�
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB SPRINKLER
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
307.2,
6-02730
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
Q
Page: 16
Packet Pg. 52
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 17
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
239634 11/21/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
0
CIVIC CENTER PLAYFIELD SKATE I
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
377.8z u
6-02735
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF
L
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX 250 5TF
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2,394.8E
6-02736
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH A�
FIRE STATION #17 FIRE 275 6TH Ab
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
14.01
6-02737
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
_
FIRE STATION #17 275 6TH AVE N /
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
479.5E 'a
6-02738
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA
PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX IRRIGA
o
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
382.2E
6-02745
VETERANS PLAZA
a
VETERANS PLAZA
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
377.8z 'i
6-02825
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / �
o
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2,929.3(
6-02875
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
o
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER FIF
a
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
24.6, Q
6-02885
DOWNTOWN RESTROOM
DOWNTOWN RESTROOM
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
468.7' N
6-02900
FAC SPRINKLER
FAC SPRINKLER
,n
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
474.9z .E
6-02925
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
fd
U
FRANCES ANDERSON CENTER 70(
};
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2,509.6� y
6-03000
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
E
CIVIC CENTER PARKING LOT SPRI
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
550.4,
Q
Page: 17
Packet Pg. 53
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239634 11/21/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
6-03275
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
HUMMINGBIRD HILL PARK SPRINKI
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-03575
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
MAPLEWOOD PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-04127
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
6-04128
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF
FIRE STATION #16 FIRE 8429 196TF
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
6-04400
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
SEAVIEW PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-04425
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-04450
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
SIERRA PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
6-05155
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC 7110 210TH ;
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
6-05156
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
7.3.a
Page: 18
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
m
241.3E
N
342.0,
v
1,094.9E c
a�
14.0,
0
L
669.1 z a
E
614.4( u
4-
0
�a
512.4� 0
a
a
Q
208.6E
792.9, N
792.9,
792.9, 2
792.9, (D
E
t
792.9" UM
Q
Page: 18
Packet Pg. 54
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
239634 11/21/2019 008705 EDMONDS WATER DIVISION (Continued)
239635
239636
6-06040
6-07775
6-08500
6-08525
11/21/2019 008812 ELECTRONIC BUSINESS MACHINES AR149763
11/21/2019 077143 ENVIROISSUES INC
165-007-000-6
PO # Description/Account
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
PUBLIC WORKS OMC FIRE 7110 21
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF
5 CORNERS ROUNDABOUT IRRIGF
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
MATHAY BALLINGER SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
YOST PARK SPRINKLER
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
Total
ELECTRONIC PRINTER NOVEMBEF
ELECTRONIC PRINTER NOV 2019
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.23.512.50.45.00
Total
ESJB.SERVICES THRU 10/31/19
ESJB.Services thru 10/31/19
7.3.a
Page: 19
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
1.7E u
6.6E
N
6.6E
U
6.6E
c
6.6E m
c
6.6E f°
0
L
�a
188.0E
E
397.9, u
0
�a
1,425.6,
a
a
Q
299.41
30,417.5 ,
N
13.0E .
R
U
1.3E };
14.4' y
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 19
Packet Pg. 55
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239636 11/21/2019 077143 ENVIROISSUES INC
239637 11/21/2019 009350 EVERETT DAILY HERALD
239638 11/21/2019 009410 EVERETT STEEL INC
239639 11/21/2019 011900 FRONTIER
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
421.000.74.594.34.65.41
ESJB.Services thru 10/31/19
423.000.75.594.35.65.41
ESJB.Services thru 10/31/19
422.000.72.594.31.65.41
Total
EDH879951
EBGA.RFQ ADVERTISEMENT
EBGA.RFQ Advertisement
423.000.75.594.35.65.41
Total
278369
PM SUPPLIES: TUBES
PM SUPPLIES: TUBES
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
425-712-0417
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
TELEMETRY CIRCUIT LINE
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
425-712-8251
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC ALARM, FAX,
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC FIRE AND IN'
001.000.65.518.20.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC FIRE AND IN'
111.000.68.542.90.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC FIRE AND IN'
421.000.74.534.80.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC FIRE AND IN'
423.000.75.535.80.42.00
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC FIRE AND IN'
511.000.77.548.68.42.00
7.3.a
Page: 20
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
1,003.0E -0
r
U
d
1,003.0E
1,003.0�
3,009.2°
m
c
188.2z (D
188.2d
c
�a
0
345.1( a
35.8E •E
380.95 U
4-
0
Ta
36.5E a
a
36.5E Q
rn
17.3(
86.5" E
M
72.6,
c
72.6 1 E
t
U
96.8E
Q
Page: 20
Packet Pg. 56
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
239639 11/21/2019 011900 FRONTIER (Continued)
425-775-2455
239640 11/21/2019 012190 GORSUCH, BRUCE 7970 CLASS
239641 11/21/2019 012560 HACH COMPANY 11715503
239642 11/21/2019 060985 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 0071<5410
239643 11/21/2019 060165 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC
239644 11/21/2019 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
VIIi%3
3299922
PO # Description/Account
CIVIC CENTER ALARM LINES 250 5
CIVIC CENTER FIRE AND INTRUSIC
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
Total
7970 GENEALOGY 1010 PLUS CLA:
7970 GENEALOGY 1010 PLUS CLA:
001.000.64.571.22.41.00
Total
WWTP: PO 115 - 2020 SRV AGMT 1;
PO 115 - 2020 SRV AGMT 121836
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.41.00
Total
WWTP: 1" VALVE DIAPHRAGM & VA
1" VALVE DIAPHRAGM & VALVE BAI
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
EBFC.SERVICES THRU 10/26/19
EBFC.Services thru 10/26/19
422.000.72.594.31.65.41
Total
WWTP: CREDIT INV 3305484 ISSUE
CREDIT INV 3305484 ISSUED AGAII
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
7.3.a
Page: 21
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
m
70.0z .L
489.2z
N
Y
V
m
U
97.5(
97.5( c
d
c
�a
3,410.0( —
0
354.6E a
3,764.6E
U
4-
913.8E o
0
46.3' a
a
99.8E Q
1,060.0: r'
N
1,507.5(
1,507.5(
c
36.0( E
U
�a
Q
Page: 21
Packet Pg. 57
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
239644 11/21/2019 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED (Continued)
3305484
3305965
3306020
3307015
3308623
3308636
PO # Description/Account
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
WWTP: CREDIT FOR INV 32999221
CREDIT INV. 3305484 DATED 10/281
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
INDOFF OFFICE SUPPLIES
INDOFF OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.23.523.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.23.523.30.31.00
INDOFF OFFICE SUPPLIES
INDOFF OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.23.523.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.23.523.30.31.00
INDOFF OFFICE SUPPLIES
INDOFF OFFICE SUPPLIES
001.000.23.523.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.23.523.30.31.00
WALL CALENDAR
Wall Calendar
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
WALL PLANNER CALENDAR
Wall Planner Calendar
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
CALENDAR
Calendar
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
7.3.a
Page: 22
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
3.7z 'D
U
m
-36.0(
N
-3.7z
129.2,
a�
13.4z
�a
0
330.6z `>,
M
a
34.3E
U
45 51.7E 0
�a
5.3� o
a
a
Q
15.4z
1.6- N
20.6E
R
U
2.1E
aD
E
t
18.0, um
Q
Page: 22
Packet Pg. 58
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239644 11/21/2019 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
3309186
AA BATTERIES
AA Batteries
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
3309191
CALENDAR
Calendar
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
3309193
WALL PLANNER, SCRATCH GUARS
Wall Planner Calendar, Scratch Guar
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
3311351
PUSH PINS
Push Pins
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
3311387
WWTP: CREDIT 3312393 ISSUED A
CREDIT 3312393 DATED 11/14/19 I;
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
3311936
WHITEBOARD CLEANING SPRAY,
Whiteboard Cleaning Spray, Super G
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
3311991
WWTP: PO 103 - PORTFOLIOS & C1
PO 103 - PORTFOLIOS & NAVIGATC
7.3.a
Page: 23
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
1.81 U
52.8E
m
5.5(
m
c
16.5�
c
1.7(
0
L
24.6- a
E
2.5E 'ca
0
3.1E >
0
L
0.3( a
Q
rn
4.3,
N
0.4E
E
28.4,
c
2.9E E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 23
Packet Pg. 59
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
239644
11/21/2019 073548 INDOFF INCORPORATED
(Continued)
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
3312393
WWTP: CREDIT FOR INV 33113871
CREDIT INV 3312393 DATED 11/14/,
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Total
239645
11/21/2019 070250 IRON MOUNTAIN
201993337
10-19 OFF SITE DATA STORAGE SE
Oct-2019 Off site data storage servic(
512.000.31.518.88.41.00
Tota I :
239646
11/21/2019 069366 ISSAQUAH HONDA KUBOTA
113761
PM SUPPLIES: SPRING
PM SUPPLIES: SPRING
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota I :
239647
11/21/2019 014957 J B INSTANT LAWN
755009
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH INSTANT LAV
PM: OLYMPIC BEACH INSTANT LAV
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Tota I :
239648
11/21/2019 075062 JAMESTOWN NETWORKS
5629
FIBER OPTICS INTERNET CONNEC
Nov-19 Fiber Optics Internet Connect
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
10.4% Sales Tax
512.000.31.518.87.42.00
Tota I :
7.3.a
Page: 24
Page: 24
Packet Pg. 60
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239649 11/21/2019 077294 KELLEY, JOHN
239650 11/21/2019 076521 KORSTAD, DAN
239651 11/21/2019 016850 KUKER RANKEN INC
239652 11/21/2019 073603 LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
11 /06/2019
DKORSTAD11.2019
INV-056940
INV-057127
Nov-19
239653 11/21/2019 068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INC E1CA.Pmt 21 Final
ESDA.Pmt 21 Final
PO # Description/Account
CPL PARTIAL REFUND - EDMONDS
CPL PARTIAL REFUND - PAID FOR)
001.000.322.90.000.00
CPL PARTIAL REFUND - PAID FOR)
001.000.237.100
CPL PARTIAL REFUND - PAID FOR)
001.000.237.190
Total
WWTP: DAN KORSTAD 11/2019 EXI
DAN KORSTAD 11/2019 EXP CLAIM
423.000.76.535.80.43.00
Total
PM: IRRIGATION REPAIRS: BATTER
PM: IRRIGATION REPAIRS: BATTER
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.41.00
WHATMORE 25' POWER MEASURII
Whatmore - 25' Power Measuring Tar
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
Total
11-19 LEGALS FEES
11-19 Legal fees
001.000.36.515.31.41.00
Total
ElCA.PMT21 'FINAL' THRU 10/31/"
ElCA.Pmt 21 'Final* thru 10/31/19
112.000.68.595.33.65.00
ESDA.PMT 21 *FINAL* THRU 10/31P
ESDA.Pmt 21 `Final' thru 10/31/19
7.3.a
Page: 25
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
8.0( u
L
13.2E
N
18.0(
39.2E u
m
c
a�
27.3E
27.3f
0
�a
a
299.4" E
31.1� U
4-
0
�a
15.6< p
L
a
1.6< Q
347.W "
rn
N
47,964.0(
47,964.0( E
U
c
56,974.0E
t
U
co
Q
Page: 25
Packet Pg. 61
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
239653
11/21/2019 068670 MARSHBANK CONSTRUCTION INC
(Continued)
112.000.68.595.33.65.00
Tota I :
239654
11/21/2019 075746 MCMURRAY, LAURA
8083 8086 FELDENKRAI
8083 8086 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUC
8083 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
8086 FELDENKRAIS INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
Total
239655
11/21/2019 069053 MICRO COM SYSTEMS LTD
17417
LARGE SCALE SCANNING
Large format scanning of plans/docs
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
Total
239656
11/21/2019 020900 MILLERS EQUIP & RENT ALL INC
316527
PM SUPPLIES: PRIMER BULB, K12-
PM SUPPLIES: PRIMER BULB, K12-
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
239657
11/21/2019 024960 NORTH COAST ELECTRIC COMPANY
S009697773.001
WWTP: PO 110 - WIRE CUTTING RI
PO 110 - WIRE CUTTING REEL X-FL
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Tota I :
239658
11/21/2019 025690 NOYES, KARIN
000 00 957
PROF SERVICES
Planning Board Minutes (11/13/19)
001.000.62.558.60.41.00
Tota I :
239659
11/21/2019 065720 OFFICE DEPOT
39566048001
INV 395660484001-ACCT90520437-I
6 X 9 GRN NOTEBOOKS -TIERED E
7.3.a
Page: 26
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
-20,091.0( 'D
36,883.0E m
L_
N
344.5(
t
U
102.7E
447.2E c
c
�a
560.6( —
560.6(
�a
a
E
17.2(
4-
1.7� o
18.95 c
0
Q
a
Q
91.2E c�
9.4� N
100.71
V)
E
2
U
148.0( +:
148.0( (D
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 26
Packet Pg. 62
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
239659
11/21/2019 065720 OFFICE DEPOT
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
3 X 5 MEMO NOTEBOOKS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
4 BOXES - BLACK PENS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
Total
239660
11/21/2019 026015 OLYMPIC BALLET THEATRE
TPA OBT
TPA OBT
EAC TOURISM PROMOTION AGREE
123.000.64.573.20.41.00
Tota I :
239661
11/21/2019 077296 ONEILL, PATRICIA
OCTOBER REIMBURSE
CULTURAL CONGRESS REGISTRA
CULTURAL CONGRESS REGISTRA
117.100.64.573.20.49.00
Total
239662
11/21/2019 075735 PACIFIC SECURITY
29586
SECURITY 10/04 TO 10/18
SECURITY 10-4 TO 10-18
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
Total
239663
11/21/2019 076815 PARKS, KIMBERLY
8039 PILATES
8039 PILATES CLASS INSTRUCTIOI
8039 PILATES CLASS INSTRUCTIOI
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
Tota I :
239664
11/21/2019 069633 PET PROS
0017460-IN
INV 0017460-IN - EDMONDS PD- HC
DOG FOOD -HOBBS
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
10.5% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.26.31.00
Tota I :
7.3.a
Page: 27
Page: 27
Packet Pg. 63
7.3.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 28
11/21/2019 9:11:51AM City of Edmonds
a�
L
3
Bank code :
usbank
c
�a
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun N
239665
11/21/2019 007800 PETTY CASH
AUG-NOV 2019
AUG-NOV 2019
0
m
Breakfast items for council budget
001.000.11.511.60.31.00
29.9E u
Snack for wellness event -softball garr
L
001.000.22.518.10.31.10
59.2,
Mileage and parking @ Snohomish C
001.000.67.518.21.43.00
23.2-
Parking @ training Snohomish Count
U
001.000.67.518.21.43.00
6.0(
Parking @ ICC Meetings - Rob Englis
c
001.000.67.518.21.43.00
8.0( m
Parking for conference - Nicholas Fal
c
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
15.0( f°
Total:
141.35 0
L
239666
11/21/2019 064088 PROTECTION ONE
2445047
ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CEN
a
ALARM MONITORING SENIOR CEN
E
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
35.0( 'ji
291104
ALARM MONITORING - PARKS MAII
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I
o
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
25.8� >
ALARM MONITORING FOR PARKS I
o
001.000.64.576.80.42.00
25.8E a
291104
ALARM MONITORING - FS #16
Q
ALARM MONITORING FOR FIRE ST
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
34.1,
291104
ALARM MONITORING - FS #17
04
ALARM MONITORING - FS #17
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
78.3E
291104
ALARM MONITORING - HISTORIC N
E
ALARM MONITORING FOR HISTOR
2
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
129.0E };
291104
ALARM MONITORING - TREATMEN -
aD
ALARM MONITORING - TREATMEN-
E
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
50.7< U
291104
ALARM MONITORING - PUBLIC SAF
Q
Page:
28
Packet Pg. 64
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239666 11/21/2019 064088 PROTECTION ONE
239667 11/21/2019 070809 PUGET SOUND EXECUTIVE
239668 11/21/2019 073885 RANDOLPH, PAMELA
239669 11/21/2019 038413 RMT EQUIPMENT
239670 11/21/2019 076709 ROSEN, MICHAEL
239671 11/21/2019 076328 SCJ ALLIANCE
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
ALARM MONITORING - PUBLIC SAF
001.000.66.518.30.42.00
291104
FIRE INSPECTION - FS#17, HISTOF
FIRE INSPECTION - FS#17
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
FIRE INSPECTION - HISTORIC MUS
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
FIRE INSPECTION - PUBLIC SAFET
001.000.66.518.30.41.00
Total
19-2399
SECURITY 10-28 TO 10-30
SECURITY 10-28 TO 10-30
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
Total
PRANDOLPH11.2019
WWTP: PAMELA RANDOLPH 11/201
Pamela Randolph Mileage & Parking
423.000.76.535.80.43.00
Total
P10908
PM SUPPLIES: DRIVELINE SHIELD
PM SUPPLIES: DRIVELINE SHIELD
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
Total
2019-1
CONSULTING ECONOMIC DEVELO
Consulting services for economic
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Total
58477
E6AA.SERVICES THRU 10/19/19
E6AA.Services thru 10/19/19
7.3.a
Page: 29
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
112.5( u
55.4,
m
35.0, u
153.3z c
735.4(
c
�a
0
728.7E
728.7° a
E
U
133.2 ' c
133.21 0
0
a
a
366.8£ Q
rn
38.1 E
405.0'
E
3,500.0(
3,500.0(
W
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 29
Packet Pg. 65
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
239671
11/21/2019 076328 SCJ ALLIANCE
(Continued)
112.000.68.595.33.65.41
Tota I :
239672
11/21/2019 076541 SERVER SUPPLY
3519274
WWTP: PO 98 - HARD DRIVE W/TR
PO98 - HARD DRIVE W/TRAY FOR
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Freight
423.000.76.535.80.48.00
Total
239673
11/21/2019 068132 SHORELINE CONSTRUCTION CO
ESJB.Pmt 6
ESJB.PMT 6 THRU 10/31/19
ESJB.Pmt 6 thru 10/31/19
421.000.74.594.34.65.10
ESJB.Pmt 6 thru 10/31/19
422.000.72.594.31.65.20
ESJB.Pmt 6 thru 10/31/19
423.000.75.594.35.65.30
Total
239674
11/21/2019 036955 SKY NURSERY
T-1489907
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS
PM: FLOWER PROGRAM PLANTS
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
10.2% Sales Tax
001.000.64.576.81.31.00
Total
239675
11/21/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
200260271
YOST POOL
YOST POOL
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
200398956
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
FIRE STATION #16 8429 196TH ST ;
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
200611317
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
LIFT STATION #9 19300 80TH AVE V
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
7.3.a
Page: 30
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
aD
2,250.0z -0
2,250.01 m
L_
N
113.8E y
t
U
63.0z
176.85 c
c
�a
90,268.6< o
73,958.2z m
CL
82,750.6' •E
246,977.5( U
4-
0
�a
256.7z a
a
26.1 Q
282.9: r'
N
394.E
M
1,084.9E
aD
E
t
143.0E
Q
Page: 30
Packet Pg. 66
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239675 11/21/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
200714038
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
200723021
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
TRAFFIC LIGHT 961 PUGET DR / MI
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
200739845
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
SEAVIEW RESERVOIR 18520 90TH
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
201197084
SEAVIEW PARK
SEAVIEW PARK
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
201441755
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21531 HWY 99 / ME
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
201551744
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST /
SNO-ISLE LIBRARY 650 MAIN ST / IN
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
201942489
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
001.000.65.518.20.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
111.000.68.542.90.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
511.000.77.548.68.47.00
PUBLIC WORKS CIVIC 7110 210TH ;
422.000.72.531.90.47.00
202250627
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED
9TH/GASPER LANDSCAPED BED
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
202289450
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME
7.3.a
Page: 31
aD
L
3
c
�a
Amoun N
0
a
m
U
m
16.3<
N
28.2E
15.9z c
d
30.2<
0
L
171.6E a
E
2,129.0E u
4-
0
�a
84.1 - 0
a
a
319.6" Q
rn
319.6"
N
319.E -
319.E -
R
U
319.E -
a�
E
z
12.5E UM
Q
Page: 31
Packet Pg. 67
7.3.a
vchlist Voucher List Page: 32
11/21/2019 9:11:51AM City of Edmonds
a�
L
3
Bank code : usbank
c
�a
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice
PO # Description/Account
Amoun y
239675 11/21/2019 037375 SNO CO PUD NO 1 (Continued)
0
m
TRAFFIC LIGHT 21931 HWY 99 / ME
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
69.3( u
202291662
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1,
L
CIVIC CENTER & FIRE STATION #1,
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
5,184.61
202439246
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
CITY HALL 121 5TH AVE N / METER
001.000.66.518.30.47.00
2,720.3(
202540647
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
c
SIERRA PARK IRRIGATION 8100 191
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
18.8� c
203097787
WWTP:10/17-11/13/19 METER 1000
sa
10/17-11/13/19 200 2ND AVE S / ME
o
423.000.76.535.80.47.61
21,418.1 f
203652151
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
a
FIVE CORNERS RESERVOIR 85191
E
421.000.74.534.80.47.00
260.9' 'ji
204425847
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
LIFT STATION #2 702 MELODY LN /
o
423.000.75.535.80.47.10
65.4 1 >
220216386
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
0
PEDEST CAUTION LIGHTS 8410 MF
a
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
81.8" Q
220547574
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1
TRAFFIC LIGHT SR104 @ 236TH S1
111.000.68.542.63.47.00
78.7' N
220792758
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME
TRAFFIC LIGHT 22730 HWY 99 - ME
,n
111.000.68.542.64.47.00
316.2, .E
Total:
35,923.3f 2
239676 11/21/2019 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 75897
PARKS MAINT 5005 DUMP FEES
PARKS MAINT DUMP FEES
a�
E
001.000.64.576.80.47.00
531.0( U
ILLEGAL DUMP FEES
Q
Page: 32
Packet Pg. 68
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 33
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
239676
11/21/2019 006630 SNOHOMISH COUNTY
(Continued)
422.000.72.531.10.49.00
10.0(
Tota I :
541.0(
239677
11/21/2019 070167 SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER
E7DC.MPC
E7DC.MAPLEWOOD PRESBYTERIP
E7DC.Maplewood Presbyterian Chur(
112.000.68.595.20.61.00
112.4
Total :
112.41
239678
11/21/2019 038300 SOUND DISPOSAL CO
104757
WWTP: 10/2019 ROLLOFF ASH DIE:
10/2019 Ash disposal & taxes
423.000.76.535.80.47.65
1,876.51
Total:
1,876.51
239679
11/21/2019 074990 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES
1541466
EBJA.SERVICES THRU 6/28/19
EBJA.Services thru 6/28/19
421.000.74.594.34.65.41
7,569.5E
Total:
7,569.5f
239680
11/21/2019 076474 STROMME, JOANNE
8060 8063 YOGA
8060 8063 YOGA INSTRUCTION
8060 HATHA YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
509.3(
8063 HATHA YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
486.7E
8066 YOGA
8066 YOGA INSTRUCTION
8066 HATHA YOGA INSTRUCTION
001.000.64.571.27.41.00
485.6E
Total:
1,481.7(
239681
11/21/2019 040916 TC SPAN AMERICA
91826
ENGINEERING STAFF FIELD JACKE
Engineering Staff Field Jackets
001.000.67.518.21.24.00
269.8(
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.67.518.21.24.00
28.0(
Tota I :
297.8E
239682
11/21/2019 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION
DH-10925948
WWTP: 12/8/19-12/7/20 SUBSCRIPT
Page: 33
Packet Pg. 69
vchlist
11/21/2019 9:11:51 AM
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
7.3.a
Page: 34
Bank code :
Voucher
usbank
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
Amoun
239682
11/21/2019 065459 THE HERALD SUBSCRIPTION
(Continued)
12/8/19-12/7/20 SUBSCRIPTION REI
423.000.76.535.80.49.00
260.7-
Total :
260.71
239683
11/21/2019 073749 THE WATERSHED COMPANY
2019-1452
TREE BOARD CONSULTANT
Tree Board Consulting
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
735.7(
2019-1458
TREE BOARD CONSULTING
Tree Board Consulting
001.000.62.524.10.41.00
4,153.7,'
Total:
4,889.4°
239684
11/21/2019 072649 THE WIDE FORMAT COMPANY
119796
PLOTTER PAPER
Paper for plotter (4 rolls)
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
194.Of
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
20.1 £
Total :
214.2E
239685
11/21/2019 072172 VAUGHAN, ERIC
EVAUGHAN11-2019
WWTP: EVAUGHAN 11/2019 EXP Cl
EVAUGHAN 11/2019 EXP CLAIM for
423.000.76.535.80.43.00
19.3 ,
Total :
19.3j
239686
11/21/2019 067865 VERIZON WIRELESS
9841206197
C/A442201730-00001
iPad Cell Service Mayor's Office
001.000.21.513.10.42.00
35.1 ,
Total:
35.1,
239687
11/21/2019 069816 VWR INTERNATIONAL INC
8088229676
WWTP: PO 125 - NITRILE GLOVES
PO 125 - NITRILE GLOVES FOR LAI
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
159.3E
10.4% Sales Tax
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
16.5,
Total:
175.9:
Page: 34
Packet Pg. 70
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
239688 11 /21 /2019 075155 WALKER MACY LLC
239689 11 /21 /2019 073552 W ELCO SALES LLC
239690 11 /21 /2019 074609 WEST COAST ARMORY NORTH
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
P3282.04-18
CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
CIVIC LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
126.000.64.594.76.65.41
Total
7722
PAPER SUPPLIES NOV 2019
BROCHURES
001.000.23.523.30.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.23.523.30.31.00
7724
PRINTED FORMS
Correction Notice forms (Qty 250)
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
Total
1722347
INV 1422347 - EDMONDS PD
OCT 2019 RANGE FEES
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
239691 11/21/2019 069605 WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS 2019-EDM-OCT
91 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
91 Vouchers in this report
Total :
PRO CONSULTANT
Project Plan Review (BLD20181622)
001.000.62.524.20.41.00
Total
Bank total
Total vouchers
7.3.a
Page: 35
a�
L
3
c
�a
Amoun y
0
a
m
64,135.1- u
64,135.11
N
m
256.0(
26.6,
a�
265.5(
0
27.6" j,
575.7: a
E
U
65.2( c
Ta
6.8( c
72.0( a
a
Q
rn
28,327.5(
28,327.5(
799,409.3,
2
799,409.31, U
c
aD
E
t
U
�a
Q
Page: 35
Packet Pg. 71
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 9:11:51 AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
7.3.a
Page: 36
Amoun
Page: 36
Packet Pg. 72
7.3.b
vchlist
11 /15/2019 10:32:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11152019 11/15/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
1522
1522 SHANNON BURLEY CREDIT C
DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLIES: PR
001.000.64.571.29.31.00
DOMINOS: YOUTH COMMISSION Si
001.000.64.571.21.31.00
AMAZON: S BURLEY MONITOR, MC
001.000.64.571.21.35.00
HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS: PM SUF
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
1522
CREDIT FOR RETURNED ITEMS - A
AMAZON - S BURLEY MONITOR AR
001.000.64.571.21.35.00
1885
-1885 11/06/2019 PD 2 CREDIT CAR
FUEL CITY VEHICLE- LEAVENWOR
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
HARDWICK - LEAVENWORTH 10/6-
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
SPEER - LEAVENWORTH 10/7-10/9
001.000.41.521.40.43.00
2519
-2519 11/06/19 PD 1 CREDIT CARD
SHIP TO WSP CRIME LAB 18-8176
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
SHIP TO WSP PRINT LAB 19-23753
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
3048
-3048 11/06/19 THOMPSON CREDIT
IACP MEMBERSHIP - SWARTZ
001.000.41.521.71.49.00
2020 CALENDARS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
2020 CALENDAR - MACHADO
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
SLEEVES - COMPOSTABLE CUPS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
BOXES OF BLUE PENS
Page: 1
m
L
3
c
ea
Amoun 00
a
0
0
129.1( m
=a
159.7E Y
m
619.6" u
52.8z
a�
-67.6,
0
35.4E a
320.8,
z
213.8E o
�a
0
20.3( a
a
Q
24.1
r.
75.0(
T
m
26.2, 3
30.3(
E
6.0E
�a
a
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 73
vchlist
11 /15/2019 10:32:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11152019 11/15/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
CASES COMPOSTABLE CUPS
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
50 PACKETS OF 2 ADVIL CAPSULE
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
BOOTS FOR MEL MOORE
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
BOOTS FOR SAUNDERS
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
001.000.41.521.10.31.00
001.000.41.521.22.31.00
001.000.41.521.22.24.00
3314
-3314 11/06/19 LAWLESS CREDIT C
PROXIMITY CARD READERS
001.000.41.521.11.35.00
DIGNITARY PROTECTION OPS TRN
628.000.41.521.23.31.00
BUSHNELL TRAIL CAM DATA PLAN
001.000.41.521.22.42.00
3915
SHOPE-VISA
RPNW Tacoma - Parking
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
RPNW Tacoma -Parking
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
RPNW Seattle - Parking
001.000.62.524.10.43.00
4171
-4171 11/06/19 MCCLURE CREDIT C
CUFF KEYS AND 26" ASPS
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
OFFICER LEATHER GOODS
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
7.3.b
Page: 2
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
60.0E
289.5(
=a
31.6E ui
Y
m
220.5E
243.9E m
c
a�
43.1 E
c
�a
3.1 E o
0
25.4E a
E
348.0( U
0
1,200.0(
0
9.9E a
a
Q
18.0( T_
Lh
6.0(
T
m
15.0( 3
c
684.4, E
t
432.0(
Q
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 74
vchlist
11 /15/2019 10:32:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11152019 11/15/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
CANVA GRAPHICS SUBSCRIPTION
001.000.41.521.40.41.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
4540
4540 PARKS CREDIT CARD
PANERA: WOTS SUPPLIES
117.100.64.573.20.31.00
AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: SHARPIE
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
AMAZON: GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES
001.000.64.571.28.31.00
AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: TAPE
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: CANOPY
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: CANOPY
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
AMAZON: REC SUPPLIES: K ANDEF
001.000.64.571.22.31.00
AMAZON: GYMNASTICS SUPPLIES
001.000.64.571.28.31.00
FACEBOOK: YOUTH COMMISSION,
001.000.64.571.21.41.40
ISSUU: DIGITAL CRAZE
001.000.64.571.22.49.00
AMAZON: PM SUPPLIES: HOLIDAY
001.000.64.576.80.31.00
PAYPAL: WOTS SUPPLIES: SHAW C
117.100.64.573.20.49.00
ARTS NORTHWEST: EAC MEMBER
117.100.64.573.20.49.00
COMPLETE PACKAGING: REC SUP
127.000.64.575.50.35.00
4540
CONFERENCE LODGING REFUND:
7.3.b
Page: 3
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
m
12.9E
m
L
71.1E `a
N
Y
m
806.9-
7.3E m
c
a�
131.3(
c
�a
18.T o
44.11 a
154.5( •�
U
194.0, o
R
6.8' o
L
a
5.0( Q
rn
39.0'
Lh
82.7,
T
m
500.0( 3
145.0(
E
684.4'
�a
a
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 75
vchlist
11 /15/2019 10:32:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11152019 11/15/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
NRPAANNUAL CONFERENCE LOD,
001.000.64.571.22.43.00
4697
HOLIDAY EMPLOYEE RECOGNITIO
cardstock
001.000.61.558.70.31.00
poster paper student exchange
138.100.21.557.21.31.00
employee holiday recognization even
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
employee holiday recog. event
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.61.558.70.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
138.100.21.557.21.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.21.513.10.31.00
4787
-4787 11/06/19 SOCIAL WORKER Cl
CLIENT LOCKBOX-SOBER HOUSIN
001.000.39.565.40.41.00
8.2% Sales Tax
001.000.39.565.40.41.00
4929
DSD VISA (VARIOUS)
Amazon: Electric comb binding mach
001.000.62.524.10.35.00
ULine:Telescoping Easels (Qty: 9)
001.000.62.524.10.35.00
Seattle Times: Newspaper subscriptic
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
Squarespace: Website subscription
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
Home Depot:Tall office/draftinig chair
001.000.62.558.60.35.00
Amazon: Misc office supplies (Dev S�
7.3.b
Page: 4
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
m
-202.1 ,
m
L
30.2z ui
Y
m
68.9�
89.8E m
c
aD
96.9,
c
�a
3.2" o
7.3" a
14.6E •�
U
0
67.9E
0
5.5E
a
Q
407.3E T-
Lh
1,526.0E
T
m
43.5( 3
238.0E
E
217.7,
�a
Q
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 76
vchlist
11 /15/2019 10:32:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11152019 11/15/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
Amazon: Drafting chair (MClugston)
001.000.62.558.60.35.00
Amazon: Office Supplies
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
Adobe: Subscription
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
Amazon: office supplies
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
Amazon: office calendar 2020
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
Amazon: Misc office supplies
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
Amazon: Monitor arm
001.000.62.524.10.35.00
Amazon: Zoning Book (MClugston)
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
Amazon: Office Supplies (bankers bo
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
Amazon: Office supplies
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
WABO: 2015 Mechanical Code Study
001.000.62.524.20.31.00
Amazon: Receptionist telephone hea(
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
NW Environ Business Council (confer
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
Amazon: Misc office supplies
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
Amazon: Office Supplies
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
PayPal: Housing Consortium registrai
001.000.62.558.60.49.00
Laminator.com -office supplies
7.3.b
Page: 5
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
88.6E
363.7-
=a
326.4� ui
Y
m
58.5(
47.0' m
c
a�
22.0,
c
�a
84.5E o
132.4, a
49.6E •�
U
80.3E o
R
13.8z o
L
a
61.7� Q
M
167.8 -
Lh
T
215.0(
T
m
87.& 3
29.7E
E
20.0(
�a
Q
Page: 5
Packet Pg. 77
vchlist
11 /15/2019 10:32:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11152019 11/15/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
Amazon: misc office supplies
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
4929
AMAZON REFUNDS
Amazon - Multipurpose storage bin p<
001.000.62.524.10.31.00
g Amazon - VIVO Premium Aluminum F
001.000.62.524.10.35.00
5593
CITY CLERK'S CC PAYMENT
Snohomish City Recording - planning
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
Replace broken council chambers ple
001.000.25.514.30.48.00
Snohomish City Recording - planning
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
Snohomish City Recording Utility lien;
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
Snohomish City Recording Utility lien:
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
Snohomish City Recording Parking
001.000.25.514.30.43.00
Snohomish City Reccording Planning
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
Amazon - keyboard and mouse
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
Amazon, phone handset
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
Amazon, key organizational items, mi
001.000.25.514.30.49.00
Amazon - office supplies
001.000.25.514.30.31.00
5923
DIV COMMISSION MOVIES, HERALI
Diversity Commission Film Series
001.000.61.557.20.49.00
7.3.b
Page: 6
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
45.0'
29.7E
=a
N
-29.7E
m
t
132.41
m
c
a�
188.5( M
c
�a
243.4< —
0
104.5( sa
a
380.0( .E
R
U
380.0( o
R
3.0( o
L
a
188.5( Q
43.9< T-
Lh
114.2E
T
m
19.8E 3
16.2E
E
t
220.8E
a
Page: 6
Packet Pg. 78
vchlist
11 /15/2019 10:32:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11152019 11/15/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO #
Description/Account
(Continued)
Annual subscription to the digital
001.000.61.557.20.49.00
Diversity Commission facebook
001.000.61.557.20.41.40
Business recruitment ad in Novembei
001.000.61.558.70.41.40
Diversity Commission refreshments f(
001.000.61.557.20.31.00
OfficeSpace property database for Ci
001.000.61.558.70.41.00
Diversity Commission Film Series
001.000.61.557.20.49.00
7483
BUSINESS LUNCH
lunch meeting Earl ing/Echelbarger
001.000.21.513.10.49.00
8017
ENG CREDIT CARD OCTOBER 201
E7FG.Storm Supplies
422.000.72.531.90.49.20
Hague-2019 NWPMA Conference $2;
001.000.67.518.21.49.00
Hague-AirBNB for 2019 NWPMA Con
001.000.67.518.21.43.00
E9AA.ROW Permit Fee to Sno. Coun
112.000.68.542.30.41.00
Whatmore-Monitor
001.000.67.518.21.35.00
10.4% Sales Tax
422.000.72.531.90.49.20
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.67.518.21.35.00
8305
APPLE ITUNES - ICLOUD FOR CITY
APPLE ITUNES - ICLOUD FOR CITY
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
B I D-1 687/0907
BID/ED! FACEBOOK MARKETING Al
7.3.b
Page: 7
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
m
99.9E
m
L
38.6E `a
N
Y
1,100.0(
t
8.9E
w
m
c
100.0(
100.0(
0
24.6" a
E
43.9, U
0
1,283.9,
0
134.8E a
a
Q
140.0(
M
499.9� LO
4.5,
L
52.0( 3
c
E
0.9�
�a
a
Page: 7
Packet Pg. 79
vchlist
11 /15/2019 10:32:34AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11152019 11/15/2019 062693 US BANK
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
BID/Ed!facebook ads
140.000.61.558.70.41.40
Total
Bank total
Total vouchers
7.3.b
Page: 8
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
m
52.6�
18,147.0'
=a
18,147.0' ui
Y
V
18,147.0i
v
w
m
c
a�
c
0
L
Q
C
G
V
4-
0
0
L
Q
a
M
r
Lh
r
r
T
�3
c
a�
E
a
Page: 8
Packet Pg. 80
7.3.c
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 10:57:44AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11212019 11/21/2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
0747
PW CC 11/06/19
LOWES - MULCH FOR FILTER ARE)
422.000.72.531.40.31.00
SKY GARDEN CENTER - CHARGEC
422.000.72.531.10.31.00
SKY GARDEN CENTER - STORM S1
422.000.72.531.10.31.00
AMAZON - PW SUPPLIES SHIPPIN(
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
GREEN RIVER COLLEGE - THOR N
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
GREEN RIVER COLLEGE - KENNY,
421.000.74.534.80.49.00
AMAZON - OTTERBOX IPAD CASE)
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
OTTER BOX - IPAD CASE
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
AMAZON - PW SUPPLIES
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
0747
AMAZON - REFUND FOR OTTERBC
AMAZON - REFUND FOR OTTERBC
001.000.65.518.20.31.00
0881
CC STMT - OFFICE SUPPLIES
STAPLES ON 10-17-19-
001.000.23.512.50.31.00
1558
NUC, MONITORS, JOOMLA, DOMAII
Paddle.net - Joomla Deluxe Bundle
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
2COCOM - RSEvents Pro Single site
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
AT&T
512.000.31.518.88.42.00
Newegg.com - APC RBC24 Compatik
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
Page: 1
m
L
3
c
ea
Amoun 00
a
m
14.0E m
=a
38.5E Y
m
38.5E 0
70.0z
a�
450.0(
c
�a
450.0( o
116.9 a
88.2 M
z
348.8; IS
M
0
L
-89.3£ 0-
El
626.6(
N
T
123.1- m
L
33.9 � 3
c
140.2E E
t
109.2E
Page: 1
Packet Pg. 81
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 10:57:44AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11212019 11 /21 /2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
Monoprice - Misc cables and adapter
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
Amazon - Wireless charger, USB wal
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
ENOM - Bulk Register Domain Name
512.000.31.518.88.49.00
Newegg.com - Intel NUC Barebone s,
512.100.31.518.88.35.00
Remote PC - Remote access service
512.000.31.518.88.48.00
Amazon - Foldable Arc Wireless Mou
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
Amazon - Mitel Bluetooth Handset
001.000.62.524.10.49.00
Newegg.com - ASUS VE228H 22" Mc
512.100.31.518.88.35.00
Newegg.com - Club3D Type C to HDP
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
Newegg.com - Club 3D USB-C to Dis
512.000.31.518.88.31.00
Office Depot - 11 x17 paper
001.000.31.514.23.31.00
1937 FLEET CC 11/06/19
CANOPY WORLD - E167WQ DEPO:
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
HEARTLAND - UNIT 438 PARTS
511.000.77.548.68.48.00
HOME DEPOT - E163EQ PARTS
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
AMAZON - E170WR PARTS
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
UPS - E170WR SHIPPING TO CUES
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
WA STATE LICENSING - VEHICLE
7.3.c
Page: 2
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
m
58.1
m
L
68.3E `a
N
Y
46.2 ,
t
1,068.4E
m
c
374.6,
30.8E
114.2E
�a
a
220.7E E
96.0E U
0
51.9z
0
L
22.0E a
Q
rn
1,000.0(
N
283.1
T
m
9.9( 3
187.E ,
E
35.9,
�a
a
Page: 2
Packet Pg. 82
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 10:57:44AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11212019 11 /21 /2019 062693 US BANK
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice
PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
511.100.77.594.48.64.00
PARKING - ELECTRIFYING OUR RE
511.000.77.548.68.49.00
2985
WWTP: CLASS CREDIT, DK ORGAI`
Amazon: Pens, Laminating sheets, p�
423.000.76.535.80.31.00
Amazon: For Jeanne - mouse pad w/I
423.000.76.535.80.35.00
2985
PETRO CLASS CANCELLED
Williams & Co. Consulting - Refund f<
423.000.76.535.80.49.71
8574
FAC MAINT CC 11/6/19
DISTRIBUTION INTERNATIONAL - P
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
GLOBAL INDUSTRIAL - COURT DR)
001.000.23.523.30.31.00
LOWES - CRAWL SPACE HATCH LC
001.000.66.518.30.31.00
9644
CC STMT - POSTAGE AND SUPPLIE
POSTAGE
001.000.23.512.50.41.00
MRT CELEBRATION SUPPLIES
001.000.23.523.30.31.00
POSTAGE
001.000.23.512.50.42.00
9821
-9821 11/06/2019 GREENMUN CARE
GOGGLES & RESPIRATORS
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
TEA & COFFEE FOR TRAINING RO(
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
5 STREAMLIGHT LED FLASHLIGHT
001.000.41.521.22.35.00
COFFEE FOR TRAINING ROOM
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
7.3.c
Page: 3
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
1,220.0�
24.0(
=a
N
518.7z
m
t
38.6-
m
c
a�
-349.0(
c
�a
262.3 ,
�a
430.2� a
E
33.5E u
0
R
88.2( o
a
35.4E Q
147.0(
768.5,
99.9( 3
c
644.8`. E
t
U
49.3-
a
Page: 3
Packet Pg. 83
vchlist
11 /21 /2019 10:57:44AM
Bank code : usbank
Voucher Date Vendor
11212019 11 /21 /2019 062693 US BANK
1 Vouchers for bank code : usbank
1 Vouchers in this report
Voucher List
City of Edmonds
Invoice PO # Description/Account
(Continued)
HDMI CABLE, WIRELESS PRESENT
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
HEAVY DUTY ZIPPER BAGS
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
TWO TASER HOLSTERS
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
FIRST RESPONDER CONF (4)
001.000.41.521.40.49.00
TLO MONTHLY CHARGES OCT 201!
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
MAIL SAGE WEAPON FOR SERVICI
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
ADDITIONAL CHG TO SHIP SAGE
001.000.41.521.10.42.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.40.31.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.22.35.00
10.4% Sales Tax
001.000.41.521.21.41.00
Total
Bank total
Total vouchers
7.3.c
Page: 4
m
L
3
c
Amoun
.y
0
a
m
57.9 ,
m
L
135.2( `a
N
Y
160.0(
t
560.0(
m
c
99.0( (D
202.4,
35.4(
�a
a
116.7( E
67.0" U
0
10.2�
11,683.6i o
L
Q
11,683.61, Q
11,683.61, cn
N
T
L
3
c
E
a
Page: 4
Packet Pg. 84
7.3.d
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 933 (11 /01 /2019 to 11 /15/2019) c
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
-ed2
REGULAR HOURS
Educational Pav Correction
0.00
-156.28
121
SICK
SICK LEAVE
641.87
24,134.02
122
VACATION
VACATION
695.23
26,549.68
123
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY HOURS
86.00
2,657.78
124
HOLIDAY
FLOATER HOLIDAY
20.00
679.62
125
COMP HOURS
COMPENSATORY TIME
246.15
9,303.92
131
MILITARY
MILITARY LEAVE
8.00
264.16
135
SICK
WASHINGTON STATE SICK LEA
4.00
120.00
141
BEREAVEMENT
BEREAVEMENT
27.00
1,086.30
150
REGULAR HOURS
Kelly Dav Used
168.00
7,375.23
155
COMP HOURS
COMPTIME AUTO PAY
41.40
1,934.72
160
VACATION
MANAGEMENT LEAVE
26.00
1,135.33
190
REGULAR HOURS
REGULAR HOURS
16,718.75
655,998.91
196
REGULAR HOURS
LIGHT DUTY
168.00
6,746.95
205
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME .5
4.00
70.57
210
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -STRAIGHT
127.75
5,836.80
215
OVERTIME HOURS
WATER WATCH STANDBY
36.00
1,935.65
216
MISCELLANEOUS
STANDBY TREATMENT PLANT
15.00
1,336.14
220
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME 1.5
266.25
19,025.14
225
OVERTIME HOURS
OVERTIME -DOUBLE
12.25
713.60
400
MISCELLANEOUS
MISC PAY
0.00
840.00
410
MISCELLANEOUS
WORKING OUT OF CLASS
0.00
176.22
411
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
0.00
1,236.56
602
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 1.0
40.25
0.00
603
COMP HOURS
Holidav Comp 1.0
27.00
0.00
604
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP TIME 1.5
102.50
0.00
606
COMP HOURS
ACCRUED COMP 2.0
3.75
0.00
acc
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCREDITATION PAY
0.00
78.66
aco
MISCELLANEOUS
Accreditation 1 % Part Time
0.00
9.67
acs
MISCELLANEOUS
ACCRED/POLICE SUPPORT
0.00
172.80
boc
MISCELLANEOUS
BOC II Certification
0.00
91.74
colre
MISCELLANEOUS
Collision Reconstruction ist
0.00
37.07
cpl
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAINING CORPORAL
0.00
160.86
11 /21 /2019
Packet Pg. 85
7.3.d
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 933 (11 /01 /2019 to 11 /15/2019)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours Amount
crt
MISCELLANEOUS
CERTIFICATION III PAY
0.00
564.90
ctr
MISCELLANEOUS
CTR INCENTIVES PROGRAM
0.00
191.00
det
MISCELLANEOUS
DETECTIVE PAY
0.00
111.20
det4
MISCELLANEOUS
Detective 4%
0.00
914.78
ed1
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 2%
0.00
575.65
ed2
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 4%
0.00
837.62
ed3
EDUCATION PAY
EDUCATION PAY 6%
0.00
4,846.89
hol
HOLIDAY
HOLIDAY
1,280.10
50,570.68
k9
MISCELLANEOUS
K-9 PAY
0.00
217.06
Iq1
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2%
0.00
837.78
Ig10
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY 5.5%
0.00
148.17
Ig11
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY PAY 2.5%
0.00
890.86
Ig12
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 9%
0.00
5,779.62
Ig13
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 7%
0.00
1,421.71
Ig14
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 5%
0.00
942.40
Ig15
LONGEVITY
LONGEVITY 7.5%
0.00
381.68
Igo
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1 %
0.00
373.60
Iq5
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3%
0.00
656.52
Ig6
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv .5%
0.00
285.93
Iq7
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 1.5%
0.00
468.85
Iq9
LONGEVITY
Lonqevitv 3.5%
0.00
104.93
mtc
MISCELLANEOUS
MOTORCYCLE PAY
0.00
111.20
pds
MISCELLANEOUS
Public Disclosure Specialist
0.00
101.78
phv
MISCELLANEOUS
PHYSICAL FITNESS PAY
0.00
2,033.08
prof
MISCELLANEOUS
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS ;
0.00
173.48
sdp
MISCELLANEOUS
SPECIAL DUTY PAY
0.00
287.66
sgt
MISCELLANEOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE SERGEANT
0.00
173.48
sro
MISCELLANEOUS
School Resource Officer
0.00
111.20
str
MISCELLANEOUS
STREET CRIMES
0.00
462.88
traf
MISCELLANEOUS
TRAFFIC
0.00
111.20
vab
VACATION
VACATION ADD BACK
3.33
0.00
11 /21 /2019
Packet Pg. 86
7.3.d
Payroll Earnings Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 933 (11/01/2019 to 11/15/2019)
Hour Type Hour Class Description Hours
20,768.58
Total Net Pay:
Amount
$844,239.61
$573,505.12
11/21/2019
Packet Pg. 87
7.3.e
Benefit Checks Summary Report
City of Edmonds
Pay Period: 933 - 11 /01 /2019 to 11 /15/2019
Bank: usbank - US Bank
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
Direct Deposit
63997
11/20/2019
epoa2
EPOA-POLICE
5,883.00
0.00
63998
11/20/2019
epoa3
EPOA-POLICE SUPPORT
681.64
0.00
63999
11/20/2019
flex
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
1,947.35
0.00
64000
11/20/2019
teams
TEAMSTERS LOCAL763
4,651.00
0.00
64001
11/20/2019
icma
VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS 304884
3,726.06
0.00
16,889.05 0.00
Bank: wire - US BANK
Check #
Date
Payee #
Name
Check Amt
Direct Deposit
2959
11/20/2019
awc
AW C
323,172.76
0.00
2962
11/20/2019
wadc
WASHINGTON STATE TREASURER
27,496.62
0.00
2963
11/20/2019
us
US BANK
103,643.92
0.00
2964
11/20/2019
mebt
WTRISC FBO #N3177B1
95,016.07
0.00
2967
11/20/2019
pb
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION
5,649.07
0.00
2968
11/20/2019
edm
CITY OF EDMONDS
120.00
0.00
2969
11/20/2019
oe
OFFICE OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
1,227.00
0.00
0.00
556,325.44
Grand Totals:
573,214.49
0.00
11 /21 /2019
Packet Pg. 88
7.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/26/2019
Increase of Tourism Promotion Area Lodging Fee
Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty
Department: Economic Development
Preparer: Patrick Doherty
Background/History
Chapter 35.101.080 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) allows local municipalities to establish a
Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) upon petition by its local lodging industry and assess a fee of no greater
than two dollars ($2.00) per night on hotel and motel rooms rented within the Area. Snohomish County
received an initiation petition in 2010, and on December 15, 2010, the Snohomish County Council
adopted Chapter 4.118 of the Snohomish County Code (SCC), which established the Snohomish County
TPA and a one dollar ($1.00) per night assessment on rooms rented on lodging businesses with fifty (50)
or more rooms. As required by RCW 35.101, Snohomish County executed Interlocal Agreements with
each of the nine municipalities that have lodging businesses of fifty (50) or more rooms, enabling the
assessment to be collected within those cities' limits.
Further established by Chapter 4.118 SCC was the Tourism Promotion Area grant fund and the
Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area Advisory Board. The TPA Advisory Board serves in a
consultative capacity, making recommendations for uses of the grant fund for the promotion of tourism,
pursuant to RCW 35.101.
Staff Recommendation
As a Consent Agenda item, approve the modified Interlocal Agreement with Snohomish County to
increase the TPA assessment to $2.00 per hotel room per night and authorize Mayor Earling to execute
the approved Interlocal Agreement.
Narrative
In 2017 the TPA Advisory Board requested the County consider increasing the TPA assessment to the full
two dollars ($2.00) per room night allowed by RCW 35.101 and to dedicate the additional revenue to the
potential construction of an indoor multipurpose event facility. County staff have continued to
investigate this proposal, learning in late 2018 that TPA funds cannot be used for capital projects. For
this reason, the TPA Advisory Board and the Snohomish County Lodging Tax Advisory Committee have
agreed to shift funding for tourism development and marketing to the TPA, freeing up lodging tax funds
for capital projects, such as contemplated above.
A consultant report, presented in March 2019, recommends consideration of an approximately 60,000-
square-foot, indoor sports and multipurpose venue. In order to pursue construction, lodging tax funds
will be necessary, which means the TPA must, in turn, increase is revenue to take on funding of general
tourism development and marketing.
Packet Pg. 89
7.4
For these reasons, Snohomish County must execute an updated Interlocal Agreement with each TPA -
collecting city, which includes Edmonds.
Attached here is the Interlocal Agreement that has been presented to all nine participating Snohomish
County cities and has been approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office.
Attached also are an explanatory Memorandum from Snohomish County and letters of support from the
Snohomish County Lodging Association and Snohomish County Sports Commission.
On 11/12/19 the Council Finance Committee reviewed this item and forwarded its recommended
approval to the Council's Consent Agenda.
Attachments:
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF TPA 5.6.18
Memorandum regarding TPA
SCLA Letter of Support 2019
SCSC Letter of Support 2019
Packet Pg. 90
7.4.a
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO THE INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SNOHOMISH
COUNTY TOURISM PROMOTION AREA
THIS AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
AUTHORIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY TOURISM
PROMOTION AREA ("Amendment No 1) is entered into by and among SNOHOMISH
COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington ("County"), and the CITY OF
ARLINGTON, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, CITY OF BOTHELL, a
municipal corporation of the State of Washington, CITY OF EVERETT, a municipal corporation
of the State of Washington, CITY OF EDMONDS, a municipal corporation of the State of
Washington, CITY OF LYNNWOOD, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, CITY
OF MARYSVILLE, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, CITY OF MONROE, a
municipal corporation of the State of Washington, CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE, a
municipal corporation of the State of Washington, and CITY OF MUKILTEO, a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington (collectively "Cities") pursuant to the Interlocal
Cooperation Act, Chapter 39.34 RCW, and the Tourism Promotion Areas Act, Chapter 35.101
RCW.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the respective agreements set forth below and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
the Parties agree as follows:
1. Section 4.4 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
AMENDMENT 1 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY
TOURISM PROMOTION AREA RATE INCREASE
Packet Pg. 91
7.4.a
It is understood and agreed that lodging businesses located within the Snohomish County
Tourism Promotion Area will be subject to lodging charges for each zone as follows:
Zone A: $2.00 per room/day
Zone B: $0.00 per room/day
Zone C: $0.00 per room/day
2. Section 9.2 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
The County Council must adopt a resolution of intention and hold a public hearing to
consider modification of the Snohomish County TPA if a petition for modification
containing the signatures of persons who operate lodging businesses that pay over 40
percent of the lodging charge imposed by SCC 4.118.020 is filed with the Clerk of the
County Council.
3. Section 9.3 of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
If a petition for (( ))modification of the tourism promotion area
containing the signatures of persons who operate lodging businesses that pay over 40
percent of the lodging charge imposed by SCC 4.118.020 is filed with the clerk of the
council, the council must ((disestablish))modify the tourism promotion area unless at the
public hearing described in the resolution of intention protest is made by persons who
operate lodging businesses that pay over 50 percent of the lodging charge imposed by
SCC 4.118.020. An ordinance adopted under this paragraph shall take effect within a
reasonable time as determined by the council.
4. All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect
except as expressly modified by this Amendment No 1.
5. Counterparts. This Amendment No 1 may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall
constitute an original and all of which shall constitute on and the same agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Snohomish County and the Cities of Arlington, Bothell, Everett,
Edmonds, Lynnwood, Marysville, Monroe, Mountlake Terrace, and Mukilteo have executed
this Agreement by their duly authorized officers as of the date last below written.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY:
AMENDMENT 1 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY
TOURISM PROMOTION AREA RATE INCREASE
Packet Pg. 92
7.4.a
Snohomish County Executive
DATE:
Approved as to form only:
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
CITY OF ARLINGTON
Name/Title:
DATE:
Approved as to form only:
Arlington City Attorney
CITY OF BOTHELL
Name/Title:
DATE:
Approved as to form only:
Bothell City Attorney
CITY OF EVERETT
Name/Title:
DATE:
AMENDMENT 1 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY
TOURISM PROMOTION AREA RATE INCREASE
Packet Pg. 93
7.4.a
Approved as to form only:
Everett City Attorney
CITY OF EDMONDS
Name/Title:
DATE:
Approved as to form only:
Edmonds City Attorney
CITY OF LYNNWOOD
Name/Title:
DATE:
Approved as to form only:
Lynnwood City Attorney
CITY OF MARYSVILLE
Name/Title:
DATE:
Approved as to form only:
AMENDMENT 1 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY
TOURISM PROMOTION AREA RATE INCREASE
Packet Pg. 94
7.4.a
Marysville City Attorney
CITY OF MONROE
Name/Title:
DATE:
Approved as to form only:
Monroe City Attorney
CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
Name/Title:
DATE:
Approved as to form only:
Mountlake Terrace City Attorney
CITY OF MUKILTEO
Name/Title:
DATE:
Approved as to form only:
Mukilteo City Attorney
AMENDMENT 1 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY
TOURISM PROMOTION AREA RATE INCREASE
Packet Pg. 95
7.4.a
AMENDMENT 1 TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY
TOURISM PROMOTION AREA RATE INCREASE
Packet Pg. 96
7.4.b
4 mi " AL
Snohomish County
Parks, Recreation and Tourism
6705 Puget Park Drive MIS 303
Snohomish, WA 98296
(425) 388-6600
Memorandum
Date: July 23, 2019
To: Mayors, Councilmembers, Managers and Administrators of Snohomish County Cities
From: Tom Teigen, Department Director
Rich Huebner, Tourism Promotion Coordinator 9-1-d
Subject: Overview of Process to Increase Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area Assessment
The following is an update of the history of the Snohomish County Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) and the
steps taken over the past year to increase the TPA assessment.
Chapter 35.101.080 of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) allows local municipalities to establish a
Tourism Promotion Area upon petition by its local lodging industry, and assess a fee of no greater than two
dollars ($2.00) per night on hotel and motel rooms rented within the Area. Snohomish County received an
initiation petition in 2010, and on December 15, 2010, the Snohomish County Council adopted Chapter 4.118
of the Snohomish County Code (SCC), which established the Snohomish County TPA and a one dollar ($1.00)
per night assessment on rooms rented at lodging businesses with fifty (50) or more rooms. As required by
RCW 35.101, Snohomish County executed Interlocal Agreements with each of the nine municipalities which
have lodging businesses of fifty (50) or more rooms, enabling the assessment to be collected within city limits.
Further established by Chapter 4.118 SCC was the Tourism Promotion Area grant fund and the Snohomish
County Tourism Promotion Area Advisory Board. The TPA Advisory Board serves in a consultative capacity,
making recommendations for uses of the grant fund for the promotion of tourism, pursuant to RCW 35.101.
In 2017, the TPA Advisory Board requested the County consider increasing the TPA assessment to the full two
dollars ($2.00) per room night allowed by RCW 35.101, and to dedicate the additional revenue to the
construction of an indoor multipurpose event facility. In summer 2018, Hunden Strategic Partners ("Hunden")
was retained by Snohomish County to conduct a market analysis and feasibility study for such a facility; it has
been and remains the goal of Snohomish County that any newly constructed facility will be complimentary to,
and not compete with, the current event venues within the County.
Since fall 2018, Snohomish County, through its Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism ("SCPRT") has
pursued the requested increase. In October 2018, the Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney's office
provided SCPRT an interpretation of RCW 35.101 that TPA funds cannot be used for capital construction
projects. Discussions between SCPRT, the TPA Advisory Board and the Snohomish County Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee have resulted in a plan to shift funding for tourism development and marketing to TPA
funds, freeing the lodging tax funds currently dedicated to this expense to be bonded against for construction,
a usage expressly allowed for lodging tax funds under RCW 67.28; SCPRT research has shown that funding of
tourism development and marketing with TPA funds is the prevailing standard throughout Washington State.
In March 2019 Hunden delivered its final recommendation for an approximately 60,000 square foot indoor
sports and multipurpose venue. Site analysis and selection for the recommended venue is currently underway.
In order to enact the proposed increase, Snohomish County must execute, and hereby requests, an updated
Interlocal Agreement with each TPA -collecting city. Arlington, Marysville and Mountlake Terrace have
previously executed the updated Interlocal Agreement with the County.
Packet Pg. 97
7.4.c
Snohomish County Lodging Association
June 24', 2019
Councilman Ryan
Snohomish County Council Chair
3000 Rockefeller Avenue
Everett, WA 98201
Dear Councilman Ryan,
The Snohomish County Lodging Association (SCLA) is pleased to endorse and
support the Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) board's recommendation to increase the
lodging charge on furnishing of lodging by lodging businesses located within the
tourism promotion area established by sec 4.118.010, from the current rate of $1.00
per night, to the new $2.00 per night charge. The amounts would be as follows:
a) $2.00 per night of stay at each lodging business in Zone A as defined in SCC
4.118.030;
b) $0.00 per night of stay at each lodging business in Zone B as defined in SCC
4.118.030; and
c) $0.00 per night of stay at each lodging business in Zone C as defined in SCC
4.118.030.
We further endorse and support the TPA board's recommendation that these
additional funds become available to offset Snohomish County LTAC expenses for
the purpose of funding a capital expenditure project for which the TPA Board and
the Snohomish County Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Department collaborate, to
further drive tourism and overnight stays into Snohomish County.
The SCLA recognizes the requirement of RCW 35.101.020 for the establishment or
change of a Tourism Promotion Area that a petition be presented from
representatives of sixty percent or more of lodging businesses that would pay the
TPA lodging charge. This letter has been approved by a vote of the membership of
the SCLA, which represents the interests of more than sixty percent of the TPA -
paying lodging businesses in Snohomish County. As such, please accept this letter
as the petition required by the RCW.
The SCLA understands that in making this long-term capital expenditure
commitment, the TPA board will no longer be allowed to petition the County for
Packet Pg. 98
7.4.c
disestablishment by obtaining signatures of persons who operate lodging
businesses that pay over 40 percent of the lodging charges. Therefore SCC
4.118.110 (3) will need to be removed from county code. You have the full backing
of the SCLA for this TPA recommendation.
Sincerely,
Tim Cordodor, Vice President
Tina Beckstrom, Treasurer
Christy Murray, Secretary
Mark Lee, Board Member
/,% /1 rA A
Marc -Beattie, Board Member
Ratified by a vote of the membership and signed in the presence of the membership on June
24, 2019.
Packet Pg. 99
7.4.d
PNW SPORTS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
SPORTS COMMISSION
June 18, 2019
Councilman Ryan
Snohomish County Council Chair
3000 Rockefeller Avenue
Everett, WA 98201
Dear Councilman Ryan,
The members of the Snohomish County Sports Commission are pleased to support the Snohomish County
Tourism Promotion Area (TPA) Board of Directors recommendation to increase the lodging charge by
lodging businesses located within the tourism promotion area established by SCC 4.118.010. The current
rate collected is $1.00 per night and the TPA Board recommendation is to increase to a $2.00 per night
charge.
The Snohomish County Sports Commission endorses the board's intent that the increase in tourism funds
will lead to the development of a funding model that will result in the construction of a new indoor sports
facility. Such a facility, which shall not compete with current Snohomish County tourism assets, will be
utilized by the Snohomish County Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism and the Snohomish
County Tourism Bureau to increase the tourism and overnight stays. This partnership has evolved into a
strong and successful collaboration and has increased tourism support to the County in recent years. Our
future is very positive with these programs in place.
Members of the Sports Commission understand that a long=term tourism promotion investment strategy
will succeed through strong collaborations. Current language identifies that the TPA Board will no longer
be able to petition the County for disestablishment by obtaining authorized signatures of persons who
operate lodging businesses that pay over 40 percent (40%) of the lodging charges. As a result, SCC
4.118.110 (3) will need to be removed from the Snohomish County Code.
This letter is in support from the Snohomish County Sports Commission for the Tourism Promotion Area
Board of Directors fee increase and code revision recommendations.
Sincerely,
Garet Studer
Chairman of the Snohomish County Sports Commission
(425) 348-SS02 � 6705 Puget Park Drive, Snohomish, WA 98296-4214 1 www.SnoCoSports.org
Packet Pg. 100
8.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/26/2019
Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Housing
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Preparer: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
The Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is a broad policy document that also contains a handful of time -
specific "implementation actions" to follow up on priority issues. The current implementation action for
housing requires a housing strategy to be developed in 2019. In late 2018, the City Council adopted
Resolution #1420 (see Attachment 1), docketing consideration of a comprehensive plan amendment
that would revise the implementation action for housing as part of the next Comprehensive Plan
amendment cycle. Since adopting the Resolution, the City Council established a Citizens' Housing
Commission to make recommendations on housing polices by the end of 2020. (Note: "housing
policies" are not necessarily the same as a "housing strategy.")
Staff Recommendation
Direct that an ordinance be prepared to amend the Comprehensive Plan by using Option 6 to revise the
housing action.
Narrative
Resolution #1420, adopted in late 2018, identified two options to consider for amending the
implementation action in the Comprehensive Plan. The Resolution's first option would simply delete
any implementation action for housing; the second would extend the due date past 2019. Staff
identified a third option to reflect the Council's more recent establishment of the Citizens' Housing
Commission. In October, the Planning Board recommended a fourth option that was the same as
Option 3 but with an added phrase: "...including input from the Planning Board". (See Attachment 3,
Planning Board minutes.)
On November 4, 2019, the City Council considered the four options and then discussed a fifth option:
Using a 2021 date and not specifically mentioning the Planning Board, given that the Planning Board
always has input in the course of normal business. (See Attachment 4, for Nov. 4. Council minutes). A
possible concern about using the 2021 date without any caveats is that the public might assume this
overrides the Housing Commission's current due date of December 2020 for policy recommendations.
To clarify this, Option 6 is recommended as a "compromise" approach: "Provide housing policy options
by the end of 2020 for City Council consideration, with additional input in 2021."
To view all six options, see Attachment 5.
Next Steps
Packet Pg. 101
8.1
Following the November 26 public hearing and Council direction, an ordinance will prepared for City
Council action on December 3. The ordinance will include two topics for amending the Comprehensive
Plan: one for the housing action item and a second for the updated long-term Capital Facilities Plan
(consistent with any CFP changes requested by the Council on November 26.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Resolution 1420
Attachment 2: Council Minutes 12-11-2018
Attachment 3: PB Minutes 10-23-19
Attachment 4: Council Minutes 11-04-19
Attachment 5: Comp. Plan Options
Packet Pg. 102
8.1.a
RESOLUTION NO. 1420
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS,
WASHINGTON, DOCKETING TWO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN FOR CONSIDERATION AND ACTION IN 2019.
WHEREAS, the city shall undertake comprehensive plan amendments only once per year; and
WHEREAS, all amendments requested by the city or private parties shall be reviewed
concurrently to ensure that the integrity of the comprehensive plan is preserved; and
WHEREAS, proposed amendments to the comprehensive plan are to be submitted no later than
December 31 st of every year to be docketed for consideration in the following year; and
WHEREAS, docketing amendments in no way commits the city council to adopt those
amendments in the following year; and
WHEREAS, after proposed amendments have been docketed, the city council shall consider
proposed amendments and may subsequently approve, approve with modifications, or
disapprove the proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, the housing element of the comprehensive plan, on page 96, currently contains the
following language, which is referenced below as the Existing Language:
Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing
the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing
needs.
WHEREAS, in response to significant public input regarding the housing strategy, the city
council would like to conduct further deliberations in 2019 regarding whether the Existing
Language should remain in the comprehensive plan, be amended by changing the year, or be
deleted from the comprehensive plan in its entirety; now therefore,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY
RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The city council hereby dockets the following proposed comprehensive plan
amendments for consideration in 2019:
Proposed amendment #1: The Existing Language is deleted in its entirety as follows:
Packet Pg. 103
8.1.a
Proposed amendment #2: The Existing Language is amended to read as follows:
Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 204-9202 1 for
increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse
housing needs.
Section 2. The administration is requested to take any necessary and appropriate steps to
ensure that the above proposed amendments are considered in 2019.
RESOLVED this 111i, day of December, 2018.
CITY OF EDMONDS
MAYOR, DAVE EARLING
ATTEST:
CL K, SC '' PASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: December 7, 2018
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: December 11, 2018
RESOLUTION NO. 1420
1 The blank space here should be filled in pursuant to city council motion.
Packet Pg. 104
8.1.b
comparators could be found. She suggested an annual cost of living increase for the position and a one-time
increase to reflect that it had been three years since the last increase.
Councilmember Tibbott said it could be beneficial to extend the contract to consider options and to allow
the contracts for the Video Recorder and the Legislative Assistant to be approved at the same time.
Council President Nelson questioned whether the research of comparators could be completed by the time
the Legislative Assistant contract expired; there were comparators available for the Legislative Assistant
position. He clarified his motion was for a two -month extension of the Audio Video Recorder contract. He
recommended taking action on the Legislative Assistant contract next year.
Councilmember Mesaros said if the information regarding comparators for the Video Recorder position is
received sooner than two months, the Council could take action on that contract, possibly at the same time
as the renewal of the Legislative Assistant contract.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RESOLUTION RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HOUSING STRATEGY
Council President Nelson read the resolution title, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Edmonds,
Washington, Docketing Two Proposed Amendments to the Housing Element of the City of Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan for Consideration and Action in 2019. He explained there are four options: 1) do
nothing, 2) support one amendment, 3) support the other amendment, or 4) support the resolution as adopted
(consider both amendments in 2019).
COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-
MONILLAS, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 1420, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, DOCKETING TWO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
CONSIDERATION AND ACTION IN 2019 AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED.
For Councilmember Buckshnis, City Attorney Jeff Taraday clarified the resolution simply dockets both
options.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. SELECTION OF COUNCIL PRESIDENT FOR 2019
Mayor Earling described the process, Councilmembers make nominations, nominations do not need a
second. The nominee that receives the most votes is selected.
COUNCILMEMBER TEITZEL NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS FOR COUNCIL
PRESIDENT IN 2019.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS NOMINATED COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS
FOR COUNCIL PRESIDENT IN 2019.
There were no further nominations.
COUNCILMEMBERS MESAROS, TIBBOTT AND TEITZEL VOTED IN FAVOR OF
COUNCILMEMBER MESAROS; AND COUNCIL PRESIDENT NELSON AND
COUNCILMEMBERS JOHNSON, BUCKSHNIS AND FRALEY-MONILLAS VOTED IN FAVOR
OF COUNCILMEMBER FRALEY-MONILLAS.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
December 11, 2018
Page 24
Packet Pg. 105
8.1.c
steering away from that approach because they have had maintenance issues. The Citywide pedestrian improvement projects
will not have inground lights, but there will be lights on the side.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that during the Board's review of the CIP/CFP in 2018, Board Member Cheung
suggested that the City consider providing a covered area for pedestrians at Holmes Corner across the street from Edmonds-
Woodway High School. She also expressed the need for more design elements at that intersection. At that time, staff had
agreed to consider these two ideas. Mr. English agreed that it would be great to provide a covered pedestrian area at the
intersection, but from a funding standpoint, he is not sure the project would rank high enough to be included in the CIP.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she would still like to see what could be done to improve the intersection. She also voiced
concern about the lane channelization at the intersection as you head westbound on 761 Avenue. It seems to be unclear as to
where the turn lane starts and the lines are inconsistent with other intersections in the City. Mr. English agreed to pass this
concern on to the Traffic Engineer.
No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate in the public hearing, and the hearing was closed.
CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT 2020 — 2025 CIP/CFP TO THE CITY
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING HOUSING
IMPLEMENTATION (REFERRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL)
Mr. Chave explained that the Comprehensive Plan elements have implementation actions that indicate additional steps the
City intends to take to move forward goals and policies. One in the Housing Element talks about developing a Housing
Strategy by 2019. He reviewed that the City Council recently established a Housing Commission to study housing policy
issues. Because the Commission's work is scheduled to take place during 2019-2020, the City Council felt it was appropriate
to modify the related implementation action contained in the Housing Element, which identifies 2019 as the date for
developing a "Housing Strategy." They adopted Resolution #1420, which provides two options to consider as ways to amend
the implementation action in the plan. Given that the City Council recently created a Housing Commission that is scheduled
to sunset at the end of 2020, staff has also identified a third option. The issue was forwarded to the Planning Board for a
public hearing and recommendation. He reviewed the options as follows:
CD
• City Council Option 1 — Delete the existing language in its entirety.
• City Council Option 2 — Amend the existing language to read, "Develop a strategy by 2020 for increasing the N
supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. " c
• Staff Option 3 — Amend the existing language to read, "Provide housing policy options by the end of 2020 for City
Council consideration. "
c
Mr. Chave said staff is recommending Option 3, as it best reflects where the City Council is at this point in time. Again, he
said the Housing Commission is set to sunset at the end of 2020, and it is supposed to forward its recommendations to the a
City Council by that date.
M
Board Member Monroe asked if the implementation action item would have to be amended again in 2020 if the Housing
Commission does meet the deadline for presenting recommendations to the City Council. Mr. Chave responded that the
Housing Commission has a pretty definite date for completing its work and reporting back to the City Council by the end of
2020. There is some urgency to the Commission's agenda and actions, and it intends to meet that date. Board Member
Monroe summarized that because the Commission has a charter date of 2020, it might make sense to be silent on the date and
let the charter dictate the timeframe for the implementation action. Mr. Chave explained that implementation actions are
statements of intent, and having a date makes it clear that the action is important to move forward. It provides a milepost in
the plan that helps people understand the City's current priorities. While a date is not required, it would be helpful. Board
Member Monroe said his thought was that removing the date from the implementation action would eliminate the need to
change the Comprehensive Plan in two places if the City Council decides to extend the work of the Housing Commission
beyond 2020. He said he would also support Option 1, which would eliminate the implementation action item entirely.
Planning Board Minutes
October 23, 2019 Page 6
Packet Pg. 106
8.1.c
Mr. Chave explained that when the City Council adopted Resolution #1420, it hadn't yet created the Housing Commission
and staff created Option 3 in response the Commission's charter. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that even if the
Housing Commission presents its recommendations to the City Council by the end of 2020, the City Council may decide to
extend the Housing Commission's charter to allow them to do additional work. Mr. Chave agreed that is possible, but it is
more likely the City Council will find that the Housing Commission has accomplished its mission. At that time, the City
Council will determine the best approach for moving the recommendations forward.
Board Member Rosen observed that the City Council is looking for a recommendation from the Housing Commission. He
recalled that when the Planning Board met jointly with the City Council, they expressed a sincere desire to be an informal
part of the process. He questioned it if would be appropriate to recommend inserting a requirement for Planning Board
participation into the implementation action language. He reminded them that one of their responsibilities is to provide
recommendations to the City Council when they have strong opinions, and housing is one of those topics.
Vice Chair Robles said his impression at the joint meeting with the City Council was that the Planning Board was not to get
involved with the Housing Commission's work. He expressed his belief that the Housing Commission's timeframe will be
dictated more by public input and velocity of public input. He questioned the ability to impose a limit on public input. He
felt the process should go as long as necessary to solicit input from as many citizens as possible. He concluded that the issues
are not so simple that they can be resolved in one year. There are so many factors emerging that can impact the final
recommendations and some sort of contingency plan should be in place.
Board Member Crank stressed the need to work smarter and not harder and authorize resources in the best way possible. The
worse -case scenario is that the Housing Commission and City Council decide to extend into 2021. If that is the case, Options
2 and 3 would require an additional amendment to change the date. She suggested that Option 1 might be the best solution
since it wouldn't require additional staff and Planning Board time to go through another public process to amend the
timeframe in the future if necessary.
Mr. Chave explained that most implementation actions in the Comprehensive Plan include general target dates that allow the
projects to be added to the work plans of the City Council and various City departments. Given that the Housing
Commission is intended to finish relatively soon, Board Member Crank said she would lean towards Options 1 or 2 to avoid
having to come back and spend time changing the date again.
Board Member Rosen said he supports giving the public a timeline for when an implementation action will be delivered.
CD
However, they must recognize that conditions and information will change, necessitating the need for deadlines to be
adjusted. He said he supports the timeline, which sets up an expectation to the public and sends a signal to the City Council N
that the project should not go on for an extended period of time. o
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Board Member Rosen brought up a good point about Planning Board W
involvement in the process. Although both the City Council and staff have indicated that the Board would be involved in the
process at some point at the request of the City Council, she would like the Board Members to have an opportunity to provide
feedback and share their points of view. She asked if there is something more formal that would establish that the Housing a
Commission would present its findings to the Planning Board for feedback prior to presenting their recommendations to the
City Council for action. Mr. Chave explained that the City Council established the Housing Commission to provide policy
options. Once the Housing Commission has completed its work and presented its recommendations, it will be up to the City
Council to decide the best approaches for implementation. Implementation strategies that require Comprehensive Plan and z
Development Code amendments will be referred to the Planning Board. U
Mr. Chave explained that the document that was prepared by a consultant and sent through the Planning Board for a public
hearing and recommendation to the City Council was a housing strategy and not an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
It was a set of potential ideas or actions the City could take to address housing needs. The City Council determined that it
wanted to have a more robust public process and discussion, and the Housing Commission was created to complete that task.
The Planning Board's role is to advise the City Council, but most of its work is related to codes and plans. The Housing
Strategy is different. Although it was run through the Planning Board initially, it was not a requirement. The project is
moving a different direction now. The idea of the process going forward is that the Housing Commission will provide the
City Council with a number of ideas and policies and then the City Council will decide the next steps. They may refer some
Planning Board Minutes
October 23, 2019 Page 7
Packet Pg. 107
8.1.c
things back to the Planning Board (Development Code and Comprehensive Plan amendments), but the City Council could
elect to take action on certain items that do not require Planning Board input. The Planning Board's role moving forward
will depend on what the City Council decides to do. At this time, it is unclear exactly what that set of actions or referrals
might be. He suggested it would be prudent to wait for the Housing Commission to complete its task and report to the City
Council, and then the City Council can decide the next steps.
Denise Miller, Edmonds, said she is a member of the Housing Commission and there is no plan at this time to extend the
Commission beyond 2020. The Commission will provide periodic updates to the City Council, and the intent is to be very
transparent throughout the process. As the Commission gets into discussions about different ideas and policies, it is likely
that groups of Commissioners will be assigned to work on specific suggestions. The group is diverse and plans to take its
information out to different areas of the City. The goal is to involve all interested citizens in the discussion and make sure
that all information is made available to the public. No minutes will be prepared for the Commission meetings, but video
recordings will be available on the City's website. Again, she said the Commission will provide periodic updates to the City
Council and the Commission does not plan to go beyond the 2020 deadline. The idea is to get the work done and move on.
The Planning Board will not be precluded from getting involved, but its participation will depend on what the City Council
determines its role in the decision -making process should be.
Board Member Rosen asked if the Housing Commission would simply provide a list of options for the City Council to
consider or if it would provide a recommendation for specific policies and/or strategies. He pointed out that Option 2 calls
for developing a strategy and Option 3 calls for providing housing policy options. Mr. Chave said "policy options" means a
series of ideas that would logically lead to additional future actions. He does not anticipate that the Housing Commission
will be involved in writing code or doing the type of detailed work that the Planning Board is responsible to do. Instead, they
will provide a recommendation on the direction the City should go and address various housing needs and options. The
Housing Commission is not intended to dive into the specific details of the code. Instead, they are to recommend general
things the City should explore and expand upon to address housing issues. Strategies will take the general policies to the next
step of implementation. He summarized that the Housing Commission's recommendations will presumably lead to
Comprehensive Plan and Development Code amendments.
Vice Chair Robles suggested that Option 1 would provide the greatest flexibility and be more efficient. Commissioner
Monroe voiced concern that Option 3 extends beyond the scope of what the City Council asked the Board to do because it
redefines the scope of the Housing Commission. He said he support either Option 1 or Option 2.
CD
Board Member Rubenkonig said she doesn't see much difference between Options 2 and 3; it is a simple matter of semantics.
She likes the idea of "providing housing policy options" as opposed to "developing a strategy for increasing the supply of N
affordable housing and meeting the diverse housing needs." o
Board Member Rosen said the record shows that, on multiple occasions throughout its review of the Housing Strategy, the
Planning Board talked about the public process being inadequate. Rather than being a power grab, the Planning Board was
the initial voice that the outreach program needed to be more robust. The City Council's decision to step back and form a
Housing Commission was good. What was not wrong in the original process is that the Planning Board was an important M
IL
part of the receptacle for hearing and processing ideas and concepts. That is part of the Planning Board's role, and that part
of the process should remain intact. The City Council's decision to form the Housing Commission was in response to citizen
input. They want to hear from the citizens without stacking the deck in any way, and the Housing Commission meets that
intent. However, he doesn't believe the Planning Board's involvement is any less important in the current process than it was E
the first time around. The Planning Board should be part of the work, and it would make sense for the Planning Board and U
Housing Commission to engage in joint conversations. While the Housing Commission would continue to report directly to Q
the City Council, the Planning Board could add value to the Housing Commission by providing valuable input.
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 3, WITH ADDITIONAL
LANGUAGE TO READ AS FOLLOWS: "PROVIDE HOUSING POLICY OPTIONS BY THE END OF 2020 FOR
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION, INCLUDING INPUT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD." VICE CHAIR
ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION.
Planning Board Minutes
October 23, 2019 Page 8
Packet Pg. 108
8.1.c
Board Member Crank questioned how the discussion got from simply changing the date of the implementation action to the
idea that the Planning Board would not be part of the process. The Planning Board has been part of the process up to this
point. She cautioned against making the latter statement. She said she cannot justify its inclusion because she doesn't see
how anything has changed.
Board Member Rosen commented that the additional language gets rid of the ambiguity. He recalled that the City Council
made it clear that it is a Housing Commission project and the Planning Board should stand down. The City Council and staff
have both indicated that the Planning Board would not be involved in the process until after the Housing Commission has
present its policy recommendations. The additional language indicates the Board's desire to be part of the Housing
Commission's process, and the City Council can decide whether to adopt it or not.
Student Representative Bryan said he would favor the inclusion of a date as part of the implementation action because it
provides more transparency and informs the public of what the plan is for the Housing Commission. Board Member Crank
concurred.
Board Member Crank asked if the proposed motion would imply that the Board's input is required before the Housing
Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. She cautioned that requiring Planning Board input before
presenting a proposal to the Commission would add more time to the process. Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that it is
not the Planning Board's intent to be the judge and jury for the Housing Commission's recommendation. It is not the
Planning Board's role to give a stamp of approval to the Housing Commission's work.
Board Member Monroe commented that the Planning Board has been interested in the housing issue for a long time, and now
they are being told to step back. Board Member Rubenkonig said the Board was never told by the City Council or the
Development Services Director that they would be out of the loop. However, the Housing Commission will not be required
to consult with the Planning Board as it goes about its business.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Board Member Monroe pointed out that the Extended Agenda indicates that a Housing Commission Update was supposed to a
have been on the October 23rd agenda. Mr. Chave said the update will likely take place on November 13' and will be �
provided by the Development Services Director.
M
N
Chair Cheung asked that "Election of Planning Board Officers" be added to the November 131 agenda. He also reminded o
staff of the items the Planning Board wanted to add to the "Pending" list. Mr. Chave said he hasn't had a chance to formally w
add the items to the extended agenda, but he would do so by the next meeting. Board Member Rosen suggested that Chair
Cheung review the extended agenda prior to the next packet being posted to make sure the items are included. Mr. Chave
said that may be tricky, depending on timing, but he agreed to try.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that, at the Planning Board's joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board (ADB),
there was some discussion about the two boards working together to update the detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
regulations. She noted that there are many illegal ADUs in the City, and they are at a place where the design criteria
currently in place prohibits property owners from providing such housing for family members. She is not suggesting that
policy changes be made, but the criteria could be updated.
Mr. Chave clarified that the current code does not allow detached ADUs, even for family members. However, ADUs that are
attached by a breezeway that meets the definition in the code are considered attached ADUs. Board Member Rubenkonig
suggested that perhaps it is time to reconsider the attachment criteria.
Mr. Chave said the current code contains general language that says if you are constructing an ADU, it needs to be done in
such a way that is consistent with the design of the existing house so it looks like one structure. That is as far as the
guidelines go. An ADU must resemble a single-family house. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the ADU criteria is
Planning Board Minutes
October 23, 2019 Page 9
Packet Pg. 109
8.1.d
■ Schematic design development
■ Utilized for RCO grants
• Decision Package #107
o 4' Avenue Cultural corridor: $100,000 —Fund 125
■ Council Priority #6
• Decision Package #108
o Community Garden: $24,000 Fund 125 + $300,000 Fund 126
■ Council Priority #2
• Decision Package #109
o Outdoor Fitness Zones: $75,000 carryover Fund 125
■ Installation in Civic and Mathay Ballinger Parks
• Decision Package #110
o Waterfront redevelopment: $2,681,065 carryforward
■ Council Priority #2
■ Funds 125, 126, 332 and Park Impact Fees
• Decision Package #111
o Civic Park — 2020 Budget Request1,990,000
■ Council Priority #2
■ $852,620 Park Impact Fee's
■ $1,000,000 REET 125
■ $137,380 REET 126
■ 50% Design
■ RFP Feb/March
■ Construction April/May
■ One year to construct
■ Presenting to Council 12/10
• 2021-2025 CIP
o Future Improvements
■ Anderson Center Field/Court/Stage Repairs
■ Brackett's Landing Improvements
■ City Park Improvements
■ Maplewood Park Improvements
■ Pineridge Park Improvements
■ Seaview Park Improvements
■ Misc. Unpaved Trail / Bike Path Improvements
■ Land Acquisition
Mr. James said meetings to discuss the budget are scheduled on November 12, 19 and 26. If the budget is
not adopted by November 26, additional discussion will be scheduled at the December 3 meeting.
Mayor Earling observed two hours had been scheduled for presentations tonight; he complimented staff for
completing it in 1 hour 22 minutes. He expressed support for this process even though tonight's presentation
was long and provided a lot of information. To keep the process moving, he encouraged Councilmembers
to contact staff with questions.
Mayor Earling declared a brief recess.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT/HOUSING
Development Services Director Shane Hope reviewed:
• Comprehensive Plans must generally be amended no more than once per year
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2019
Page 18
Packet Pg. 110
8.1.d
• Besides CFP update, only proposed 2019 amendment is for 1 item in Housing Element
• Current Implementation Action in Housing Element is: "Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing
the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs"
• In December 2018, City Council adopted Resolution No. 1420 to consider amending Housing
Implementation Action during next amendment period
• Resolution 1420 identified 2 options for amending Comprehensive Plan.
1. Delete entire Implementation Action
1. Develop a strategy by 2019 for- iner-easing the sepply of affeMable hattsing and Meeting
diverse housing needs
2. Change only "due date" for housing strategy
• After Resolution 1420 , Council approved new process for Citizens' Housing Commission under
Resolution No. 1427
■ New Resolution calls for Housing Commission to develop "policy recommendations" for City
Council consideration by end of 2020
• Staff identified a third option that reflects the establishment of the Citizens' Housing Commission
in 2019:
3. Provide housing policy options by the end of 2020 for City Council consideration."
• At their October 29' meeting, the Planning Commission recommended the following:
0
housingileeds
o Provide housing policy options by the end of 2020 for City Council consideration, including
input from the Planning
• Next steps:
o Tonight, Council may provide direction on a preferred amendment option
o Draft ordinance will be prepared for Nov. 26 public hearing
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Ms. Hope for her work on the Citizens Housing Commission (CHC),
commenting she went to one of their meetings and it looks like they are firming up well. She recalled when
the resolution was introduced last year, she favored removing the requirement to have a strategy for
affordable housing because the Housing Element in the Comprehensive Plan includes strategies to promote
affordable housing, administrative procedures, development standards, low cost housing production,
preservation plans, housing financing strategies as well as housing goals and policies. She preferred to
delete the requirement and allow the CHC to complete their work.
Councilmember Teitzel spoke in favor of option 3, pointing out the Planning Board is comprised of
dedicated, well-informed citizens who know a lot about these issues and it would be good to let the CHC
do their work and develop draft proposals and options which would be reviewed by the Planning Board
before coming to Council.
Councilmember Tibbott said he also favored option 3. He asked whether option 3 included input from the
Planning Board or would that be a 4' option. Ms. Hope said the Planning Board's recommendation is option
3 with the addition of "including input from the Planning Board." A question will be whether the Planning
Board input comes prior to the end of 2020 or subsequently or both. If it occurs before the end of 2020, that
means the CHC's work needs to be completed before that and the intent was to complete their work by the
end of 2020.
Councilmember Tibbott asked if the language would need to specify Planning Board input in 2021. Ms.
Hope answered it could be left the way it is, knowing that means some flexibility or it could state, "provide
housing policy options by the ed of 2020 for City Council consideration and subsequent input from the
Planning Board." Councilmember Tibbott favored that wording.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2019
Page 19
Packet Pg. 111
8.1.d
Councilmember Mesaros asked if a date was even needed. Ms. Hope said no, is not a state requirement;
implementation actions typically have a date as they are intended to be time specific. Councilmember
Mesaros suggested 2021, relaying his understanding of the importance of getting it done.
Councilmember Buckshnis said if the intent was to include the implementation action in the Comprehensive
Plan, 2020 would shorten the timeframe for the CHC's work. She did not want to constrain the CHC and
preferred to include 2021 if a date was included. Ms. Hope observed including input from the Planning
Board would fit within the 2021 timeframe.
Councilmember Nelson was also satisfied with 2021. He commented including input from the Planning
Board is a standard process and he was uncertain it had to be called out in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms.
Hope said the Planning Board requested that language be included. Councilmember Nelson said the
Planning Board's input is consistently considered and he did not favor a practice of calling that out in the
Comprehensive Plan.
It was the consensus of the Council to change 2020 to 2021.
3. CITY ATTORNEY CONTRACT EXTENSION
Councilmember Mesaros requested City Attorney Jeff Taraday reviewed the proposed contract, particularly
payment for services where the biggest changes are proposed. Councilmember Mesaros requested an
opportunity to speak following Mr. Taraday.
Councilmember Teitzel advised Councilmember Mesaros and he saw the draft contract before it was
included in the Council packet; they suggested minor changes and this version reflects that input.
Mr. Taraday pointed out the flat fee that Lighthouse charges the City of Edmonds on a monthly basis is
proposed to be increased at a rate of 4%, the typical annual increase in their fee. The biggest change in the
contract compared to previous contracts is in sections 3 b, c and d. He provided context for the change
proposed in those sections. In the past Lighthouse has had two relatively long term contracts with the City;
Lighthouse was initially retained in 2011 with a 4-year contract that extended through 2015. In 2015, the
contract was extended with a 3-year contract. Last year Lighthouse was given a 1-year extension so the
City could do a performance evaluation which has now been completed.
Mr. Taraday emphasized the following about the flat fee that the City has benefited from during the last 9
years. First, Lighthouse Law Group does not offer the flat fee to any other client; it is only provided to the
City of Edmonds. Second, he was not aware of any other municipal law firms that offer a flat fee for city
attorney services that includes litigation. Some will offer a flat fee for general services but if the city is
sued, there will be additional charges for litigation. Under the flat fee agreement with Lighthouse, when the
City has been sued on a case not covered by insurance pool, Lighthouse defended the City within the flat
fee and the City did not pay litigation -related attorney fees, a highly unusual arrangement. Third,
Lighthouse's annual report given in March 2019 converted the hours worked and fees received; the net
result was rate of $141/hour, an affordable rate by any standard.
Mr. Taraday said last year and some of the remarks made this year caused him to wonder whether the City
intended to continue with their services, and certainly the Council could choose to go in-house, an option
that is currently being evaluated. He acknowledged many cities have in-house lawyers; the flat fee provided
to the City of Edmonds is intended to be a loyal client discount that is not offered to any other clients. When
the flat fee was first offered, it was part of a long term contract. He would not generally sign up to work for
$141 /hour for any client.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
November 4, 2019
Page 20
Packet Pg. 112
8.1.e
2019 Comprehensive Plan Amendment:
Options for Amending Housing Implementation Action
Option #1 (from City Council Resolution): Delete the existing language in its entirety, as follows:
Option # 2 (from City Council Resolution): Amend the existing language to extend the timeframe as
follows:
Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019-202_ for increasing the supply of affordable
housing and meeting diverse housing needs.
Option #3 (from City Staff): Amend the existing language to reflect the Housing Commission's work, as
follows:
Implementation Action: Develop a tFategy by 20 o F.,.- inereasing the supply of a fferdab le housing and
Fneeting d veFse he sing needs Provide housing policy options by the end of 2020 for City Council
consideration.
Option # 4 (from Planning Board): Same as Option 3, but add the phrase "...including Planning Board
input" to the end of the statement. c
0
Option # 5 (from City Council discussion on Nov. 4, 2019): Same as Option 3 but insert "2021" instead of
2020". Thus, it would read:
a
Implementation Action: Develop a tFategy by 201 o fer ine-- asin . the SUPPly 9f aff9.-.J- ble h „sing and- Q.
neeting diYeFse housing need Provide housing policy options by the end of 2021 for City Council o
consideration.
Option # 6 (to follow up from City Council discussion on Nov. 4, 2019, with a variation on Option 3 that
recognizes the Housing Commission's task for 2020, but takes into account having more Planning Board
and other public input in 2021. It would read:
Implementation Action: Develop a StFa+egy by 2019 fee increasing the supply -,FF...-.J-,4,1., he psing and
meeting diverse housing need-S. Provide housing policy options by the end of 2020 for City Council
consideration, with additional input in 2021.
Packet Pg. 113
8.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/26/2019
Public Hearing on the 2020 Proposed Budget
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Scott James
Public Hearing on the 2020 Proposed Budget
Staff Recommendation
1) Council Open Public Hearing.
2) Accept Public Comment.
3) Close Public Hearing.
Narrative
Tonight's Public Hearing is the second of two scheduled Public Hearings on the 2020 Proposed Budget.
The 2020 Proposed Budget can be found at the City of Edmonds website at:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/administrative-services.html
The remaining council action on the 2020 Proposed Budget is scheduled as follows:
December 3:
2020 Budget Review and Adoption of the 2020 Budget (if necessary)
Packet Pg. 114
9.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/26/2019
Authorization for Mayor to sign the Water Quality Stormwater Capacity grant from the Dept. of Ecology
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On November 12, 2019, staff presented this item to the Parks & Public Works Committee and it was
forwarded to the City Council agenda for presentation and approval.
Staff Recommendation
Authorize the Mayor to sign the Water Quality Stormwater Capacity grant.
Narrative
The Department of Ecology offers a grant to help local jurisdictions with meeting the requirements of
their NPDES permit. The grant value offered this year, consistent with previous cycles, is $50,000 and
has been offered on a 2-year cycle by Ecology since the initiation of the NPDES program. The grant is
not competitive and staff did not have to identify the exact intended use for these funds, though the
funds are restricted to uses which implement NPDES permit requirements. As new NPDES permit
requirements come online, including a new source control requirement which creates a measureable
new workload on staff, staff will adaptively implement the funding where it is applicable. Tentatively,
the stormwater engineer believes this funding will be used to on -board the newly required 'source
control' program, but it may be used to offset a wide variety off costs incurred to meet the NPDES
permit requirements (see the list on page 7 of the attached agreement). Requirements for
reimbursement are minimal and are limited to typical record keeping/documentation and two small
summary reports upon completion.
Attachments:
DOE Grant Agreement
Packet Pg. 115
DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
State of Washington
Agreement No. WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
WATER QUALITY STORMWATER CAPACITY AGREEMENT
a�
0
BETWEEN
w
4-
0
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
CITY OF EDMONDS
This is a binding Agreement entered into by and between the state of Washington, Department of Ecology, hereinafter
referred to as "ECOLOGY," and City of Edmonds, hereinafter referred to as the "RECIPIENT," to carry out with the
provided funds activities described herein.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Title:
Total Cost:
Total Eligible Cost:
Ecology Share:
Recipient Share:
The Effective Date of this Agreement is:
The Expiration Date of this Agreement is no later than:
Project Type:
2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
$0.00
07/01 /2019
03/31/2021
Capacity Grant
Project Short Description:
This project will assist Phase I and II Permittees in implementation or management of municipal stormwater programs
Project Long Description:
N/A
Overall Goal:
This project will improve water quality in the State of Washington by reducing stormwater pollutants discharged to state
water bodies.
Packet Pg. 116
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
RECIPIENT INFORMATION
Organization Name: City of Edmonds
Federal Tax ID: 91-6001244
DUNS Number: 040172827
am
0
0
Mailing Address: 121 5th Ave N ii
4-
Edmonds, WA 98115
Physical Address: 121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Organization Email: zachary.richardson@edmondswa.gov
Contacts
r
m
E
0
m
L
Im
Q
,L^
V
W
O
d
E
t
ti
Q
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 117
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
Project Manager
Billing Contact
Authorized
Signatory
Zachary Richardson
Stormwater Engineer
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Email: zachary.richardson@edmondswa.gov
Phone: (425) 771-0220
Megan Luttrell
Admin Assistant
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Email: megan.luttrell@edmondswa.gov
Phone: (425) 771-0220
David O Earling
Mayor
121 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Email: dave.earling@edmondswa.gov
Phone: (425) 771-0247
9.1.a
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 118
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
ECOLOGY INFORMATION
Mailing Address: Department of Ecology
Water Quality
PO BOX 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
0
0
Physical Address: Water Quality w
300 Desmond Drive SE 0
4i
Lacey, WA 98503 m
Contacts
Project
Manager
Financial
Manager
Kyle Graunke
PO Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
Email: kygr461@ecy.wa.gov
Phone: (360) 407-6452
Kyle Graunke
PO Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
Email: kygr461@ecy.wa.gov
Phone: (360) 407-6452
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 119
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES
RECIPIENT agrees to furnish the necessary personnel, equipment, materials, services, and otherwise do all things necessary
for or incidental to the performance of work as set forth in this Agreement.
0
0
RECIPIENT acknowledges that they had the opportunity to review the entire Agreement, including all the terms and conditions 50
of this Agreement, Scope of Work, attachments, and incorporated or referenced documents, as well as all applicable laws, 4-
0
statutes, rules, regulations, and guidelines mentioned in this Agreement. Furthermore, the RECIPIENT has read, understood, a
and accepts all requirements contained within this Agreement. r;
This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties, and there are no other understandings or representations
other than as set forth, or incorporated by reference, herein.
No subsequent modifications or amendments to this agreement will be of any force or effect unless in writing, signed by
authorized representatives of the RECIPIENT and ECOLOGY and made a part of this agreement. ECOLOGY and
RECIPIENT may change their respective staff contacts without the concurrence of either party.
This Agreement shall be subject to the written approval of Ecology's authorized representative and shall not be binding until so
approved.
The signatories to this Agreement represent that they have the authority to execute this Agreement and bind their respective
organizations to this Agreement.
r
Washington State
City of Edmonds E
Department of Ecology m
a�
Q
By: By: L
Heather R. Bartlett Date David O Earling Date O
G
Water Quality Mayor
Program Manager E
z
Template Approved to Form by
Attorney General's Office Q
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 120
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
SCOPE OF WORK
Task Number: 1 Task Cost: $0.00
Task Title: Project Administration/Management
a�
0
Task Description: 0
A. The RECIPIENT shall carry out all work necessary to meet ECOLOGY grant or loan administration requirements. -
Responsibilities include, but are not limited to: maintenance of project records; submittal of requests for reimbursement and i
0.
corresponding backup documentation; progress reports; and a recipient closeout report (including photos). o
B. The RECIPIENT shall maintain documentation demonstrating compliance with applicable procurement, contracting, and
interlocal agreement requirements; application for, receipt of, and compliance with all required permits, licenses, easements, or
property rights necessary for the project; and submittal of required performance items.
C. The RECIPIENT shall manage the project. Efforts include, but are not limited to: conducting, coordinating, and scheduling
project activities and assuring quality control. Every effort will be made to maintain effective communication with the
RECIPIENT's designees; ECOLOGY; all affected local, state, or federal jurisdictions; and any interested individuals or
groups. The RECIPIENT shall carry out this project in accordance with any completion dates outlined in this agreement.
Task Goal Statement:
Properly managed and fully documented project that meets ECOLOGY's grant and loan administrative requirements.
Task Expected Outcome:
* Timely and complete submittal of requests for reimbursement, quarterly progress reports, Recipient Closeout Report, and
two -page Outcome Summary Report. <br>
* Properly maintained project documentation.
Recipient Task Coordinator: Zachary Richardson
Project Administration/Management
Deliverables
Number
Description
Due Date
1.1
Progress Reports that include descriptions of work accomplished, project
challenges, and changes in the project schedule. Submitted at least quarterly in
EAGL.
1.2
Recipient Closeout Report (EAGL Form).
1.3
Two -page draft and Final Outcome Summary Reports.
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 121
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
SCOPE OF WORK
Task Number: 2 Task Cost: $50,000.00
Task Title: Permit Implementation
a)
0
Task Description: 0
Conduct work related to implementation of municipal stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) -
permit requirements. If the RECIPIENT is out of compliance with the municipal stormwater National Pollutant Discharge a
Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the RECIPIENT will ensure funds are used to attain compliance where applicable. The o
following is a list of elements RECIPIENT's project may include.
1) Public education and outreach activities, including stewardship activities.
2) Public involvement and participation activities.
3) Illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) program activities, including:
a) Mapping of municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s).
b) Staff training.
c) Activities to identify and remove illicit stormwater discharges.
d) Field screening procedures.
e) Complaint hotline database or tracking system improvements.
4) Activities to support programs to control runoff from new development, redevelopment, and construction sites, including: `o
r
a) Development of an ordinance and associated technical manual or update of applicable codes. co
b) Inspections before, during, and upon completion of construction, or for post -construction long-term maintenance.
c) Training for plan review or inspection staff.
CJ
d) Participation in applicable watershed planning effort. a)
5 Pollution prevention, good housekeeping, and operation and maintenance program activities, such as: °
�
a) Inspecting and/or maintaining the MS4 infrastructure.
c
b) Developing and/or implementing policies, procedures, or stormwater pollution prevention plans at municipal properties or
E
facilities. m
m
L
6) Annual reporting activities.
a
7) Establishing and refining stormwater utilities, including stable rate structures.
8 Water quality monitoring to implement permit requirements for a Water Cleanup Plan TMDL . Note that an monitoring
L
q Y g p P q p ( ) Y g O
funded by this program requires submittal of a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that the DEPARMENT approves prior O
to awarding funding for monitoring. G
Monitoring, including:
a) Development of applicable QAPPs. E
b) Monitoring activities, in accordance with a DEPARTMENT- approved QAPP, to meet Phase I/II permit requirements.
9) Structural stormwater controls program activities (Phase I permit requirement) Q
10) Source control for existing development (Phase I permit requirement), including:
a) Inventory and inspection program.
b) Technical assistance and enforcement.
c) Staff training.
11) Equipment purchases that result directly in improved permit compliance. Equipment purchases must be specific to
implementing a permit requirement (such as a vactor truck) rather than general use (such as a pick-up truck). Equipment
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 122
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
purchases over $5,000 must be pre -approved by Ecology.
Documentation of all tasks completed is required. Documentation may include: field reports, dates and number of inspections
conducted, dates of trainings held and participant lists, number of illicit discharges investigated and removed, summaries of
planning, stormwater utility or procedural updates, annual reports, copies of approved QAPPs, summaries of structural or
source control activities, summaries of how equipment purchases have increased or improved permit compliance. Capital
0
construction projects, incentives orgive-a-ways, grant application preparation, TAPE review for proprietary treatments stems 75
or tasks that do not support Municipal Stormwater Permit implementation are not eligible expenses. w
0
Task Goal Statement:
This task will improve water quality in the State of Washington by reducing the pollutants delivered by stormwater to lakes,
streams, and the Puget Sound by implementing measures required by Phase I and II NPDES permits.
Task Expected Outcome:
RECIPIENTS will implement measures required by Phase I and II NPDES permits.
Recipient Task Coordinator: Zachary Richardson
Permit Implementation
Deliverables
Number
Description
Due Date
2.1
Documentation of tasks completed
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 123
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
BUDGET
Funding Distribution EG200189
NOTE: The above funding distribution number is used to identify this specific agreement and budget on payment
remittances and may be referenced on other communications from ECOLOGY. Your agreement may have multiple c
funding distribution numbers to identify each budget. ii
0
Funding Title: 1921 stormwater capacity Funding Type: Grant 0
Funding Effective Date: 07/01/2019 Funding Expiration Date: 03/31/2021 p
m
Funding Source:
Title: Model Toxics Control Operating Account (MTCOA)
Type: State
Funding Source %: 100%
Description: Cap Grants-MTC Operating
Approved Indirect Costs Rate: Approved State Indirect Rate: 30%
Recipient Match %: 0%
InKind Interlocal Allowed: No
InKind Other Allowed: No
Is this Funding Distribution used to match a federal grant? No
1921 stormwater capacity
Task Total
Permit Implementation
$ 50,000.00
Total: $ 50,000.00
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 124
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
9.1.a
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
Funding Distribution Summary
Recipient / Ecology Share
Funding Distribution Name
Recipient Match %
Recipient Share
Ecology Share
Total
1921 stormwater capacity
0.00 %
$ 0.00
$ 50,000.00
$ 50,000.(
Total
$ 0.00
$ 50,000.00
$ 50,000.1
AGREEMENT SPECIFIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS
N/A
SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
GENERAL FEDERAL CONDITIONS
If a portion or all of the funds for this agreement are provided through federal funding sources or this agreement is
used to match a federal grant award, the following terms and conditions apply to you.
A. CERTIFICATION REGARDING SUSPENSION, DEBARMENT, INELIGIBILITY OR VOLUNTARY
EXCLUSION:
1. The RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR, by signing this agreement, certifies that it is not suspended, debarred, proposed for
debarment, declared ineligible or otherwise excluded from contracting with the federal government, or from receiving
contracts paid for with federal funds. If the RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR is unable to certify to the statements
contained in the certification, they must provide an explanation as to why they cannot.
2. The RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR shall provide immediate written notice to ECOLOGY if at any time the
RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or had become erroneous by
reason of changed circumstances.
3. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person,
primary covered transaction, principal, proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meaning set
out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing Executive Order 12549. You may contact
ECOLOGY for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations.
4. The RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR agrees it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a
person who is proposed for debarment under the applicable Code of Federal Regulations, debarred, suspended,
declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction.
5. The RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR further agrees by signing this agreement, that it will include this clause titled
"CERTIFICATION REGARDING SUSPENSION, DEBARMENT, INELIGIBILITY OR VOLUNTARY
a�
0
0
w
0
Q
EXCLUSION" without modification in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered
transactions.
6. Pursuant to 2CFR180.330, the RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR is responsible for ensuring that any lower tier covered
transaction complies with certification of suspension and debarment requirements.
7. RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR acknowledges that failing to disclose the information required in the Code of Federal
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 125
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
1
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
Regulations may result in the delay or negation of this funding agreement, or pursuance of legal remedies, including
suspension and debarment.
8. RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR agrees to keep proof in its agreement file, that it, and all lower tier recipients or
contractors, are not suspended or debarred, and will make this proof available to ECOLOGY before requests for
reimbursements will be approved for payment. RECIPIENT/CONTRACTOR must run a search in
<hgp://www.sam.izov> and print a copy of completed searches to document proof of compliance.
0
0
B. FEDERAL FUNDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY ACT (FFATA) REPORTING ii
REQUIREMENTS: 0
CONTRACTOR/RECIPIENT must complete the FFATA Data Collection Form (ECY 070-395) and return it with the 0
signed agreement to ECOLOGY. a)
Any CONTRACTOR/RECIPIENT that meets each of the criteria below must report compensation for its five
top executives using the FFATA Data Collection Form.
Receives more than $25,000 in federal funds under this award.
• Receives more than 80 percent of its annual gross revenues from federal funds.
Receives more than $25,000,000 in annual federal funds.
Ecology will not pay any invoices until it has received a completed and signed FFATA Data Collection Form. Ecology is
required to report the FFATA information for federally funded agreements, including the required DUNS number, at
www.fsrs. og v <hqp://www.fsrs.go� within 30 days of agreement signature. The FFATA information will be available to
the public at www.usaspending.gov <http://www.usaspending.gov/>.
For more details on FFATA requirements, see www.fsrs. og v <http://www.fsrs.gov/>.
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 126
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
9.1.a
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Pertaining to Grant and Loan Agreements With the state of Washington, Department of Ecology
GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS OF LAST UPDATED 7-1-2019 VERSION
1. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
a) RECIPIENT shall follow the "Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans — EAGL Edition."
(https:Hfortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/ 1701004.html)
b) RECIPIENT shall complete all activities funded by this Agreement and be fully responsible for the proper management of at
funds and resources made available under this Agreement.
c) RECIPIENT agrees to take complete responsibility for all actions taken under this Agreement, including ensuring all
subgrantees and contractors comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. ECOLOGY reserves the right to request
proof of compliance by subgrantees and contractors.
d) RECIPIENT's activities under this Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval by ECOLOGY for the extent
and character of all work and services.
2. AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS
This Agreement may be altered, amended, or waived only by a written amendment executed by both parties. No subsequent
modification(s) or amendment(s) of this Agreement will be of any force or effect unless in writing and signed by authorized
representatives of both parties. ECOLOGY and the RECIPIENT may change their respective staff contacts and administrative
information without the concurrence of either party.
3. ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR COVERED TECHNOLOGY
The RECIPIENT must comply with the Washington State Office of the Chief Information Officer, OCIO Policy no. 188,
Accessibility (https://ocio.wa.gov/policy/accessibility) as it relates to "covered technology." This requirement applies to all
products supplied under the agreement, providing equal access to information technology by individuals with disabilities,
including and not limited to web sites/pages, web -based applications, software systems, video and audio content, and electronic
documents intended for publishing on Ecology's public web site.
4. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
RECIPIENT shall take reasonable action to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to archeological and historic resources
The RECIPIENT must agree to hold harmless the State of Washington in relation to any claim related to historical or cultural
artifacts discovered, disturbed, or damaged due to the RECIPIENT's project funded under this Agreement.
RECIPIENT shall:
a) Contact the ECOLOGY Program issuing the grant or loan to discuss any Cultural Resources requirements for their project:
• For capital construction projects or land acquisitions for capital construction projects, if required, comply with Governor
Executive Order 05-05, Archaeology and Cultural Resources.
• For projects with any federal involvement, if required, comply with the National Historic Preservation Act.
• Any cultural resources federal or state requirements must be completed prior to the start of any work on the project site.
b) If required by the ECOLOGY Program, submit an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) to ECOLOGY prior to implementing
any project that involves ground disturbing activities. ECOLOGY will provide the IDP form.
RECIPIENT shall:
• Keep the IDP at the project site.
a�
0
0
w
0
Q
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 127
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
9.1.a
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
• Make the IDP readily available to anyone working at the project site.
• Discuss the IDP with staff and contractors working at the project site.
• Implement the IDP when cultural resources or human remains are found at the project site.
c) If any archeological or historic resources are found while conducting work under this Agreement:
• Immediately stop work and notify the ECOLOGY Program, the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation at
(360) 586-3064, any affected Tribe, and the local government.
d) If any human remains are found while conducting work under this Agreement:
• Immediately stop work and notify the local Law Enforcement Agency or Medical Examiner/Coroner's Office, and then the
ECOLOGY Program.
e) Comply with RCW 27.53, RCW 27.44.055, and RCW 68.50.645, and all other applicable local, state, and federal laws
protecting cultural resources and human remains.
5. ASSIGNMENT
No right or claim of the RECIPIENT arising under this Agreement shall be transferred or assigned by the RECIPIENT
6. COMMUNICATION
RECIPIENT shall make every effort to maintain effective communications with the RECIPIENT's designees, ECOLOGY, all
affected local, state, or federal jurisdictions, and any interested individuals or groups.
7. COMPENSATION
a) Any work performed prior to effective date of this Agreement will beat the sole expense and risk of the RECIPIENT.
ECOLOGY must sign the Agreement before any payment requests can be submitted.
b) Payments will be made on a reimbursable basis for approved and completed work as specified in this Agreement.
c) RECIPIENT is responsible to determine if costs are eligible. Any questions regarding eligibility should be clarified with
ECOLOGY prior to incurring costs. Costs that are conditionally eligible require approval by ECOLOGY prior to expenditure.
d) RECIPIENT shall not invoice more than once per month unless agreed on by ECOLOGY.
e) ECOLOGY will not process payment requests without the proper reimbursement forms, Progress Report and supporting
documentation. ECOLOGY will provide instructions for submitting payment requests.
f) ECOLOGY will pay the RECIPIENT thirty (30) days after receipt of a properly completed request for payment.
g) RECIPIENT will receive payment through Washington State's Office of Financial Management's Statewide Payee Desk.
To receive payment you must register as a statewide vendor by submitting a statewide vendor registration form and an IRS W -9
form at website, https:Hofin.wa.gov/it-systems/statewide-vendorpayee-services. If you have questions about the vendor
registration process, you can contact Statewide Payee Help Desk at (360) 407-8180 or email PayeeRegistration@ofm.wa.gov.
h) ECOLOGY may, at its sole discretion, withhold payments claimed by the RECIPIENT if the RECIPIENT fails to
satisfactorily comply with any term or condition of this Agreement.
i) Monies withheld by ECOLOGY may be paid to the RECIPIENT when the work described herein, or a portion thereof,
has been completed if, at ECOLOGY's sole discretion, such payment is reasonable and approved according to this Agreement,
as appropriate, or upon completion of an audit as specified herein.
j) RECIPIENT must submit within thirty (30) days after the expiration date of this Agreement, all financial, performance, and
other reports required by this agreement. Failure to comply may result in delayed reimbursement.
8. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS
RECIPIENT agrees to comply fully with all applicable federal, state and local laws, orders, regulations, and permits related to
this Agreement, including but not limited to:
a) RECIPIENT agrees to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the United States and the State of
a�
0
0
w
0
Q
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 128
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
9.1.a
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
Washington which affect wages and job safety.
b) RECIPIENT agrees to be bound by all applicable federal and state laws, regulations, and policies against discrimination.
c) RECIPIENT certifies full compliance with all applicable state industrial insurance requirements.
d) RECIPIENT agrees to secure and provide assurance to ECOLOGY that all the necessary approvals and permits required
by authorities having jurisdiction over the project are obtained. RECIPIENT must include time in their project timeline for the
permit and approval processes.
ECOLOGY shall have the right to immediately terminate for cause this Agreement as provided herein if the RECIPIENT fails to 0
comply with above requirements. w
If any provision of this Agreement violates any statute or rule of law of the state of Washington, it is considered modified to °
conform to that statute or rule of law. Q-
9. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
RECIPIENT and ECOLOGY agree that any officer, member, agent, or employee, who exercises any function or responsibility
in the review, approval, or carrying out of this Agreement, shall not have any personal or financial interest, direct or indirect, nor
affect the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he/she is a part, in this Agreement or the proceeds
thereof.
10. CONTRACTING FOR GOODS AND SERVICES
RECIPIENT may contract to buy goods or services related to its performance under this Agreement. RECIPIENT shall award
all contracts for construction, purchase of goods, equipment, services, and professional architectural and engineering services
through a competitive process, if required by State law. RECIPIENT is required to follow procurement procedures that ensure
legal, fair, and open competition.
RECIPIENT must have a standard procurement process or follow current state procurement procedures. RECIPIENT may be
required to provide written certification that they have followed their standard procurement procedures and applicable state law
in awarding contracts under this Agreement.
ECOLOGY reserves the right to inspect and request copies of all procurement documentation, and review procurement
practices related to this Agreement. Any costs incurred as a result of procurement practices not in compliance with state
procurement law or the RECIPIENT's normal procedures may be disallowed at ECOLOGY's sole discretion.
11. DISPUTES
When there is a dispute with regard to the extent and character of the work, or any other matter related to this Agreement the
determination of ECOLOGY will govern, although the RECIPIENT shall have the right to appeal decisions as provided for
below:
a) RECIPIENT notifies the funding program of an appeal request.
b) Appeal request must be in writing and state the disputed issue(s).
c) RECIPIENT has the opportunity to be heard and offer evidence in support of its appeal.
d) ECOLOGY reviews the RECIPIENT's appeal.
e) ECOLOGY sends a written answer within ten (10) business days, unless more time is needed, after concluding the review.
The decision of ECOLOGY from an appeal will be final and conclusive, unless within thirty (30) days from the date of such
decision, the RECIPIENT furnishes to the Director of ECOLOGY a written appeal. The decision of the Director or duly
authorized representative will be final and conclusive.
The parties agree that this dispute process will precede any action in a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal.
Appeals of the Director's decision will be brought in the Superior Court of Thurston County. Review of the Director's decision
will not be taken to Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office.
Pending final decision of a dispute, the RECIPIENT agrees to proceed diligently with the performance of this Agreement and in
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 129
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
9.1.a
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
accordance with the decision rendered.
Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to limit the parties' choice of another mutually acceptable method, in addition to the
dispute resolution procedure outlined above.
12. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STANDARDS
a) RECIPIENT shall prepare a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for a project that collects or uses environmental
measurement data. RECIPIENTS unsure about whether a QAPP is required for their project shall contact the ECOLOGY
c
Program issuing the grant or loan. If a QAPP is required, the RECIPIENT shall:
w
• Use ECOLOGY's QAPP Template/Checklist provided by the ECOLOGY, unless ECOLOGY Quality Assurance (QA)
o
officer or the Program QA coordinator instructs otherwise.
m
Follow ECOLOGY's Guidelines for Preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans for Environmental Studies, July 2004
(Ecology Publication No. 04-03-030).
• Submit the QAPP to ECOLOGY for review and approval before the start of the work.
o
b) RECIPIENT shall submit environmental data that was collected on a project to ECOLOGY using the Environmental
Information Management system (EIM), unless the ECOLOGY Program instructs otherwise. The RECIPIENT must confirm
with ECOLOGY that complete and correct data was successfully loaded into EIM, find instructions at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/eim.
cvo
c) RECIPIENT shall follow ECOLOGY's data standards when Geographic Information System (GIS) data is collected and
a
v
processed. Guidelines for Creating and Accessing GIS Data are available at:
https:Hecology.wa.gov/Research-Data/Data-resources/Geographic-Information-Systems-GIS/Standards. RECIPIENT, when
3
requested by ECOLOGY, shall provide copies to ECOLOGY of all final GIS data layers, imagery, related tables, raw data
E
collection files, map products, and all metadata and project documentation.
0
co
13. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and the venue of any action brought hereunder will be
in the Superior Court of Thurston County.
r
14. INDEMNIFICATION
ECOLOGY will in no way be held responsible for payment of salaries, consultant's fees, and other costs related to the project E
described herein, except as provided in the Scope of Work. 0)
To the extent that the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington permit, each party will indemnify and hold the other Q
W
harmless from and against any liability for any or all injuries to persons or property arising from the negligent act or omission of L
that party or that party's agents or employees arising out of this Agreement. O
w
O
G
15. INDEPENDENT STATUS
c
The employees, volunteers, or agents of each party who are engaged in the performance of this Agreement will continue to be
E
employees, volunteers, or agents of that party and will not for any purpose be employees, volunteers, or agents of the other
party. Q
16. KICKBACKS
RECIPIENT is prohibited from inducing by any means any person employed or otherwise involved in this Agreement to give up
any part of the compensation to which he/she is otherwise entitled to or receive any fee, commission, or gift in return for award
of a subcontract hereunder.
17. MINORITY AND WOMEN'S BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (MWBE)
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 130
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
9.1.a
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
RECIPIENT is encouraged to solicit and recruit, to the extent possible, certified minority -owned (MBE) and women -owned
(WBE) businesses in purchases and contracts initiated under this Agreement.
Contract awards or rejections cannot be made based on MWBE participation; however, the RECIPIENT is encouraged to
take the following actions, when possible, in any procurement under this Agreement:
a) Include qualified minority and women's businesses on solicitation lists whenever they are potential sources of goods or
services.
a�
b) Divide the total requirements, when economically feasible, into smaller tasks or quantities, to permit maximum participation c
by qualified minority and women's businesses. w
c) Establish delivery schedules, where work requirements permit, which will encourage participation of qualified minority and °
4i
women's businesses. m
d) Use the services and assistance of the Washington State Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises (OMWBE)
(866-208-1064) and the Office of Minority Business Enterprises of the U.S. Department of Commerce, as appropriate.
18. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE
In the event of inconsistency in this Agreement, unless otherwise provided herein, the inconsistency shall be resolved by giving
precedence in the following order: (a) applicable federal and state statutes and regulations; (b) The Agreement; (c) Scope of
Work; (d) Special Terms and Conditions; (e) Any provisions or terms incorporated herein by reference, including the
"Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants and Loans"; (f) Ecology Funding Program Guidelines; and (g)
General Terms and Conditions.
19. PRESENTATION AND PROMOTIONAL MATERIALS
ECOLOGY reserves the right to approve RECIPIENT's communication documents and materials related to the fulfillment of
this Agreement:
a) If requested, RECIPIENT shall provide a draft copy to ECOLOGY for review and approval ten (10) business days prior
to production and distribution.
b) RECIPIENT shall include time for ECOLOGY's review and approval process in their project timeline.
c) If requested, RECIPIENT shall provide ECOLOGY two (2) final copies and an electronic copy of any tangible products
developed.
Copies include any printed materials, and all tangible products developed such as brochures, manuals, pamphlets, videos, audio
tapes, CDs, curriculum, posters, media announcements, or gadgets with a message, such as a refrigerator magnet, and any
online communications, such as web pages, blogs, and twitter campaigns. If it is not practical to provide a copy, then the
RECIPIENT shall provide a description (photographs, drawings, printouts, etc.) that best represents the item.
Any communications intended for public distribution that uses ECOLOGY's logo shall comply with ECOLOGY's graphic
requirements and any additional requirements specified in this Agreement. Before the use of ECOLOGY's logo contact
ECOLOGY for guidelines.
RECIPIENT shall acknowledge in the communications that funding was provided by ECOLOGY.
20. PROGRESS REPORTING
a) RECIPIENT must satisfactorily demonstrate the timely use of funds by submitting payment requests and progress reports to
ECOLOGY. ECOLOGY reserves the right to amend or terminate this Agreement if the RECIPIENT does not document
timely use of funds.
b) RECIPIENT must submit a progress report with each payment request. Payment requests will not be processed without a
progress report. ECOLOGY will define the elements and frequency of progress reports.
c) RECIPIENT shall use ECOLOGY's provided progress report format.
d) Quarterly progress reports will cover the periods from January 1 through March 31, April 1 through June 30, July 1 through
Q
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 131
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
September 30, and October 1 through December 31. Reports shall be submitted within thirty (30) days after the end of the
quarter being reported.
e) RECIPIENT must submit within thirty (30) days of the expiration date of the project, unless an extension has been
approved by ECOLOGY, all financial, performance, and other reports required by the agreement and funding program
guidelines. RECIPIENT shall use the ECOLOGY provided closeout report format.
21. PROPERTY RIGHTS
a) Copyrights and Patents. When the RECIPIENT creates any copyrightable materials or invents any patentable property
under this Agreement, the RECIPIENT may copyright or patent the same but ECOLOGY retains a royalty free, nonexclusive,
and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, recover, or otherwise use the material(s) or property, and to authorize others to
use the same for federal, state, or local government purposes.
b) Publications. When the RECIPIENT or persons employed by the RECIPIENT use or publish ECOLOGY information;
present papers, lectures, or seminars involving information supplied by ECOLOGY; or use logos, reports, maps, or other data
in printed reports, signs, brochures, pamphlets, etc., appropriate credit shall be given to ECOLOGY.
c) Presentation and Promotional Materials. ECOLOGY shall have the right to use or reproduce any printed or graphic
materials produced in fulfillment of this Agreement, in any manner ECOLOGY deems appropriate. ECOLOGY shall
acknowledge the RECIPIENT as the sole copyright owner in every use or reproduction of the materials.
d) Tangible Property Rights. ECOLOGY's current edition of "Administrative Requirements for Recipients of Ecology Grants
and Loans," shall control the use and disposition of all real and personal property purchased wholly or in part with funds
furnished by ECOLOGY in the absence of state and federal statutes, regulations, or policies to the contrary, or upon specific
instructions with respect thereto in this Agreement.
e) Personal Property Furnished by ECOLOGY. When ECOLOGY provides personal property directly to the RECIPIENT
for use in performance of the project, it shall be returned to ECOLOGY prior to final payment by ECOLOGY. If said property
is lost, stolen, or damaged while in the RECIPIENT's possession, then ECOLOGY shall be reimbursed in cash or by setoff by
the RECIPIENT for the fair market value of such property.
f) Acquisition Projects. The following provisions shall apply if the project covered by this Agreement includes funds for the
acquisition of land or facilities:
1. RECIPIENT shall establish that the cost is fair value and reasonable prior to disbursement of funds provided for in this
Agreement.
2. RECIPIENT shall provide satisfactory evidence of title or ability to acquire title for each parcel prior to disbursement of
funds provided by this Agreement. Such evidence may include title insurance policies, Torrens certificates, or abstracts, and
attorney's opinions establishing that the land is free from any impediment, lien, or claim which would impair the uses intended b,
this Agreement.
g) Conversions. Regardless of the Agreement expiration date, the RECIPIENT shall not at any time convert any equipment,
property, or facility acquired or developed under this Agreement to uses other than those for which assistance was originally
approved without prior written approval of ECOLOGY. Such approval may be conditioned upon payment to ECOLOGY of
that portion of the proceeds of the sale, lease, or other conversion or encumbrance which monies granted pursuant to this
Agreement bear to the total acquisition, purchase, or construction costs of such property.
22. RECORDS, AUDITS, AND INSPECTIONS
RECIPIENT shall maintain complete program and financial records relating to this Agreement, including any engineering
documentation and field inspection reports of all construction work accomplished.
All records shall:
a) Be kept in a manner which provides an audit trail for all expenditures.
b) Be kept in a common file to facilitate audits and inspections.
c) Clearly indicate total receipts and expenditures related to this Agreement.
a�
0
0
w
0
Q
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 132
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
d) Be open for audit or inspection by ECOLOGY, or by any duly authorized audit representative of the State of Washington,
for a period of at least three (3) years after the final grant payment or loan repayment, or any dispute resolution hereunder.
RECIPIENT shall provide clarification and make necessary adjustments if any audits or inspections identify discrepancies in the
records.
ECOLOGY reserves the right to audit, or have a designated third party audit, applicable records to ensure that the state has
been properly invoiced. Any remedies and penalties allowed by law to recover monies determined owed will be enforced.
Repetitive instances of incorrect invoicing or inadequate records may be considered cause for termination. c
All work performed under this Agreement and any property and equipment purchased shall be made available to ECOLOGY w
and to any authorized state, federal or local representative for inspection at any time during the course of this Agreement and for °
at least three (3) years following grant or loan termination or dispute resolution hereunder. m
RECIPIENT shall provide right of access to ECOLOGY, or any other authorized representative, at all reasonable times, in
order to monitor and evaluate performance, compliance, and any other conditions under this Agreement.
23. RECOVERY OF FUNDS
The right of the RECIPIENT to retain monies received as reimbursement payments is contingent upon satisfactory performance
of this Agreement and completion of the work described in the Scope of Work.
All payments to the RECIPIENT are subject to approval and audit by ECOLOGY, and any unauthorized expenditure(s) or
unallowable cost charged to this Agreement shall be refunded to ECOLOGY by the RECIPIENT.
RECIPIENT shall refund to ECOLOGY the full amount of any erroneous payment or overpayment under this Agreement.
RECIPIENT shall refund by check payable to ECOLOGY the amount of any such reduction of payments or repayments within
thirty (30) days of a written notice. Interest will accrue at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per year from the time ECOLOGY
demands repayment of funds.
Any property acquired under this Agreement, at the option of ECOLOGY, may become ECOLOGY's property and the
RECIPIENT's liability to repay monies will be reduced by an amount reflecting the fair value of such property.
24. SEVERABILITY
@
If any provision of this Agreement or any provision of any document incorporated by reference shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Agreement which can be given effect without the invalid provision, and to
r
this end the provisions of this Agreement are declared to be severable.
E
25. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
RECIPIENT must demonstrate to ECOLOGY's satisfaction that compliance with the requirements of the State Environmental
Q
Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 197-11 WAC) have been or will be met. Any reimbursements are subject to
P
this provision.
O
w
O
G
26. SUSPENSION
c
When in the best interest of ECOLOGY, ECOLOGY may at any time, and without cause, suspend this Agreement or any
E
portion thereof for a temporary period by written notice from ECOLOGY to the RECIPIENT. RECIPIENT shall resume
performance on the next business day following the suspension period unless another day is specified by ECOLOGY. Q
27. SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES
In order to sustain Washington's natural resources and ecosystems, the RECIPIENT is fully encouraged to implement
sustainable practices and to purchase environmentally preferable products under this Agreement.
a) Sustainable practices may include such activities as: use of clean energy, use of double -sided printing, hosting low impact
meetings, and setting up recycling and composting programs.
b) Purchasing may include such items as: sustainably produced products and services, EPEAT registered computers and
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 133
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
imaging equipment, independently certified green cleaning products, remanufactured toner cartridges, products with reduced
packaging, office products that are refillable, rechargeable, and recyclable, 100% post -consumer recycled paper, and toxic free
products.
For more suggestions visit ECOLOGY's web page, Green Purchasing,
http s:Hecology.wa. gov/Regulations-Permits/Guidance-technical-assistance/Sustainable-purchasing.
28. TERMINATION
a) For Cause
ECOLOGY may terminate for cause this Agreement with a seven (7) calendar days prior written notification to the
RECIPIENT, at the sole discretion of ECOLOGY, for failing to perform an Agreement requirement or for a material breach of
any term or condition. If this Agreement is so terminated, the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs
incurred in accordance with the terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination.
Failure to Commence Work. ECOLOGY reserves the right to terminate this Agreement if RECIPIENT fails to commence work
on the project funded within four (4) months after the effective date of this Agreement, or by any date mutually agreed upon in
writing for commencement of work, or the time period defined within the Scope of Work.
Non -Performance. The obligation of ECOLOGY to the RECIPIENT is contingent upon satisfactory performance by the
RECIPIENT of all of its obligations under this Agreement. In the event the RECIPIENT unjustifiably fails, in the opinion of
ECOLOGY, to perform any obligation required of it by this Agreement, ECOLOGY may refuse to pay any further funds,
terminate in whole or in part this Agreement, and exercise any other rights under this Agreement.
Despite the above, the RECIPIENT shall not be relieved of any liability to ECOLOGY for damages sustained by ECOLOGY
and the State of Washington because of any breach of this Agreement by the RECIPIENT. ECOLOGY may withhold
payments for the purpose of setoff until such time as the exact amount of damages due ECOLOGY from the RECIPIENT is
determined.
b) For Convenience
ECOLOGY may terminate for convenience this Agreement, in whole or in part, for any reason when it is the best interest of
ECOLOGY, with a thirty (30) calendar days prior written notification to the RECIPIENT, except as noted below. If this
Agreement is so terminated, the parties shall be liable only for performance rendered or costs incurred in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement prior to the effective date of termination.
Non -Allocation of Funds. ECOLOGY's ability to make payments is contingent on availability of funding. In the event funding
from state, federal or other sources is withdrawn, reduced, or limited in any way after the effective date and prior to the
completion or expiration date of this Agreement, ECOLOGY, at its sole discretion, may elect to terminate the Agreement, in
whole or part, or renegotiate the Agreement, subject to new funding limitations or conditions. ECOLOGY may also elect to
suspend performance of the Agreement until ECOLOGY determines the funding insufficiency is resolved. ECOLOGY may
exercise any of these options with no notification or restrictions, although ECOLOGY will make a reasonable attempt to provide
notice.
In the event of termination or suspension, ECOLOGY will reimburse eligible costs incurred by the RECIPIENT through the
effective date of termination or suspension. Reimbursed costs must be agreed to by ECOLOGY and the RECIPIENT. In no
event shall ECOLOGY's reimbursement exceed ECOLOGY's total responsibility under the agreement and any amendments.
If payments have been discontinued by ECOLOGY due to unavailable funds, the RECIPIENT shall not be obligated to repay
monies which had been paid to the RECIPIENT prior to such termination.
RECIPIENT's obligation to continue or complete the work described in this Agreement shall be contingent upon availability of
funds by the RECIPIENT's governing body.
a�
0
0
0
w
4-
0
Q
c) By Mutual Agreement
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 134
State of Washington Department of Ecology
Agreement No: WQSWCAP-1921-Edmond-00105
Project Title: 2019-2021 Biennial Stormwater Capacity Grants
9.1.a
Recipient Name: City of Edmonds
ECOLOGY and the RECIPIENT may terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time, by mutual written agreement.
d) In Event of Termination
All finished or unfinished documents, data studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other materials
prepared by the RECIPIENT under this Agreement, at the option of ECOLOGY, will become property of ECOLOGY and the
RECIPIENT shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such
documents and other materials. 0C
Nothing contained herein shall preclude ECOLOGY from demanding repayment of all funds paid to the RECIPIENT in w
accordance with Recovery of Funds, identified herein. °
29. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY
RECIPIENT shall ensure that in all subcontracts entered into by the RECIPIENT pursuant to this Agreement, the state of
Washington is named as an express third party beneficiary of such subcontracts with full rights as such.
30. WAIVER
Waiver of a default or breach of any provision of this Agreement is not a waiver of any subsequent default or breach, and will
not be construed as a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless stated as such in writing by the authorized
representative of ECOLOGY.
Template Version 10/30/2015
Packet Pg. 135
9.2
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/26/2019
Wastewater Treatment Disposal and Transport Contract
Staff Lead: Phil Williams
Department: Wastewater Treatment Plant
Preparer: Scott Passey
Background/History
In 1988 the City of Edmonds entered into an agreement with Olympic View Water and Sewer District,
Ronald Wastewater District and the City of Mountlake Terrace to upgrade the WWTP to Secondary
Treatment which was scheduled to expire on May 18, 2018. On April 25, 2017, City Council approved a
two-year extension in order to allow time for litigation, regarding the legal entity entitled to service the
Pt. Wells area within Snohomish County, to be completed. The first round litigation is complete
however an appeal has been filed. The Partnership team has determined that it is in our best interest to
move forward with the new agreement which will include a severability clause in the event that the
courts reverse or change their decision.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommend that the City Council approve the Wastewater Treatment, Disposal and Transport
Contract. The length of the contract term, the vital importance of services involved, and the size of
financial commitments of the contract suggest this item should be placed on the regular City Council
agenda.
Narrative
In 1988 the City of Edmonds entered into an agreement with Olympic View Water and Sewer District,
Ronald Sewer District and the City of Mountlake Terrace to upgrade the WWTP to Secondary Treatment.
The agreement focused on financing and building the new plant. It also determined the ownership
interest of each Partner and their capital contribution rate. It also defines a process to ensure Partners
pay their share of operating expenses based on their annual measured flows to the facility,. In addition
the contract defines the role and responsibility of the Oversight Committee which is composed of 1
member from each Partner organization. The Amendment extending the current Agreement will expire
in May 2020. At this time we need to either Adopt the updated version of the contract or extended the
contract under the existing terms before May 2020.
The Oversight Committee has worked diligently over the past few years to develop new contract
language that addresses a variety issues that have changed during the last 31 years. These include new
regulatory requirements, improved pre-treatment processes, holding each Partner responsible for their
own conveyance system upgrades and repairs, and clarification of some past ambiguities within the
contract. As the Oversight Committee entered into the final stages of contract review and re -drafting
concerns arose regarding the City of Shoreline's assumption of Ronald Sewer District and their intention
Packet Pg. 136
9.2
to take over the Pt. Wells area (currently within the service area of Olympic View Water and Sewer
District). These issues brought the parties to an impasse during the re -negotiation of the existing
contract. At this point the Appellate Court has ruled that the area in question is to be serviced by
Olympic View Water and Sewer District.
Ronald Wastewater District has appealed the Appellate court decision. It is likely that the appeal process
may take years before a final resolution is determined. With this in mind the Partners believe that the
best course of action is to renew the agreement with the addition of a Severability clause.
The new contract language restates the ownership interest of each Participant and their capital
contribution rate. It defines a process to ensure Partners pay their share of operating expenses based on
their annual measured flows to the facility, it defines pretreatment standards and responsibilities, it
defines responsibility of joint use areas, it defines overhead expenses and it defines a process for
conflict resolution. The contract defines the role and responsibility of the Oversight Committee which is
composed of 1 member from each Partner organization. If adopted the new contract would remain in
place until December 31, 2048.
Attachments:
Final Draft for Approval by Parties (SEC edits incorporated)
Packet Pg. 137
9.2.a
AGREEMENT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT, DISPOSAL, AND
CONVEYANCE SERVICES
Section1- Definitions......................................................................................................................3
Section2. Purpose...........................................................................................................................7
Section 3. Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage........................................................................7
Section 4. Upgrading or Expanding the Facilities...........................................................................7
Section 5. Sewage Treatment...........................................................................................................7
Section 6. Operation, Treatment, Quality of the Facilities and the Parties Internal Systems ........
I I
Section 7. Payment for Operation, Maintenance and Overhead Costs for the Treatment of
DomesticSewage...............................................................................................................14
Section 8. Oversight Committee....................................................................................................16
Section 9. Replacement Standards; Insurance...............................................................................17
Section 10. Dispute Resolution......................................................................................................17
Section 11. Successors and Assigns...............................................................................................18
Section 12. Amendment or Modification.......................................................................................18
Section 13. Governing Laws..........................................................................................................18
Section 14. Number and gender.....................................................................................................19
Section15. Notice..........................................................................................................................19
Section 16. Term and Termination................................................................................................19
Section 17. Arbitration Ruling, Memorandum of Understandings, 1988 Agreement ...................19
Section18. Exhibits.......................................................................................................................20
Section19. Severability.................................................................................................................20
1
Packet Pg. 138
9.2.a
THIS AGREEMENT is effective as of the 31 st day of December, 2019, by and among the
City of Mountlake Terrace, Olympic View Water and Sewer District, and Ronald Wastewater
District (each individually, a "Participant") and the CITY OF EDMONDS (the "City")
(collectively, the "Parties,"), all municipal corporations of the State of Washington.
WHEREAS, the City's wastewater treatment and disposal facilities (the "Facilities") are
being operated to meet the discharge limitations of the City's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System waste discharge permit; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to maintain the capacity of the Facilities at the 2nd Avenue and
Dayton Street site in order to meet current domestic wastewater treatment needs of various
public entities located in or near the City and to provide projected ultimate treatment capacity for
the City and the Participants as defined under "Allocated Capacity"; and
WHEREAS, the Participants wish the City to continue the operation and maintenance of
certain transmission, metering, and pumping facilities, which are used jointly by some or all of
the Participants and the City; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to plan and provide for the long-term capital and operational
needs of the Facilities, which may include mandated technological and regulatory changes and
increased capacity and space demands; and
WHEREAS the Participants desire to provide for a method of overseeing construction,
operation, maintenance, and expansion of the facilities; and to provide a procedure for reviewing
and commenting upon the Treatment Plant annual budgets; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to provide for an integrated Industrial Pretreatment program
within their respective service areas as required by the Department of Ecology ("DOE") and/or
the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"); and
WHEREAS, the Parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") in 1987 setting
forth a number of principles and expressing their intent to enter into an Agreement for
wastewater treatment, disposal and transport services; The MOU is incorporated herein by
reference for historical context but has no further force or effect; and
WHEREAS, the Parties executed an agreement dated May 17, 1988 for constructing and
providing for Maintenance and Operation of joint sewer facilities (the "1988 Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the Wastewater Treatment Plant that was proposed in the 1988 Agreement was
constructed and completed; and
WHEREAS, the City of Edmonds negotiated an agreement with King County regarding a
flow swap that included the area around Lake Ballinger and Richmond Beach Pump Station
which resulted in an agreement signed July 20, 1988, which was later superseded by an
agreement signed October 6, 2000 and amended in June 18, 2012; and
2
Packet Pg. 139
9.2.a
WHEREAS, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued
for operation of the plant defines exceeding plant capacity in terms of monthly average daily
flows (MADF) while the 1988 Agreement defines it in terms of annual average daily flows
(AADF), and the Parties wish to establish flow measurements and capacities in MADF for
consistency with the conditions and limitations in the NPDES permit; and
WHEREAS, financing, operations, and regulations have changed since 1988 that give rise to
the need to update the 1988 Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the 1988 Agreement prohibited the capital improvement fund referenced therein
from debt service payments for capital improvement projects and the Parties wish to establish the
practice of allowing the capital improvement fund to pay for capital projects through debt
financing.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises provided
for herein, the Parties hereto for themselves, their assigns, and successors in interest, agree as
follows:
Section 1- Definitions
For the purpose of this Agreement, the following words shall have the following meanings
unless another meaning is clearly intended:
1.1. "AADF" means annual average daily flow, and shall mean the total flow of domestic
sewage in millions of gallons during a full calendar year divided by the number of days in such
year, expressed in MGD.
1.2. "Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage" means the maximum amount of Domestic
Sewage that the City and each Participant is authorized by this Agreement to transmit to the
Facilities, measured in volume, as shown on the Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage table in
Exhibit A. Volume shall be measured by metered Domestic Sewage flow expressed in MGDs of
AADF and/or MADF, as described in Section 5.2. A substitute for direct metering is to be used
where co -mingled flows described in Section 6.5 make direct measurement impractical.
1.3. "Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODY' (as defined in the NPDES permit) means an
indirect way of measuring the quantity of organic material present in an effluent that is utilized
by bacteria. Although BOD is not a specific compound, it is defined as a conventional pollutant
under the Federal Clean Water Act.
1.4. "Capital Projects" means capital improvements, major replacements, or major repairs
that are not included within regular Operations and Maintenance costs.
1.5. "Capital Project Costs" means: (1) the cost of preparing the planning studies and
engineering plans and specifications for the capital improvements; (2) the amounts paid to
contractors for work performed under contracts for construction, installation, and inspection of
the capital improvements; (3) the recorded pay and expenses of employees of the City directly
Packet Pg. 140
9.2.a
related to the design, construction, installation, and inspection of the capital improvements but
not including any general City overhead; (4) the cost of materials, equipment, and supplies
directly related to the capital improvements; (5) the cost of acquiring and condemning land,
easements and rights -of -way for, or related to, the capital improvements; (6) the cost of legal,
engineering, and other professional services related to the financing, planning, acquisition,
construction, installation, and inspection of the capital improvements and to the resolving of any
disputes or lawsuits related thereto, provided, however, that these costs are attributed to the
project as a whole and not to the City's separate share; (7) the cost of obtaining necessary permits
and franchises, and; (8) other costs reasonably related to the planning, design, project
administration, construction management, debt service, and general project management for the
capital improvements.
1.6. "Capacity Limit" means the maximum amount of sewage that can be discharged by
the City or a Participant, as shown on the Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage table in
Exhibit A, unless the transfer of capacities is made between or among Parties per Section 5.4.
1.7. "City" means the City of Edmonds or its successor.
1.8. "Customer" means a "single family residence" and/or an equivalent customer unit
(ECU), as defined below.
1.9. "DOE" means the Washington State Department of Ecology or its successor.
1.10. "Domestic Sewage" means sanitary wastes normally collected from residential
establishments, and shall include commercial and industrial wastes of similar strength or quality,
and other commercial and/or industrial wastes that are pre-treated in accordance with City and/or
Participant requirements meeting DOE and EPA guidelines. Domestic Sewage shall exclude
ground water, storm water, drain water, and industrial wastes not pre-treated in accordance with
City and/Participant requirements meeting DOE and EPA guidelines.
1.11. "Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant" EWTP means the wastewater treatment
plant at 200 2nd Ave S., Edmonds WA.
1.12. "Edmonds Way Trunk line" means the sewer line connected to the discharge pipe
from King County's Ballinger Pump Station and running to the EWTP as shown in Exhibit C.
The trunk line shall include: the gravity sewer line between the original Ballinger Lift Station
and King County's Ballinger Lift Station; the pressure main in 244th St between King County's
connection and continuing to the point on Highway 99 where the line changes to gravity; and the
gravity line between Highway 99 and the point at which the sewer line enters the headworks at
the EWTP.
1.13. "EPA" means the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or its successor.
1.14. `Equivalent Customer Unit (ECU)" is a unit of measure developed to ensure all
Parties report system utilization in a consistent manner. The ECU count is used in the yearly
reconciliation. One (1) ECU is assessed for either 1017 cubic feet per month of residential water
M
Packet Pg. 141
9.2.a
billed, or a private well discharging to the sewerage system or a HSD. The ECU count is further
described in Exhibit B.
1.15. `Extraordinary Costs" means costs over and above typical Operations and
Maintenance Costs. This may include additional pumping costs, costs to treat HSDs or increased
disposal costs.
1.16. "Facilities" means the EWTP, the Edmonds Way Trunk line, the outfall and the
diffuser, and the field flow meters (as defined below), all as shown in Exhibit C.
1.17. "Facilities Capital Improvement Fund (FCIF)" means a dedicated capital
improvement fund established and maintained by the City whose purpose is to fund capital
improvements, major replacements, or major repairs to the facilities.
1.18. "Field Flow Meters" means the flow meters and related appurtenances that are
installed in the Facilities or Internal System for the purpose of measuring the Parties quantity of
flow as necessary to administer this Agreement. The current field flow meters installed at the
time of this Agreement are: Meter 1, Meter 2, Meter 3, Meter 4, Meter A, Meter B, Meter C,
Meter D and Meter E, as shown in Exhibit "C." Although the meter installed may measure the
flow from one or more Parties, the meters shall be considered as one of the Facilities as
described in Section 1.16, since the purpose of the flow meter is to determine the quantity of
flow discharged by one or more Parties.
1.19. "Flow" means the volume of sewage in gallons per unit of time
1.20. "High Strength Discharger (HSD)" means a discharger in the City's or a Participant's
internal system that has been identified as typically having concentrations above the limits found
in Exhibit B.
1.21. "Influent Point" means the point at which Parties Internal System connects to the
Facilities.
1.22. "Internal System" means all sewer lines, pump stations, and other sewer facilities
upstream from the Influent Point owned and operated by any one of the Parties.
1.23. "Joint Use" is when the Internal System of any one of the Parties or outside entity is
used by another one of the Parties or outside entity to transport, pump or measure sewage within
the collection system. The Joint Use areas are described in Exhibit F and Exhibit G.
1.24. "MGD" means million gallons per day, referring to a rate of sewage flow.
1.25. "MADF" means the monthly average daily flow, and shall mean the total flow of
domestic sewage in millions of gallons (MG) during a full calendar month divided by the
number of days in that month, expressed in MGD.
5
Packet Pg. 142
9.2.a
1.26. "NPDES Permit" means a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Waste
Discharge Permit issued to the City.
1.27. "Operations and Maintenance Costs (O&M Costs)" means all reasonable direct costs
and expenses incurred by the City in causing the Facilities to be operated and maintained in good
repair, working order, and condition but shall not include any depreciation, taxes, or charges in
lieu of taxes levied or imposed by the City. The term "taxes" shall not include sales tax imposed
pursuant to State statutes on all transactions within the City and paid on day-to-day operating
purchases. It shall also mean administering a joint Industrial Pre-treatment Program as described
in Section 5.7. These costs include, but are not limited to, labor, power, light, water, heat,
phones, chemicals, equipment, tools, materials, supplies, minor repairs, insurance premiums,
engineering services, attorney services (except for legal action occurring between Parties
included in this Agreement), other contract services, rent, and inspection. Costs associated with
punitive damages related to the actions of the City of Edmonds and/or their employees,
consultants, or contractors are not considered O&M Costs and will be dealt with on a case -by -
case basis with members of the oversight committee.
1.28. "Overhead Costs" means the City's general administrative, supervisory, and other
indirect costs related to the operation and maintenance of the Facilities.
1.29. "Oversifzht Committee" means the committee of that name referenced in Section 8 of
this Agreement.
1.30. "Participant" means Mountlake Terrace, Olympic View Water and Sewer District,
and Ronald Wastewater District or their successors and assigns, which are each referred to
individually as a "Participant" and which are collectively referred to as the "Participants."
1.31. "Parties" means the City and the Participants.
1.32. "Service Area" means the service area within which the City or a Participant is
responsible for providing wastewater collection services, as depicted on Exhibit E.
1.33. "Service Area Commitment" means that all wastewater flows generated within a
Participant's Service Area, as depicted on Exhibit G, are or are committed to be conveyed and/or
treated by the Edmonds Wastewater Treatment Plant.
1.34. "Significant Industrial User (SIU)" means all Industrial Users subject to Categorical
Pre-treatment Standards under 40 CFR 403.6 and 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N and any other
Industrial User that: discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of process
wastewater to the Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTW) (excluding sanitary, noncontact
cooling, and boiler blowdown wastewater); contributes a process waste stream which makes up
five (5) percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW;
or is designated as such by the jurisdictional control authority on the basis that the Industrial
User has a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any
Pre-treatment standard or requirement (in accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(6)).
rol
Packet Pg. 143
9.2.a
1.35. "Total Suspended Solids (TSS)" means the particulate material (either organic or
inorganic) in a body of water (or representative sample) that are suspended.
Section 2. Purpose
It is the purpose of this Agreement to assist in guiding the activities, resources, and efforts of the
Parties to provide the citizens of the Parties with efficient, high quality, and well -maintained
wastewater treatment, transport, and disposal at a reasonable cost.
Section 3. Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage
The Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage for each of the Parties is as shown in Exhibit A,
unless the transfer of capacities is made between or among Parties per Section 5.4.
Section 4. Upgrading or Expanding the Facilities
4.1. Required Upgrades. If the City is required by applicable laws or regulations to
upgrade or expand the Facilities to provide a higher level of wastewater treatment or to modify
the methods and/or locations of wastewater discharge, each Participant shall, if it desires to
continue discharging Domestic Sewage into the Facilities, pay the Participant's proportionate
share, as set forth in Section 3, of the cost of constructing such additional improvements, adding
needed equipment and/or acquiring land, whether by purchase or lease. The City and each
Participant shall seek opportunities to minimize or avoid the cost of additional improvements
through mutually agreeable modifications in the quantity and quality of Domestic Sewage
discharged by the Participant. In lieu of paying for its share of the cost of constructing such
additional improvements, any Participant may, at its discretion, discontinue discharge of
Domestic Sewage into the Facilities and then pay only those charges described in Section 7.3 of
this Agreement for the life of the Agreement or until such Participant regularly discharges more
than 0.4 MGD.
4.2. Optional Upgrades. Optional upgrades are the sole responsibility of the City. Optional
upgrades are defined as a construction or improvement that is required to facilitate City business
not specifically referenced in this Agreement. Upgrades to the appearance, functionality, and/or
serviceability of the Facilities are not considered optional.
Section 5. Sewage Treatment
5.1. Facility Loadin& The City shall receive, transport, and treat by means of the
Facilities Domestic Sewage discharged by the Parties up to the EWTP Facility Loading design
and Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage, subject to the current NPDES permit, applicable
laws and regulations. The City will provide this capacity as long as the Parties shall require it,
barring events and circumstances which are beyond the City's control. However, this Agreement
creates no obligation by the City beyond the term of this Agreement. If and when the City nears
eighty-five (85) percent of the MADF design for three (3) consecutive months, or is projected to
exceed such design, the Oversight Committee will meet to plan for treatment plant expansion.
7
Packet Pg. 144
9.2.a
5.2. Capacity Limits. Neither the City nor a Participant may discharge into the Facilities
any Domestic Sewage in amounts greater than its Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage.
If the City determines that in a calendar year the amount of the City's or a Participant's AADF is
in excess of the Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage, the City or Participant shall pay, in
addition to its ordinary charges described in Section 7.1, any Extraordinary Costs incurred by the
City to treat the excess Domestic Sewage, as well as costs related to Capital Project Costs to treat
and transport the Participant's excess capacity in that year.
If the City determines that the amount of the City's or a Participant's MADF is in excess of the
Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage in any period of three (3) or more consecutive calendar
months, the City or Participant shall pay, in addition to its ordinary charges described in Section
7.1, any Extraordinary Costs incurred by the City to treat the excess Domestic Sewage, as well as
Capital Project Costs to treat and transport the excess capacity in those months.
If the Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage as measured in terms of AADF and MADF are
both exceeded for the City or a Participant in a calendar year, the City or Participant shall pay the
Extraordinary Costs and Capital Project Costs for exceeding the AADF Capacity Limit or shall
pay the Extraordinary Costs and related Capital Project Costs of exceeding the MADF Capacity
Limit, whichever is larger for that year. The Extraordinary Costs and related Capital Project
Costs for exceeding the AADF Capacity Limit and the MADF Capacity Limit shall not be
additive for a Participant in any calendar year.
Capital Project Costs for treating sewage flows beyond the Allocated Capacity of Domestic
Sewage limit without prior arrangements, such as described below, shall be charged according to
the methodologies described in Section 5.4 on Transfers of Capacity, and shall be credited to the
Parties based upon the difference between its Capacity Limit and its AADF or MADF. The City
shall account to any Participant for its additional costs.
Any additional costs collected by the City for flow received in excess of Allocated Capacity of
Domestic Sewage shall be credited to the total O&M cost prior to apportionment of O&M Costs
to the other Parties that are within their respective Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage. The
City's acceptance of excess amounts on any occasion or occasions shall not bind the City to
accept excess Domestic Sewage amounts on any other occasion.
When the AADF reaches eight -five (85) percent of the City or a Participant's annual Allocated
Capacity of Domestic Sewage in a calendar year, or the MADF reaches eighty-five (85) percent
of the monthly Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage for three (3) consecutive months, or
when the projected increases would reach the City or a Participant's Capacity Limit within five
(5) years pursuant to section 5.3, the City shall notify all Participants and shall notify the
Oversight Committee in order to commence:
• planning for treatment of its domestic sewage beyond its Allocated Capacity of
Domestic Sewage (potential transfer of capacity),
• planning for treatment plant expansion,
• evaluation of other alternative treatment,
Packet Pg. 145
9.2.a
• a determination by the Oversight Committee that the service area of the projected
increase may be better served by another entity.
5.3. Notification of Nearing Capacity Limit. When the City or a Participants flow reaches
eighty-five (85) percent of its AADF of Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage for a calendar
year or its MADF of Domestic Sewage for three (3) consecutive months, the City shall notify the
Participant and the Oversight Committee in writing within thirty (30) days of discovery. The
City or Participant shall commence the preparation of plans to use its remaining Allocated
Capacity and to provide for additional capacity beyond the Capacity Limit. The Participant shall
be responsible for providing the City with information on any anticipated development which
would increase flows beyond its Capacity Limit.
5.4. Transfer of Capacity. If the City or a Participant desires to discharge greater amounts
of Domestic Sewage into the Facilities than are allocated as set forth herein, the City or
Participant may request to purchase additional capacity from one or more of the Parties with
unused purchased capacity in the Facilities. If the City or a Participant determines that its
Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage is excessive, it may offer to sell such excess capacity to
any of the Parties. In no event may the total Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage of the
Parties after the transfer exceed the total Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage of the Parties
before the transfer. It is fully recognized by the City and the Participants that any transfer of
capacity, whether temporarily or permanently, by any of the Parties is voluntary. The willingness
of the City or Participant to enter into a transfer arrangement and the term of such arrangement
shall not be subject to review by the Oversight Committee or to arbitration. Any cost of capacity
transfer will be negotiated by the Parties involved.
5.4.1. For the purposes of this Section 5 only, the Town of Woodway shall be considered a
Participant and shall be given the opportunity to purchase capacity in the future. It is fully
recognized by the City and the Participants that no Participant is obligated in any way to transfer
capacity — temporary or permanent — to any other Participant. The City shall be notified of all
pending and final transfers of capacity and of all terms of such transfers in writing, and shall
make this information available to all Participants.
5.4.2. Temporary Capacity Transfers. Temporary capacity transfers will be permitted from
Parties having excess capacity to the City or Participant needing capacity on the basis of any
terms negotiated between the affected Parties for a period not exceeding five (5) years.
Participants agreeing to a temporary capacity transfer shall notify the City of the terms of their
arrangement. Terms shall include a plan for ending the temporary transfer by demonstrating
how permanent provisions are to be made.
5.5. Treatment of Domestic Sewage Only. Except as provided in Section 5.6 for
wastewater from a HSD, Parties may not discharge any wastewater other than Domestic Sewage
into the Facilities without first requesting authority and being granted authority through the
permitting process. The City is obligated to treat only Domestic Sewage and may reject all other
forms of wastewater, and the City may refuse to transport and treat Domestic Sewage from those
portions of any Participant's sewage collection system which do not conform to DOE and/or
EPA standards for Domestic Sewage.
X
Packet Pg. 146
9.2.a
5.6. High Strength Dischargers. While there has historically been, and continues to be, a
presumption that the Parties sewage flows are domestic residential flows with approximately
equivalent concentrations of BOD and TSS, the Parties shall identify and measure, as necessary,
sewer discharges within their internal system with BOD and TSS concentrations that meet the
definition of high strength wastewater. Those concentrations of BOD and TSS are set forth in
Exhibit B and may be modified based on either regulatory requirements or generally accepted
industry practices. The additional treatment costs for treating high strength wastewater shall be
directly applied to in the City or Participant whose internal system the discharge of high strength
wastewater originated, and, unlike general O&M costs, shall not be based on overall sewage
flow levels of the City and the Participant, except as specifically provided herein.
The wastewater from all HSDs shall be representatively measured to determine the strength and
quantity of the discharge as explained in Section 5.6.1. All Parties with an HSD to their system
shall be charged as noted in Section 5.6.2.
5.6.1. High Strength Discharge Sampling. When the City or Participant is notified or
suspects that there is a HSD in the system, the City shall measure the flow quantities and
concentration of BOD and TSS from such discharger. Since the sampling methodology and
frequency may vary between businesses and types of businesses, the Parties involved will jointly
agree upon a sampling plan for discharge analysis. In the event that an agreement cannot be
reached, the City and Participant will jointly hire an outside firm to develop a sampling plan for
the HSD in question. Following an initial wastewater characterization and load calculation, the
City will be responsible for conducting ongoing measurement of the HSDs wastewater to verify
the waste concentrations and loading and will perform routine sampling and analysis
methodology and frequency in accordance with the agreed upon sampling plan. Results of the
HSD testing will determine the ECU count for the HSD. Costs associated with measurement,
sampling and analysis are considered direct costs.
Restaurants shall not be classified as HSDs with regard to Section 5.6 of this Agreement.
5.6.2. ECU Determination and Payments. As part of the reconciliation of payments for
treatment (direct O&M Costs) each year, Parties with HSDs will supply flow quantities and
wastewater BOD and TSS concentrations for each HSD to the City. The City will then calculate
the total pounds of BOD and of TSS in excess of the levels listed in Exhibit B by each such HSD
and convert each weight to ECUs based on the equivalence of high strength wastewater as set
forth in Exhibit B. In the event an HSD exceeds the levels in Exhibit B for multiple parameters,
the higher of the two ECU values for an individual HSD shall be the ECU value for that HSD.
ECUs shall be calculated in fractional parts. The ECUs calculated for HSD will be added to other
ECUs counts to determine that Parties total flow, to be used to determine the Parties share of
annual O&M Costs.
5.7. Pre -Treatment Ordinances. Parties shall maintain a Pre -Treatment ordinance (or
resolution as may be appropriate) that meets both City, State and/or Federal requirements in
regards to prohibiting discharge of waste other than Domestic Sewage into their internal system.
The City shall be responsible for the administration and operation of a joint pre-treatment
program which monitors and regulates sewer discharges that flow to the EWTP. Administration
10
Packet Pg. 147
9.2.a
and operation shall include, but not be limited to, developing procedures, forms and instructions;
categorizing dischargers; records keeping; compliance tracking; establishment of annual limits;
field sampling; testing and monitoring; communication with commercial and industrial
dischargers; preparation of control documents; enforcement and compliance and preparation of
permits. All City costs incurred from the administration and operation of a pre-treatment
program shall be included in the direct costs of O&M of the treatment plant. The City shall be
responsible for costs relating to identification and sampling of dischargers, issuance of control
documents, and issuance of permits up to a SIU, enforcement of compliance and collection of
any special fees, penalties or other associated Extraordinary Costs.
5.7.1. Significant Industrial Users. In the event that an individual discharger within the
service area requires permit authority beyond the City's ability to issue, the DOE will solely be
responsible for permit review and issuance. The discharger will be responsible for all fees
assessed either through the permitting process, Extraordinary Costs or compliance sampling.
Section 6.Operation, Treatment, Quality of the Facilities and the
Parties Internal Systems
6.1. Operation and Maintenance of the Facilities. The City shall own and shall be
responsible for all aspects of the operation and maintenance of the Facilities subject to the terms
of this Agreement. The Facilities shall be operated and maintained at a level of service that meets
high engineering standards and the standards established by the EPA, the DOE and other federal,
state and local agencies with jurisdiction. The quantity of Domestic Sewage discharged by
Parties into the Facilities shall be metered at the Influent Point, with the exception of co -mingled
flows, which will be accounted for by other generally accepted methods using either ECUs,
directly measured flows or other methods approved by the Oversight Committee. The Field flow
meter that measures the Parties discharge of Domestic Sewage into the Facilities shall be
calibrated by the City at least once each calendar year in the presence of any Participant that so
desires and may be inspected by any Participant at the expense of such Participant at any time
upon reasonable notice to the other. The City will continue to monitor other relevant variables
such as water consumption by the Parties, rainfall, flow variations and other suitable variables
which will be used to provide redundancy for failed meters.
6.2. Reporting Requirements. Parties will supply accurate and timely reports required in
support of this Agreement and in order to meet all regulatory requirements.
6.2.1. On or before April 1 of each year, each Participant shall provide the City with: annual
water consumption reports (for the months of January, February, March, April, November and
December from the prior year, the total number of customers connected to the sewer system
utilizing a private well, and HSD flows and concentrations in a given zone. Exhibit D depicts
the various sewer zones.
6.2.2. The City shall daily read and record the amount of Domestic Sewage, measured in
MGD, discharged into the EWTP. The City shall quarterly estimate the Domestic Sewage,
measured in MGD, discharged into the facilities by the City and Participants. The City will
notify each Participant if and when eighty-five (85) percent of its Capacity Limit has been
11
Packet Pg. 148
9.2.a
reached and each month that the eighty-five (85) percent Capacity Limit is exceeded.
6.2.3. Each Participant who has been notified that it has reached eighty-five (85) percent of
its allocated capacity shall at least once every calendar quarter thereafter advise the City in
writing of any governmental or private actions that will affect the volume and quality of such
Participant's Domestic Sewage flow, including but not limited to, the issuance of building
permits, sewer permits, water permits, plat approvals, the adoption of land use and zoning
ordinances or amendments thereto, and the execution of developer extension contracts. A
Participant who has been notified that it has reached eighty-five (85) percent of their capacity
shall report quarterly their efforts to either; reduce usage or negotiate capacity from the City or
another Participant; refer to Sections 5.2 — 5.4.
6.2.4. If the City reaches eighty-five (85) percent of either of its Capacity Limits, the City
shall at least once every calendar quarter thereafter advise the Participants in writing of any
governmental or private actions that will affect the volume and quality of the City's Domestic
Sewage flow, including, but not limited to, the issuance of building permits, sewer permits, water
permits, plat approvals, the adoption of land use and zoning ordinances or amendments thereto,
and the execution of developer extension contracts.
6.3. Internal Systems. The City and Participants shall operate and maintain its Internal
System at its sole expense, including all of its facilities as required to maintain the volume and
quality of Domestic Sewage within the limits set forth in this Agreement. The Parties shall
observe the American Public Works Association (APWA) (or an agreed equivalent) standards
and practices in the construction, operation, and maintenance of its Internal System with
particular attention to the following: (a) minimizing entry into the sewerage system of
groundwater and/or surface water (1/I - infiltration and inflow); (b) maintaining a favorable
character and quality of Domestic Sewage in accordance with the standards set forth in
Section 5.6; (c) eliminating septicity and objectionable odors, entry of petroleum wastes, or other
chemicals and/or wastes detrimental to sewer lines, pumping stations, the Facilities, and the
waters of Puget Sound, and; (d) maintaining an efficient and economical utility operation while
achieving optimum pollution and environmental control. The City and Participants shall prevent,
except for unusual circumstances to be reviewed and recommended by the Oversight Committee,
the connection of any storm or drainage facilities to its Internal System.
The City and Participants shall periodically inspect its Internal System to ensure adherence to
applicable standards and to minimize infiltration, exfiltration, and deposits of rock or other
debris. The City or Participants, at any reasonable time and upon reasonable notice, may inspect
any Internal System and/or the Facilities of the City or any Participant.
The City shall give written notice to all Participants of any condition within any Participant's
Internal System that violates this Agreement or applicable laws, regulations, or permits. If the
Participant does not correct such condition within a reasonable time after receiving written notice
thereof, the Participant shall pay any reasonable and necessary costs and expenses incurred in
connection with such condition. If the Participant discharges into the Facilities any solids,
liquids, gases, toxic substances, or other substances which could reasonably be determined to
cause damage to the Facilities or is creating a public nuisance or a hazard to life or property, the
12
Packet Pg. 149
9.2.a
Participant shall either immediately discontinue the discharge of such substances or pay for the
costs of modifying the Facilities so that they are capable of satisfactorily handling such
substances. Because substandard conditions of Domestic Sewage may cause serious damage to
the Facilities, the Participant shall cooperate with any City determination regarding the
composition of Domestic Sewage and, after compliance, may thereafter cause to be arbitrated the
reasonableness of that order in accordance with Section 10.
The City shall report to the Participants any condition within the City's Internal System that
violates this Agreement or applicable laws, regulations, or permits. If the City does not correct
such condition within a reasonable time after discovering the condition, the City shall pay any
reasonable and necessary costs and expenses incurred in connection with such condition. If the
City discharges into the Facilities any solids, liquids, gases, toxic substances, or other substances
which could reasonably be determined to cause damage to the Facilities, or is creating a public
nuisance or a hazard to life or property, the City shall either immediately discontinue the
discharge of such substances or pay for the costs of modifying the Facilities so that they are
capable of satisfactorily handling such substances. Because substandard conditions of Domestic
Sewage may cause serious damage to the Facilities, the City shall cooperate with any
determination by the Participants regarding the composition of Domestic Sewage and, after
compliance, may thereafter cause to be arbitrated the reasonableness of that order in accordance
with Section 10.
The Parties shall cooperate with each other to determine the source of possible violations of
applicable law, regulations, and permits (including applicable NPDES permits). In the event the
City is fined or otherwise penalized by local, State, or Federal agencies for failure to operate or
maintain the Facilities in accordance with the requirements of the regulatory agencies, and it is
demonstrated that such failure is due in whole or in part to the City or Participant's discharge of
Domestic Sewage in violation of this Agreement, then the City or Participant shall pay its
allocable share (as determined by the Parties or by an arbitrator in accordance with Section 10)
of the costs of such fines or penalties. If the City is fined due to a Participant's discharge, then
the responsible Participant shall pay its share of the associated reasonable administrative, legal,
and engineering costs incurred by the City in connection with the fines or penalties (as
determined by the Parties or by an arbitrator in accordance with Section 10).
6.4. Joint Use of Collection Systems. It is recognized by the Parties that as a practical
means of transporting sewage, the City or a Participant, upon agreement, may discharge sewage
into a collection and transmission system which is part of the Internal System of another. The
joint use facilities are shown on the Flow Chart (Exhibit "F") and the Service Area map (Exhibit
«G„
The joint usage of such Internal Systems shall be agreed to by all Parties affected. Every effort
will be made to ensure that each Parties' volume of flow that is routed through a joint use area is
accurately accounted for. The Allocated Capacity of Domestic Sewage is based on a volume of
flow and not necessarily the conveyance route.
6.4.1. While the Internal Systems are the individual responsibility of the respective owner
(City or Participant) to maintain, O&M Costs may be shared on a proportional basis.
13
Packet Pg. 150
9.2.a
Proportional shares will be determined by the meters, ECU count and water usage within the
joint use area. The owner agrees to notify all other users of its Internal System (if possible) prior
to major rehabilitation work in order to better understand costs, coordinate flow and to ensure
adequate capacity for future use.
6.4.2. If the City or a Participant determines that a collection line or portion of the
transmission system in a joint use area must be replaced and/or increased in size to meet future
growth or to reroute flows, the owner will coordinate with all affected Parties to evaluate flows,
capacity requirements and approach. All affected Parties agree to pay a proportionate share based
on the capacity needs. The owner is responsible for determining the ultimate approach and cost
allocation.
6.5. Joint Use of Collection System Owned by Other Entities: It is recognized by the
Parties that flows may be transferred, pumped, or redirected as needed to maintain the integrity
of the system during maintenance or high flow periods. Invoices presented to the City for
pumping and/or treatment (both O&M Costs and/or Capital Project Costs) by any other entity
will be shared based on flow and ECU count between the Parties.
Section 7. Payment for Operation, Maintenance and Overhead Costs
for the Treatment of Domestic Sewage
7.1. Monthly Payments. Each Participant shall make monthly payments to the City for the
transportation and treatment of each Participant's Domestic Sewage. The monthly payments shall
consist of one -twelfth (1/12) of the Participant's proportionate share of the O&M Costs adopted
in the annual budget of the City for the Facilities. Each Participant's percentage share of the total
annual O&M Costs shall be determined by dividing the AADF of the Participant for the calendar
year preceding the budget year by the sum of the AADF of all agencies sending flow to the plant
for the calendar year preceding the budget year. If the total amount paid by the Participant during
any calendar year is different from the amount due and owing for the calendar year based on
actual AADF and O&M Costs and Overhead Costs, a final adjusting bill or payment shall be
made by the City by May 1 of the subsequent year, with the adjustment being paid or credited in
six (6) equal monthly installments. The estimated current monthly payments shall be computed
on the basis of the following formula:
Allocation = (Most recent January through December flow %) X (Adopted O&M Budget)/12
Note: for the purposes of this Agreement, the O&M budget shall include direct costs, including
overhead.
The City shall provide the Participants with a full accounting of all flows for each calendar year
as well as a separate summary of the actual O&M Costs incurred during the previous calendar
year. The flows and costs will include all Facilities and shall be provided at the earliest time
possible during the calendar year and no later than May 1, barring unforeseen circumstances.
Each Participant's monthly payments shall be due at the earliest date depending on the
Participant's accounts payable cycle. In the event that any Participant's payment is received more
than forty-five (45) days after receipt of City's bill, the City shall be entitled to a late payment
14
Packet Pg. 151
9.2.a
surcharge equal to the interest which the payment would have earned for the period in excess of
forty-five (45) days, based on an interest rate typically used for municipal investing purposes.
7.2. Overhead Costs. Each Participant will pay an Overhead Cost equal to fifteen (15)
percent of the direct Operations and Maintenance Costs, including Interfund Transfer costs,
allocable to that Participant. Upon request from any party, the overhead costs will be reviewed
and may be adjusted. Interfund Transfer costs result from indirect administrative support from
the City's general administration, supervisory, and other indirect costs related to the operation
and maintenance of the facility. Any excise tax charged to the Treatment Plant will be
specifically excluded from the direct and indirect expenses for operation and maintenance
annually.
7.3. Standby Maintenance Charge. Whenever a Participant discontinues the discharge of
Domestic Sewage into the Facilities or discharges less than 0.3 MGD of Domestic Sewage into
the Facilities for a period of thirty (30) days or more, the Participant shall pay to the City in lieu
of the monthly charge described above (Section 7.1) until it regularly discharges more than 0.3
MGD, a standby maintenance charge, which shall be a monthly fee calculated by the City to
provide for the Participant's proportionate share (as defined in Section 3.2) of the City's fixed
(not related to amount of sewage) costs of operating and maintaining the Facilities in a condition
of readiness to accept and treat Domestic Sewage at the full capacity of the Facilities. The
Participant shall give the City written notice of its intention to discontinue the discharge of
Domestic Sewage (or to reduce its regular discharge to less than 0.3 MGD) at least two (2)
months prior to such discontinuance, and shall give the City two (2) months' notice of its
intention to commence discharging Domestic Sewage over 0.3 MGD into the Facilities.
Overhead Costs shall be added to this charge.
7.4. Facilities Capital Improvements Fund. The City shall establish a Facilities Capital
Improvements Fund (FCIF) to handle future capital improvements, major replacements, or major
repairs to the facilities. Such contributions shall be assessed as needed to maintain a minimum
fund balance of $550,000.00 for the purpose of providing emergency reserves for unanticipated
major repairs or replacements. Each Participant shall contribute to the fund in the same ratio as
its allocated capacity percentage.
The City shall establish and annually update a six -year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for
the Facilities, as well as the proposed method of funding for projects contained in the program.
The Parties understand that the six -year CIP is a best attempt to plan for the immediate future but
that, given the age of the plant and nature of the business, priorities may change. The Oversight
Committee and participants at their option will have input regarding the proposed projects and
method of funding.
The majority of capital improvements, major replacements, or major repairs to the facilities will
be paid for by the Facilities Capital Improvements Fund. Significant (approximately $lM or
more) projects which could easily exhaust the Facilities Capital Improvements Fund may be
financed through an alternative funding method. Parties must be in agreement if the City of
Edmonds is requested to borrow funds on behalf of another Participant to finance a project.
15
Packet Pg. 152
9.2.a
Every five (5) years the minimum amount of the fund shall be increased to reflect inflationary
cost increases using commonly accepted indices in the Engineering News Record (ENR)
Construction Index. The increase will be capped at no more than ten (10) percent in any one five-
year period.
Revenue to the fund from interest, incentives, or outside treatment of solids will be applied
proportionately to all the Parties.
7.5. Rates. Parties shall establish rates and/or collect fees for sewer service in amounts at
least sufficient to pay for: (a) the operation and maintenance of the respective sewer system,
including its share of the Facilities, and (b) the principal of and interest on any and all revenue
obligations that constitute a charge upon the revenues of each of the Parties respective sewer
systems.
7.6. Books and Accounts. The City shall keep full and complete books of accounts
showing the O&M Costs incurred in connection with the Facilities and the portion thereof
applicable to each of the Participants. The costs of keeping those books shall be considered to be
an O&M Cost to the City. Audits of the books shall be performed every three (3) years, unless
waived by the Oversight Committee, and the cost shall be considered a direct cost of the EWTP.
More frequent audits, if requested by any Participant, shall be charged to the Participant(s)
making the request.
Section 8.Oversight Committee
8.1. Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee exists for the purpose of: (a)
advising the City concerning operation, maintenance, and improvements of the Facilities (b)
giving the Parties the opportunity to resolve any disagreements that may arise between or among
them with respect to the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the Facilities, and (c) for
the additional purposes described in this Agreement. The Oversight Committee shall consist of a
designated representative (or designated alternate representative) from each of the Parties. Parties
shall have one vote each.
8.2. Oversightperations and Maintenance. The Oversight Committee shall meet at
least quarterly unless, by a vote of at least a majority of the votes held by the Parties, the
Oversight Committee decides to meet less frequently. At each meeting of the Oversight
Committee the City shall report to the Participants concerning the operation, maintenance, and
improvements of the Facilities.
On or before September 1 of each year, the City shall provide to the Participants a preliminary
proposed budget for operation, maintenance, and improvement of the Facilities for the next year.
The City shall review and consider any reports and recommendations made by the Oversight
Committee on subjects and matters related to operation, maintenance, and improvement to the
facilities.
16
Packet Pg. 153
9.2.a
Section 9. Replacement Standards; Insurance
9.1. Replacement and Rehabilitation Standards. Replacement, reconstruction,
rehabilitation, expansion, or upgrading of the Facilities shall be in accordance with applicable
federal and state laws and regulations. Additions, betterments, and improvements to the Facilities
of the City shall be installed and constructed in accordance with generally recognized
engineering standards at least equal to the standards of the City and in accordance with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
9.2. Insurance. The City shall purchase and maintain on behalf of all the Participants,
through either companies or insurance pools authorized pursuant to Chapter 48.62 RCW,
insurance for property damage and liability coverage sufficient to pay for all loss or damage to
the Facilities resulting from their operation in a normal and prudent manner. Each Participant
shall purchase and maintain, through companies or insurance pools authorized pursuant to
Chapter 48.62 RCW, insurance sufficient to pay for all loss or damage to the Facilities caused by
the operation of its Internal System. In the alternative, the City or a Participant may set aside
cash in a reserve fund in an amount to meet requirements established by the State.
Section 10. Dispute Resolution
10.1. Mediation. It is the intent of the Parties to resolve all disputes between them without
litigation, to the extent possible. Therefore, in the event of a dispute between or among any of the
Parties concerning any matters arising under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the
dispute will first be considered by the Oversight Committee in a non -binding manner. If the
dispute is not settled by the Oversight Committee within sixty (60) days of the dispute being
identified, within thirty (30) days thereafter, the City or any Participant may pursue mediation
through a process to be mutually agreed upon in good faith between the Parties to the dispute,
which may include binding or non -binding decisions or recommendations. The Parties to the
dispute shall mutually agree upon a mediator(s), who shall be an individual(s) skilled in the legal
and business aspects of the subject matter of this Agreement. If the Parties to the dispute cannot
agree upon a mediator, the matter shall be submitted to Judicial Arbitration and Mediation
Services, Inc. (JAMS) and request made that a mediator(s) be appointed. The Parties to the
dispute shall share equally the costs of mediation and assume their own costs. This requirement
to mediate the dispute may only be waived by mutual written agreement before the City or a
Participant may proceed to arbitration as provided by this Agreement.
10.2. Arbitration. In the event that a dispute between or among any of the Parties,
concerning any matters arising under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, cannot be
resolved through the processes outlined above, unless specifically excluded from arbitration, the
dispute will be placed before an arbitrator in the King/Snohomish County vicinity approved by
the Parties to the dispute.
The Parties to the dispute shall select an arbitrator within ninety (90) days to hear the dispute.
The Parties to the dispute will each choose five (5) arbitrators from the Judicial Arbitration and
Mediation Services, Inc. (JAMS) and/or Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) list of arbitrators and
submit to the City who will prepare the arbitrators list. After receipt of same, the Parties to the
17
Packet Pg. 154
9.2.a
dispute shall, within fourteen (14) calendar days, alternately strike the names of the arbitrators
until only one name remains. The arbitrator shall be asked to render a decision within thirty (30)
days of the close of the hearing, unless the Parties to the dispute mutually agree to an extension.
The arbitrator shall be authorized to grant any temporary, preliminary, or permanent equitable
remedy or relief it deems just and equitable and within the scope of this Agreement, including,
without limitation, an injunction or order for specific performance. Notwithstanding this
agreement to arbitrate, The City or Participant may seek emergency equitable relief before the
Snohomish County Superior Court in order to maintain the status quo pending arbitration and
hereby agree to submit to the exclusive personal jurisdiction of the Snohomish County Superior
Court for such purpose. A request for interim measures shall not be deemed a waiver of the right
to arbitrate.
Except as prohibited by law, the City or Participant prevailing in any arbitration brought to
enforce this Agreement shall be entitled to recover costs including reasonable attorney's fees.
The arbitrator's fees and costs shall be shared equitably by the Parties to the dispute unless
determined otherwise by the arbitrator. This Agreement shall in all respects be governed by the
laws of the State of Washington. Venue for any action to enforce any provision of this
Agreement shall be exclusively in King or Snohomish County depending on the arbitrator
chosen. The Parties, by their signatures to this Agreement, agree to submit to said arbitrator's
jurisdiction and to waive all defenses related to jurisdiction and venue. However, the Parties by
agreement may mutually waive arbitration in which case disputes will be brought before the
Snohomish County Court.
Section 11. Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon successors in interest and
assigns of the Parties and is not intended to confer rights or benefits upon any third party except
as expressly stated herein. Performance of the obligations undertaken by the City or Participants
may not be assigned without the prior written consent of the other, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
Section 12. Amendment or Modification
No amendment or modification to this Agreement, including any addition or deletion thereto,
shall be effective unless approved and executed by the Parties in the same form and manner as,
and subject to, the remaining provisions of this Agreement. In the event the City contracts with
any Participant in a manner that modifies the term of this Agreement, the City and that
Participant shall offer the other Participants the opportunity to incorporate the same terms in this
Agreement or in additional contracts, assuming the modifications are applicable to the
Participants.
Section 13. Governing Laws
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
Washington. Venue in connection with any legal proceeding affecting this Agreement shall be in
the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Snohomish County.
Packet Pg. 155
9.2.a
Section 14. Number and gender
Whenever applicable the use of the singular number shall include the plural, the use of the plural
number shall include the singular and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders.
Section 15. Notice
All notices and payments relating to this Agreement shall be made in writing and delivered to the
following addresses, unless the City and Participants are otherwise previously notified in writing:
To the City:
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave. North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Section 16. Term and Termination
To the Participants:
City of Mountlake Terrace
P.O. Box 72
Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-0072
Olympic View Water and Sewer District
8128 228 Street SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Ronald Wastewater District
17505 Linden Ave. N.
P. O. Box 33490
Seattle, WA 98133
The term of this Agreement shall be effective immediately upon acceptance through December
31, 2048. Three (3) years prior to the end of this date, the Parties will negotiate in good faith
towards the continuance of this Agreement with the understanding that the economic terms of
continued participation will reflect the investment of the Participants in the Facilities and the
remaining useful life and remaining capacity of the Facilities at that time.
Participants wishing to terminate this agreement must notify the Parties five (5) years prior to the
intended termination. The cost of terminating the contract will include Standby Maintenance
Charges as defined in Section 7.3 and Facilities Capital Improvement Fund expenses for an
additional five (5) years after termination.
Section 17. Arbitration Ruling, Memoranda of Understanding, 1988
Agreement
This Agreement supersedes and replaces the 1988 Agreement, the Arbitration Ruling, and all
Memorandum of Understanding documents, all of which will have no further force and effect.
19
Packet Pg. 156
9.2.a
Section 18. Exhibits
Exhibits A through G attached to this Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 19. Severability
If a court of competent jurisdiction holds any part, term or provision of this Agreement to be
illegal or invalid, in whole or in part, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be
affected, and the parties' rights and obligations shall be construed and enforced as if the
Agreement did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid.
If any provision of this Agreement is in direct conflict with any statutory provision of the State
of Washington, that provision which may conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void
insofar as it may conflict, and shall be deemed modified to conform to such statutory provision.
EXECUTED IN DUPLICATE, to be effective as of the date set forth above, or such later
effective date as may be required under Chapter 39.34 RCW, if applicable.
CITY OF MOUNTLAKE TERRACE
By
City Manager or Mayor
OLYMPIC VIEW WATER & SEWER DISTRICT
President, Board of Commissioners
CITY OF EDMONDS
By_
Mayor
RONALD WASTEWATER
DISTRICT
President, Board of Commissioners
20
Packet Pg. 157
9.2.a
Exhibit A
Allocated Capacity and Proportionate Share
ALLOCATED CAPACITY OF DOMESTIC SEWAGE OF THE
EDMONDS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IN MGD
CATEGORIES
ALLOCATED CAPACITY AND
CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION %
PARTY
AADF
MADF
EDMONDS
4.6216
5.9929
50.787
M.L.TERRACE
2.1088
2.7345
23.174
OVWSD
1.5061
1.953
16.551
RWD
0.8634
1.1196
9.488
TOTALS
9.10
11.8
100
NOTE:
AADF- ANNUAL
AVERAGE DAILY FLOW
MADF- MONTHLY AVERAGE DAILY FLOW
21
Packet Pg. 158
9.2.a
Exhibit B
Equivalent Customer Units Calculation
In areas of co -mingled and/or unmetered flows, direct measurement of one Participant's flows
through the Internal System of another Participant may not be practical. In such a case the Parties
agree to allocate the sewage flows based on Equivalent Customer Units (ECU's). ECU's are
based on total water consumption, the total number of customers connected to the sewer system
utilizing a private well and HSD equivalents in a given zone.
Methodologies:
1. One (1) ECU is assessed for every 1017 cubic feet of water usage per month on average.
1017 cubic feet is the average water usage for a typical single family home. All water
usage during the months of January — April and November — December will be reported
in cubic feet / month / zone. This data will be used to assess the total ECU count per zone
based on water usage.
Total Yearly Water Consumption in a given zone = (Jan+Feb+Mar+Apr+Nov+Dec) / 6 * 12
Total Yearly Water Consumption / 12 = Monthly Average
Monthly Average / 1017 cubic feet = # of ECU's
2. ECU is assessed based upon each sewage user in a zone that utilizes a private well for
their water source.
3. ECU is assessed for every HSD whose BOD or TSS is > 250 mg/1(monitoring is
triggered by a SIU or Industrial Discharge permit issued by the DOE). 1 ECU is assessed
per 16 pounds of BOD or TSS per month.
22
Packet Pg. 159
9.2.a
Exhibit C
Edmonds Trunk Line, Meters and Outfall
E7 A
City of
za Lynnwood
Treatment j P1
Plant OutfalI j
E52
E52 E3
Treatment L3
Plant —
L3
I
E51!
E1
m
1Ed 3 F2
ET
w1 ; G
E42 VA �,I M2 — — - — - — —
fi40 Meter 1 M1
W1B E30
05 j
W1A j 01 J
JE21 Meter 2 city of
j 04 Mountlake
_ f
City of — � i
--
❑. n°°
Terrace
Woodway
Meter 4
(abandoned) � q
03 I� MeterE �
WOODWAY i
�j
04 ies� M1
E1
Meter 3 ; v
Meter D
—------------------ 02 — — — -- E9-' —
Meter C `
Meter B Meter A
R2
R1
City of
Shoreline
Legend
■ Met-
��Sewer Ourfall Line
O Sewer Trunk Line
1 Mile
°
2nd 1y°`F°^°°d,wwrP Edmonds WWTP
200 5
eam-�dorwa9snxo Trunk Line, Meters, and Outfall
J—u: ey 2016
23
Packet Pg. 160
9.2.a
Sewer Zones
Exhibit D
Q
24
Packet Pg. 161
9.2.a
Exhibit E
Participants Jurisdictions
l
1
1
♦• Olympic
♦ View
1 Sewer
1
1 �
1 Rona$
• Sewers■
- Edmonds Sencce Boundary all
Distric
ftn aid Meter B/C j r
R—Id Sewer District
Edmonds Sewer
Olympic View Sewer f
r
City of Mountlake Terrace � 00
y 1
a nniie � 1
City of
Lynnwood
•
1
1
City of �r
Mountlake
Terrace 1`
1
b«i
(261
200 °rEdmonds
a Edmonds WWTP
2amon°;'� 5
°' A9,111° Service Area
J—ua.y 2016
25
Packet Pg. 162
9.2.a
Exhibit F
Edmonds WWTP Influent Flowchart
ZONE L3
77-7
ONE M-2 ONE NF1 ZO E EDS
ZONE R-D1
EDMON DS
ZONE E-2
KC System
BALLINGER BALL,APTS.
PUM P STATION ZONE B-1
ZONES-7EDMOND�
ZONES-7 � ZONE0.1
ZONE 221
RONALD
ZONER-2 h9ETERC �
R-
OVWD XZ
ZONE 0-2
OVWII
ZONE 0.5
EDMONDS EDMONDS
ZONE E-40 -� ZONE Ed
EDMONDS
ZONE E-1 I
MLT
ZONE M-3
EDMONDS OVWD
ZONE E-7A ZONE 0.3
EDMONDS METER4
ZONE 42
EDM(Xd DS
ZONE EJO
OVWD OVWD
ZONE R-3 VCNE 04
EDMONDS
ZONEW-1
EDMONDS
ZONE E-3
EDMONDS
ZONE E-5
EDMONDS
~ ZONE E-51
EDMONDS
ZONEE-52
MLTINFLUENT
METER AT I
WWTP
EDMONDS
INFLUENT
METER AT
WWTP
RICHMOND
BEACH
P.S.
4VOODVJAY �
RICHMOND
BEACH
INFLUENT
IuIETER AT
YJWTP'
L
�O♦
V
O
Q.
W
c
L
F-
to
O
CL
to
C
C
d
E
.r
cc
O
L
L
d
cc
W
cc
'in
v
N
L
O
am
O
C,1
C
.y
N
ci
W
Cn
N
1E
M
IL
O
L
CL
a
L
O
V-
cc
L
u-
c�
G
t
V
2
a
26
Packet Pg. 163
9.2.a
Exhibit G
Collection Overview
L1 B L•2
„C
■ Meter
E1A
�WWTP Outran
—SR104 Trunk
—Edmonds Force Maim
r
— Edmonds Mains
♦
— Lynmvood Mains
OIYmp Yiew Maims
— Aonatd Mains
L
— MLT Mm"
y
Ll Edmorrds s� commitment area
E5,`
Treatment
Plant Outlall ♦~
E52
Edmonds
E5'
L3
Treatment
Plan[
t3i4
�
I E51
r4
E:EI I i
�
(— E2
E E3
I
.E7—
\ W1
•
E47
E2
M2
+
�
II11
E40y.
Meter 1 'M1Y
W16 E3D
1
E
r
t �WIA _
�O7 Meter2
City of
Meter 4
4'
E21
t
([ t
Wood
5 ay (abandoned)
O3
M1
/
Meter E
E
E30
City of
woo0wA.r
El ana
Brier
f
•
04
1
Meter 3 V`
Meter D
AR O2
E9 .f
Meter r
Meter B Meter A E
WWTP Zone
R2
L� -
I
0.4-
El M7
E1A M2
I
E13 M3
Y
E2 01
E21 02
E3 03
E30 04
City of Lake
E4 04R
5
Forest Park
E40 05
E42 P1
E5 PARR
E51 Al
E52 R1
E7 RONAL0
VA W1
E9 W1A
r
L18 W16
L2 WOOPWAY
L3
1 Mile
i
"`ye1Um° d ""` Edmonds WWTP zao OnA F+e s 1
Ea m . wn ceazo I�
Collection System Overview M-2016
2%
Packet Pg. 164
9.3
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/26/2019
Proposed Capital Facilities Plan and 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program
Staff Lead: Rob English
Department: Engineering
Preparer: Megan Luttrell
Background/History
On November 4, 2019, staff presented the 2020 department budgets which included capital decision
packages proposed in the Capital Facilities Plan/2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program.
On November 12, 2019, a public hearing was held for the Capital Facilities Plan/2020-2025 Capital
Improvement Program.
Staff Recommendation
1. Approve the Ordinance to adopt the 2019 amendments to the City Comprehensive Plan (including the
Capital Facilities Plan) at the City Council meeting on December 3, 2019.
2. Approve the 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program with the adoption of the 2020 Budget.
Narrative
The attached Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) have been
updated, since the presentation and public hearing on November 12th. The Edmonds Marsh/Willow
Creek Daylighting project numbers were adjusted to be consistent in both the year and amount of
expenditure and the Marina Beach Park project sheets in the CIP have been updated.
The City's Capital Facilities Plan 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 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.
Packet Pg. 165
9.3
The proposed CFP is attached as Exhibit 1. The CFP has three project sections comprised of General,
Transportation and Stormwater. The proposed 2020-2025 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 CFP and CIP were presented to the Planning Board on October 9th and a public hearing was held on
October 23rd. The Planning Board recommended the CFP and CIP be forwarded to the City Council for
approval. The minutes from the Planning Board meetings are attached as Exhibits 4 and 5.
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - CFP
Exhibit 2 - CIP
Exhibit 3 - CIP-CFP Comparison
Exhibit 4 - PB October 9th Minutes
Exhibit 5 - PB October 23rd Minutes
Packet Pg. 166
9.3.a
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
� O-V ECM
0
U N
DRAFT
LL
U
r
t
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
2
r
Q
Packet Pg. 167
9.3.a
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
V
to
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
O
a
m
:r
m
U-
m
U
m
N
O
O.
O
L
a
a
a_
U
r
t
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
2
r
Q
Packet Pg. 168
9.3.a
CFP
O
L.
a.
c
m
E
m
GENERAL 0
E
.Q
U
LO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
O
a
m
:r
r
.Q
U
m
N
O
O.
O
L-
a.
a
U-
U
r
t
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
2
r
Q
Packet Pg. 169
9.3.a
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
V
to
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
O
a
m
:r
m
U-
m
U
m
N
O
O.
O
L
a
a
a_
U
r
t
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
2
r
Q
Packet Pg. 170
9.3.a
N
U
d
.O
LL a
U m
0 C
a m o
o a 13N
E N�o
a m N
W « C O
U
_ R N
T LL= N
R „
U � d
'Q d
{fl
U
m
a
O
�
p
N
N
�
N
O
�
O
�
N
N
N
N
N
O
O
W
N
N
N
N
N
O r N 0 0 0 ONi
O V l0 0 0 0 0
Q n N 0 0 0 0
�
N
O
�
O
�
O
N
a
d
.W. U
O
W LL O
'oW
N y 0 W
W
O c
U
W W I t0
mo .W.
C7 w¢ E mo = F
Y
W¢ o o C7 ~
'd t
O ~
>
rc
O
d
LL
u)
d (!J
a
�Ci
a`
ci
o
U
G
rn
O n N 0 6 0 0
O O O
f
N
O I� (V 0 0 0 0
N cl
V r M O O � N
O O O O O po
f9 f9 f9 f9 69 N
O O O po
f9 f9 f9 N
N
O
0
N
C6 fA fA �li C6 �
C U W
v W W
P
W
N 2
Ca
2
V y 6
p
a o
U
0
�o
C J
W t
a
y
U
C
Y
¢
O
m
o
d
O
A N
N
p
-ooa
ro�nom
w�
a
—^T.
w t0
W Y
g ^
OCU
$ j E c o
E
o. E
c
W
o
ro o n
a > E
_d
0 E a
E
m
m a
o —
oamom
Sro$
aCa
N
N W
Ea
o a
W
W
W
o
E
Z
E
d o
—
t m
m
is
o
m
¢s
grn
a
a m
=m'
U
o
E3M
a
sd
ii
oOm
aO
M
O
O
N
W
O
R9
O O
O O
O Cr
O O
� N
O O
O O
O Cr
N N
fA N
e
W o
LL O
w y m 0
.W
awo
C
Y ^
�, M H3 t9 Ny
O) O
d E ^
0 � W
a U
a o
¢
3 E
Q o
o
¢ _
fn
> W d C- U y 0
o W ro O N- ro co..
Cd myw W m�°oo
ox y o� o E —"
E E
o o o E.
o aE�mEUropo
U m o . o.Ero yE o @Z R m 3 s s 'o
t o
Nm� WSoi3 ono
t ^ O V1 U
o U O d O W
Yo`'o o F-Fm
W N W
3r C U l6 U l6 �p U D
3'W3 33S3rLLI
-
N
3
0
d
2m
5
d
-E
0 0 0
E
o
3ir0
L
O
aL
E
0
CL
E
Q
U
LO
N
O
N
1
O
N
O
N
IL
N
U
N
0
CL
0
a
IL
U.
U
a
Packet Pg. 171
9.3.a
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
V
to
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
O
a
m
:r
m
U-
m
U
m
N
O
O.
O
L
a
a
a_
U
r
t
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
2
r
Q
Packet Pg. 172
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $13,100,000
IMM M91
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic Park master plan is complete and has been adopted,
funds (including carryover, grants, bonds, REET, Park Impact Fee's and General Fund) have
been allocated and we are prepared to go to bid in February with ground breaking in April or
May of 2020.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE:
The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds have been set aside, and grant funds
secured. With the approved bonding we are ready to begin the project. This is a high priority in
the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
COST
Planning and
$395,000
Design
Engineering
$140,000
Construction
$11,937,092
1 % Art
$88,000
TOTALI
12,560,092
Packet Pg. 173
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NAME: Community Park / Athletic ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $6-8 M
Complex at the Former Woodway High School
ra CIA HOGAN
- --------- -
... - _ --
f I
Ile
rC)R lER wOODWAY HIGH SCHOOL
ATHLETIC FIELD IMPROVEMENTS
PRE PAnto fOX THE E DMON DS SCHOOL DISH ICT
MAY FOV
9.3.a
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Develop community park and regional athletic complex with lighted
or unlighted 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 for all 3 phases.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The site is currently an 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.
Phase 1 was completed in 2015 for $4.2M, Phases 2 & 3 will be completed in the future for an
additional $6-8M.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2039
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-
COST
2039
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$6-8r
" all or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the Arts
8
Packet Pg. 174
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Parks & Facilities ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3-$4 Million
Maintenance & Operations Building
Building Outline
Perimeter zone — 4,200 sf
Existing Fence Line
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
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2039
Planning/Stud
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$3m - $4m
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
Packet Pg. 175
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,805,198
sruvs:
--
__.__.__ ....— --
�78ptM� �i►,:p,
Brsh `, l
Aw R— _
T
i
Prr�ppsed Edmards
Waterfront center
II
•-:, ,Kxr i� ara+ nwr ss.acc .o.wrrr err w rx
M�ryr�kOrldr� �..
r —
wpo-.e rarq
K+r+� rrra,wcn
ara �----•- re+.a
k,w¢',n�va, n Raw
M1opw�tl �Imn Owe Yw
♦or�.�yrro�.r.. anM
vueew..�e r.n p.r.r� n
r+sRfr�,-Owf yF."
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot,
and frontage improvements. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife.
Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. This project includes the
Cit 's support for the parking lot and frontage improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center. One of the top priorities in the PROS
Ian is too en up beachfront access.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering
$67,500
Construction
$2,588,645
1 % for Art
$24,920
TOTAL
$2,681,065
all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
10
Packet Pg. 176
9.3.a
CFP
TRANSPORTATION
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
Q.
E
.Q
tn
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
O
a
m
:r
m
U-
m
U
m
N
O
O.
O
L
a
a
a_
U
r
t
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
2
r
Q
Packet Pg. 177
9.3.a
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
V
to
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
O
a
m
:r
m
U-
m
U
m
N
O
O.
O
L
a
a
a_
U
r
t
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
2
r
Q
12
Packet Pg. 178
9.3.a
a
LL y
U y
N
y C'
y
C S 4 N
y c O
a W O N
W =
T O N
« LL a"
f1�c
« y
m �
U
s
s
0
N
N
O
N
M
�
g
S
g
off
�ryry
�qq
�qq
tl
W�
tl
tl
tltl
2
2
S
2
Tn
Fi
Tn
^
F
&
U
2
2
U
off
o
M
tV
O
N
1 E2
N
N�
Oy
Oy
Oy
Nm
a°i
m
a°i
m
a°i
m
a°i
m
a°i
a°i
m
m
m
m S
m V
m
m V
m
m
@ m
m
m
LL
&a
Ell
-8i
8-�
&a
8-�
&a
8a
�a
8a
8ioa
&a
N y
O
O W
So
w N
O
mt
- m
o
O 4
i[f b
-
i9 w
U N
O
-
IL
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
tJ
U
m =
f7
(7
[7
m
C7
m
[7
-
m
m
'S
[7
[7
o
`o
ai
h
O
a
¢
a
a
a
a
at
�1 .0 .;
a
a
a
a
`
°
o
..a
o`o O5
E
m
d
w
oo
'a
a a,s
rl
.Yo
m
v_
�m
1 am
=Ems
=„o
��N
Qm`
got
W=�
2.1
�o
°'y
^an
Ems'
aiE�
ya
'
yE'gn
.�aE
Q$mC
Wm_
c.�
3na�
o�j
a�
;om.tl
ti5•�`�
tio
N5°o'4�
'��?�
2m a
�;
N �mm
a do
°m�wamN
r$%
y
cp nr`n
=E
33�'
3�E
3mm�
E°u
EE u°i
cim
ci80`�
=`m3
Ern
L6
E
It
N
y
y
_
[1
S
¢
y
N
E
y
E
3
N
E
1
w
3
N
m
c
N 3
2
2 E
2 E
2 E
rm
13
Packet Pg. 179
9.3.a
s
$
os
0
N
N
O
N
�
�
N
N
M
M
Nto
O
N
M
lh
O�
N
$
N
N
N
N
Oy
0
N
Nm
C
5 m ii 8
y N W F
a�i
9 m ii o
4J F
m
5 - ii S
y N F
a�i
9 m ii o
y y F
c c
N U
�
G y
N f
f» fn
�
vi to
N w
m
1 a
U
U
U
U
O
a
o
v
42,
O
Unaaa
�
Eo
E�.�
.10E
3a�
3 3Ng
3
yo
d g
1.
4
u
h
y
3
c
in
E
=
y
m
a
o y
ffi
o f
0 0
C Q
u
mv1
hE
yE
E, aLi
O-
$
$
$
$
o ct
_ o $
$
a
o$
i9
fN i9
fA �
i9 W
$
M
M
M
M
5
O
S
g
p $
- so as
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
E
a
-
a
o
a
-
a
E
a
I
a
y
wy
mM
wEo
.Ea
VE o
ayN
w
w
`E
k
n.k
n3 >•
��
t
»
r
m
mot
Ev1
Ey u-
E¢v1
EQ3
2 �
2
Q
N
h
3
Q3
N
y
6
0
y
0
y
a
nIE
¢
¢ r
2
E m
m
o'o
o
.t
cm
m
N
y
N
3 y
N 7i
O
O 3
yaw
In c
E
Qr
Qr
N¢
y
Ny
-
3y
3 n
L
0
a
O
L
cL
C
CL
U
LO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
IL
N
LL
U
d
N
O
CL
O
aL
IL
LL
0
a
14
Packet Pg. 180
9.3.a
0
N
b
O
N
�
M
$
M
M
M
N
O
�
N
L
o
ci
q
Ro $
Nto
»
I Y
w S
to
N
/wL
li
S8
-o $_
$
$_
�$
$8ol
lo
ol $$
$
&$
A
��A
d
N
/
O
CL
N
N
i6
Oy
N
N
LO
N
O
N
1
O
�
$
N
N
O
N
C
N
5 m ii S
m-
9 ii o
9- ii 9
a-
9 ii o
5 m ii 8
9 A ii o
5 m ii 8
9 A 3 o
9 A ii o
9 b ii P
9 m ii o
d
C
N F
vi -
v vJ F
m
F
y -
v vJ F
T -
N W F
y -
v vJ F
n -
N F
T -
v vJ F
y -
v vJ F
12 -
N F
y
v vJ F
y
7i
7i w
3
7i
@
7i
d
ui
1. L
Ny
o
Rv
H
M H H
H
H
H
M H
Q
Nf
U
•o m
2
zi
�'
�'
$
IL 0.
U
0
M
IL
rn
a
O
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
LL.
E y
c
N N
L
1
m
sQ;
o E
m m a•
t;
s ,Ln^m
+^+
N
q
m
aonE
m"
a:zU
.3t
gy
if
cy
i3a
c
ov1 .n
;
3�Fcn
c a
;
9m m
alolof
m
E`mE
y
`mom'��
'
ENE
E c
°
g
rmE
LLJ
mom
ms
amm�2c
'Qtia
'g i.
:a �pj"$
of
'i3u
c'�
caE
a
a E�3
'o U
'g�E
N
E
g
y
o
3
y
o
Z
E
a
= N
Q
y
E
c
w
n
N
97
an
_
magsE
4
�
3
via
3
v
dvi
�o�
Z5
R
N y Q
U E
15
Packet Pg. 181
9.3.a
a
LL y
V N
y C'
y
C S a N
y CO
O
a W N
W =
C N
« LL a"
f1�C
« y
m �
U
s
s
s
s
s
s
0
N
b
N
N
�
N
N
M
M
M
M
C
OFy
N
oS
SS
O
N
N
N
N
N
M
M
M
N
N
M
M
c
N
5 m ii S
9 A ii o
5 m ii S
9� ii o
9 m ii P
9� ii o
9 m ii P
U F
rn go F
y u F
y N U F
y u F
y N U F
N y
0
N U
O' y
N f
f» fn
w vi
vi w
to vi
vi w
�
vi w
U N
O
c �
m "
�
O
a
�¢
ra05
ga
�y
Z'��
drnw
my
m3
a
asp
w
aN
E
am_
E
ai
E
ai
E
a
5
ao
E
aso
y3o
a3
°i3
a3
03
m;
a¢3
ala¢y
a`in
avi
Eli
'a3
E
s
E
S¢
65
ti
m
m
ti
m
z
_
x
x
c
¢ o
E
E
.E
E
E
¢y
aN
aN
in3
in3
a �
t<
5"
Na
Na
oo
mop
16
Packet Pg. 182
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $11,700,000
to 95th PI. W
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 228th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 95th Pl. W to three lanes
(with two-way left turn lane), with curb and gutter, sidewalk, and bike lanes.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve active transportation safety
and traffic flows along this corridor. Community Transit would also look into creating a new
east -west bus route along 228th St. SW if this project moves forward (connecting Edmonds
Transit Station to Mountlake Terrace Transit Station).
SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2023 (pending funding). More than
half the project is within Esperance / Snohomish County. A Sound Transit System Access
grant was submitted in May '19 to fully fund this project but the grant wasn't secured. Sound
Transit also has funding available through ST3 to improve accessibility to the Sound Transit
Station. Mukilteo and Edmonds have $40 Million in combined funding to complete projects
improving access to the Sound Transit Station (for all modes of transportation). The City
indicated to Sound Transit that this project should to be considered by Sound Transit and it is
currently being evaluated. A final response from Sound Transit whether this project is funded
or not is scheduled for late 2019.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-
2040
Planning/Study
Engineering,
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Admin., & ROW
Construction
$9,700,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$9,700,000
17
Packet Pg. 183
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Highway 99 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000,000
Gateway/Revitalization
E
L
0
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
0
L
a.
E
.Q
V
to
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
M
a
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project would include, among other features, wider replacement
a
sidewalks or new sidewalk where none exist today, new street lighting, center medians for access contro
and turning movements, etc., attractive and safe crosswalks, better stormwater management, targeted
U-
utility replacements, potential undergrounding of overhead utilities, landscaping and other softscape
76
treatments to identify the area as being in Edmonds.
CL
U
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve aesthetics, safety, user experience, and access
management along this corridor. In addition, economic development would be improved.
o
a
0
SCHEDULE: The conceptual phase began in September 2017 and was completed in December 2018.
a.
An interim project has been identified with the addition of raised median along the entire corridor from
a
244t" St. SW to 212t" ST. SW (to address safety issues along the corridor). The design phase is
scheduled to begin in November 2019. The addition of a traffic signal at Hwy. 99 @ 234t" St. SW is also,,
priority project, adding a pedestrian crossing between 238t" St. SW and 228t" St. SW (— 1 mile distance
with no crossing). $10M from a Connecting Washington allocation has been secured, with $91VI not
available prior to 2021.
w
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-204(
E
COST
U
Planning/StudyPlanning/Study
a
Engineering &
$60,000
$500,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$24,000,OC
Administration
& ROW
Construction
$858,000
6,300,000
$138,000,OC
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$918,000
$500,000
$2,000,000
$6,300,000
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$162,000,0(
18
Packet Pg. 184
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 212th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,806,000
intersection improvements
i
21 g sw I
i
w
W Paalung
s gn
shop
/
n
7313
P.U.B
3 Edmonds
Edmonds
/
W Family Clinic ei
Public 17-ks
ADX
KENNEL
21 1
27114 /
f Arbor
Q
2I /
P.
27109
R
n
lle Box /
/
212TH ST SW
7,.59RI
"3"2"
L
215THSTSW
PLANT
AEGIS
W SWEDISH
m MDNnSCAM— '
ALLIED /
ROOFING /
/
/
B&M /
CON ST
21414 /
21448 /
/
/
NCnONRLD'
/ 01
1ALUE /
PILLAGE /
16TH ST/SW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 21211 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
2015 Transportation Plan: #4). The cost for the intersection improvements are included within
the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding).The
project cost is split between Lynnwood and Edmonds since half the project is within Lynnwood.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering,
$175,000
$1,091,000
ROW, &
Administration
Construction
$1,540,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$175,000
$1,091,000
$1,540,000
19
Packet Pg. 185
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 216th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,335,000
intersection improvements
21d1.02!1
13�d08w
214021d12
{
21405
04
LU
N
U>
2120L<
2i431MC�UHA6'
un
�
anz
150
�
r
2150021558EGIS
VALUE � #
VILLAGE
ST
SVU
—
• 216TlM
21600 {� 21619
KRUGER
CLINIC f
21632 � � -
��I16e
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Widen 216th St. SW to add a westbound left turn lane and an
eastbound left turn lane. Provide protected -permissive left turn phases for eastbound and
westbound movements. This project ranked #3 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015
Transportation Plan. The cost for the intersection improvements are included within the Hwy.
99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and reduce delay.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
ROW &
Administration
$204,000
$334,000
Construction
$1,837,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$204,000
$334,000
$1,837,000
20
Packet Pg. 186
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 220th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,215,000
intersection improvements
TOP FOODS v �,
19TH sr SW /
21919 STARBU S /
/
220TH ST SW
I
I
I
I
1221
I
I
I
I
I
13
_I �
� l4
n
III
•0. 7301 W
U
O
e S
C m
.M.
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 PROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #2). The cost for the
intersection improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project
costs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce intersection delay and improve traffic flow and
safety.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding for all
phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
COST
-Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
& ROW
$175,000
$1,085,000
Construction
$1,955,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$175,000
$1,085,000
$1,955,000
21
Packet Pg. 187
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Hwy. 99 @ 234th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,300,000
intersection improvements
ESPE&ANCE
F]
— 1i711
21202
17
S-IMO PL W
i «n
�• �I 21]31
233RD PLy�
1
• 71J7C'. _ - : i321
ff
-- �34TFS ST.SW _.-.
} l3 a'•• 3]406■�� 1 DIM ]l1 1 1712
1�
2341� r3111
"2141f 23+17
:b ul
w Y3Q€ 7i.ti1,
I 7i WOOL
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal at the intersection of Hwy. 99 @ 234th St.
SW to provide safer crossing of Hwy. 99 for vehicles and non -motorized transportation
(project identified in Hwy. 99 Sub Area Plan). These intersection improvements are included
as part of the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project. The cost for the intersection
improvements are included within the Hwy. 99 Revitalization / Gateway project costs.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety and pedestrian conditions
along the corridor.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding for all
phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$300,000
$300,000
Construction
$1,200,000
$1,500,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$300,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
22
Packet Pg. 188
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 196th St. SW (SR-524) @ ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $903,000
88th Ave. W Intersection Improvements
1em
3
ILU
_
a_
.~a
I
m
:VEN DAY
WENTIST
:HURCH
4
19eTM sr sw
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 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). This project
was ranked #6 in the Roadway Project Priority in the 2015 Transportation Plan.
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: All project phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2025 (unsecured funding).
In order to allow the installation of a traffic signal, the MUTCD traffic signal warrants must be
met and the installation must be approved by WSDOT (since 196th St. SW is a State Route /
SR-524).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
$193,000
$175,000
Administration
Construction
$535,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$193,000
$175,000
$535,000
23
Packet Pg. 189
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Main St and 9t" Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $896,000
N
Q
x
J __J1 MH__JI __�,
BELL ST
UJ
a
I - �
P
MAIN ST
WADE JAMES
� TH EATE R
L
� W�
a
r
H
oavraN n
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of a traffic signal or mini -roundabout.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The existing intersection is stop -controlled for all
approaches and the projected intersection LOS in 2035 is LOS F (below the City's
concurrency standards: LOS D). The installation of a traffic signal would improve the
intersection delay to LOS B. The project ranked #4 in the Roadway Project Priority of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
SCHEDULE: The design phase is scheduled to begin in 2023 and construction in 2024.
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering,
$120,000
Administration
& ROW
Construction
$776,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$120,000
$776,000
24
Packet Pg. 190
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 7611 Ave. W @ 22011 St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
Intersection Improvements $8,109,000
S
STARBU KS
J
220TH Sr 5w
14
zz� sr Pt sw
LYNWOOD
HONDA
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 #1 in 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce the intersection delay and improve the LOS. The
projected LOS in 2035 would be improved from LOS F to LOS D.
SCHEDULE: A STP Federal grant was secured in 2018 for the Design Phase (funds not
available until 2021). The ROW and construction phases are currently unfunded. The design
phase and ROW phases are scheduled to be completed in 2022 and construction in 2024
(pending additional grant funds).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering & ROW
$533,000
$876,000
Administration
Construction
$6,700,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$533,000
$876,000
$6,700,000
. All or a portion of this project may quality for 1 % for the arts
a
LL
U
x
w
aD
E
r
a
25
Packet Pg. 191
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 95t" PI. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $495,000
Intersection Improvements
W
H
r
ST S
a
CC
rn
cl
WESTGATE
CHAPEL
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Upgrade all ADA Curb Ramps; and add C-Curb for access
management. This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Streets Corridor Analysis
completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection safety for pedestrians and vehicles.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 unsecured funding
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$75,000
Construction
$420,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$75,000
$420,000
a
w
c.�
x
w
c
as
E
r
a
26
Packet Pg. 192
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 238t" St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,338,000
Intersection Improvements
i
10
■
To Hwy 99
41�
239TH ST SW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal. The warrants are met for such an installation.
This project was identified in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in
2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve vehicular and pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$200,000
Construction
$1,138,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$200,000
$1,138,000
27
Packet Pg. 193
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 76th Ave. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
W Intersection Improvements $1,183,000
N
SEAVIEW
PARK
3
PLSW
186TH ST SW
ml I m—I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal (the intersection currently stop controlled for
all movements). (ROADWAY ROJECT PRIORITY in 2015 Transportation Plan: #11).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvement will reduce the intersection delay. The
projected Level of Service is LOS F in 2035, which is below the City's concurrency standards
(LOS D). The project will improve the Level of Service to LOS B.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2026 and 2040
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering,
Administration,
& ROW
$200,000
Construction
$983,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$1,183,000
28
Packet Pg. 194
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W (212th St. SW ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $15,441,000
to 238th St. SW)
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 #6 in the Long Walkway list of
the 2015 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: All project phases are scheduled between 2026 and 2040 (unsecured funding).
The project costs would be split between Snohomish County and Edmonds since half the project
is located within Esperance.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering,
$2,000,000
Administration,
& ROW
Construction
$13,441,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$15,441,000
all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
29
Packet Pg. 195
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 100t" Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,017,468
Intersection Improvements / Access
Management
I
EDMONDS WAY
�% � MMI -a 0L I
r
NEI
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implement Westgate Circulation Access Plan, install mid -block
pedestrian crossing along 100t" Ave. W, improve safety to access the driveways within
proximity to the intersection, and re -striping of 100t" Ave. W with the potential addition of bike
lanes. This project was identified in the SR-104 Completed Streets Corridor Analysis
completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and
improve non -motorized transportation safety.
SCHEDULE: All phases are scheduled between 2023 and 2024 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$150,000
Construction
$867,468
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$150,000
$867,468
a
U_
U
t
x
w
c
aD
E
U
Q
30
Packet Pg. 196
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76t" Ave. W ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,017,000
Intersection Improvements
*T-4
240iA PL SYY. 'l o'ISI S1 sw
LT
r�:au
I ietluvnLsw
' f I 141111, 1i SW
�y LY4Y
ai F J
LAKE BALLINGEA HAY— - — - —. — MP EMA(MI)S WAY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a 2nd left turn lane along SR-104. This project was identified
in the SR-104 Complete Street Corridor Analysis (completed in 2015).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve access and safety at the intersection and
improve non -motorized transportation safety.
SCHEDULE: 2026-2040. The project costs would be split between Shoreline and Edmonds
since half the intersection is located within Shoreline.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$453,000
Construction
$2,564,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$3,017,000
31
Packet Pg. 197
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Olympic View Dr. @ 17411 St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $610,000
SW Intersection Improvements
L+ 4 + — Meadowdale Middle School — — —
J-/, Parking L_
b 6WI St. Thomas Moore
—� a e
I Catholic School
B Ilfield
y
/ SanctuarY
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 2015 Transportation Plan: #13)
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve intersection efficiency and safety of drivers
accessing either street.
SCHEDULE: Engineering and Construction are scheduled between 2026 and 2040
(unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$100,000
Construction
$510,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$610,000
32
Packet Pg. 198
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Sunset Ave Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $3,050,000
from Bell St to Caspers St.
s UHDVIEwavrs
♦ ♦ �� I■� 11111■0 I
��' IIIIIII :M1■S■1 ■
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide a walkway on the west side of the street, facing
waterfront (— 112 mile / more recent project).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Temporary improvements were installed in 2017 through striping, in order to
evaluate the alignment of the proposed walkway and parking alternatives The design phase
is scheduled to be completed in 2023. Construction isn't scheduled to occur until 2024 when
utility improvements are scheduled to be completed along this stretch. No grant funding has
been secured for the construction phase.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
COST
Planning/Study
Engineering &
$295,000
Administration
Construction
$2,595,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$295,000
$2,595,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
33
Packet Pg. 199
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 23211d St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000
from 100th Ave. W to SR-104
EDMONDS WAY
W SANK
iwnRs
LLI
L !
Ell
2 .
■ ■ Qy -
1
�i
IF Al. 10
UUT H '
CHURCH, (jr
■ ■
■ , Uj
7 , ■
AW �I
o
�0 c� 2
ODW' ' I ESTATES AY OLy I _ PR
RK
\29 9 Dorn 98 7 6 5
' 30 2 15
3 14 7•
J \32 45 32
■ r
jr
`2q
7 1
nm (0)
1 � ■ � e
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 232nd St. SW from 100th Ave. W to SR-104.
This project ranked #3 in the Long Walkway List of 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$200,000
Construction
$1,105,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$200,000
$1,105,000
IL
LL
0
T
x
w
c
as
E
r
a
34
Packet Pg. 200
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 2361" St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,395,000
from Madrona Elementary to 97t" Ave. W
23=
■!1l3-
r.
O v,
A
6TH ST SW --
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk with curb and gutter along 236nd St. SW from
Madrona Elementary to 97t" Ave. W. This project ranked #4 in Long Walkway list of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$213,000
Construction
$1,182,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$213,000
$1,182,000
a
35
Packet Pg. 201
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000
From 238th St. SW to 234th ST. SW
L
PARK
EonnoNos SAL GALLL
APTS m
w
w LL
CH RIST LNTH E RAN CH N RCH O
PARK
& RIDE
OFFICE
236:1 4SUHSET
23603 SAFEWAY $23605 WH L KJIHG R23607 23619 0
P
���R AURORAS MARKETPLACET
N
239TH ST SW
W SEOUL
23821 PLAZA
2
23827
TRAVEL LODGE
0"
NORTH
ry HAVEN z
n MANOR w
a �
R p
r~ }
n•1L LO'N
13ROCK
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 238th St .SW to 234th St.
SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: Begin design in 2025 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$90,000
Construction
$495,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$90,000
$495,000
a
36
Packet Pg. 202
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 801h Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,996,000
from 206th St. SW to 212th ST. SW
I
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 206th St. SW to 212th St.
SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #1 in Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The improvements will improve non -motorized
transportation safety including for school kids due to proximity of several schools).
SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 (funding unsecured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$333,000
Construction
$1,663,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$333,000
$1,663,000
a
LL
U
x
w
aD
E
a
37
Packet Pg. 203
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 21811 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,305,000
from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave. W
■■■■N� ���■■
mom
r-
�A ■■
oil
OENT ER
Ira&,
U1
E
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 218th St. SW from 76th Ave. W to 84th Ave.
W with curb and gutter. This project ranked #2 in Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: The improvements will improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2024-2025 unsecured funding
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$200,000
Construction
$1,105,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$200,000
$1,105,000
a
38
Packet Pg. 204
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. Walkway from 3rd ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $105,000
Ave. S to 4th Ave. S
ARTS
W ENTER
a
Z UNDOW NEI
N
ALDER
ALDER ST
346
414 412 410
arking
5
5
LA
UJ
o SOUND VIEW
o:
HOWELL WAY
W
a
x
v
DAYTON ST
OLD
MILLTOWN
MAPLE ST
TRIC
ALDER ST
N
W
a FBECKWT'S
z
BAN K
T-
409 530Pancak
407 540 Hau s
4003 546 0
401 w
a
WALNUT Sr
--F
GREGORY
e
H
525
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct a missing link of sidewalk (approximately 350') on
Walnut St. between 3rd Ave. S and 4th Ave. S (ranked #3 in Short Walkway Project list in 2015
Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2023 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Stud
Engineering &
Administration
$10,000
Construction
$95,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$105.000
" all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
a
39
Packet Pg. 205
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 216th St. SW Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $157,000
Hwy. 99 to 72" d Ave. W
7200
PARK & RIDE
7309
5TEVE N
MAN oa
M1 rlao
21407
21507
21511
J y
IL
0 211 52
M STEVEN
C{} ll RT
21527
21B7H
120
EVENS
FILION
��
21500
AEGIS
S
21600
KRUGER
CLINIC
210
B &M40
CONS
21410 2140$ 0.
21401 21412 r
21420
21�MCDONALD'
Ln
{4N
�AL'
21558
VALUE
VILLAGE
� 21 6 TJl
{ 21619
- '
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install 150' sidewalk on north side of 216th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to
72nd Ave. W (completing a missing link on north side of stretch). This project ranked #3 in the
Short Walkway List (from 2015 Transportation Plan).
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To provide a safe and desirable walking route.
SCHEDULE: Engineering & Construction scheduled for 2023 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$30,000
Construction
$127,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$157,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
a
LL
T
x
w
c
as
E
a
40
Packet Pg. 206
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Elm Way Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $830,000
8tn Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S
IR
L
■
P,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Elm Way from 8t" Ave. S to 9t" Ave. S. This
project ranked #6 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 (funding unsecured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$175,000
Construction
$655,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$175,000
$655,000
a
LL
U
x
w
a�
E
U
r
a
41
Packet Pg. 207
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Dr. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,330,000
from Main St. to 2001h St. SW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct sidewalk 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 #18 in the Long Walkway list of the 2015
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 2024 and construction in 2024 / 2025 (funding
unsecured).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
$436,000
Administration
Construction
$947,000
$947,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$436,000
$947,000
$947,000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
42
Packet Pg. 208
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME:95th PI. W Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000
224th St. SW to 220th St. SW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 95th PI. W from 224th St. SW to 220th St.
SW with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: Engineering is scheduled for 2023 and construction in 2024 (funding
unsecured)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$100,000
Construction
$485,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$100,000
$485.000
43
Packet Pg. 209
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Railroad Ave. Sidewalk from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $862,000
Dayton St. to SR-104
bt.
4� fi
�tio-P W NAYTON 5T
P❑
a
? Fo
�ONn.
ea a
4k
DAYTON ST
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install new and wider sidewalk along Railroad St. from
Dayton St. to SR-104.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation safety along
Railroad St. from Dayton St. to SR-104, key stretch since connects to various destination
points such as Senior Center, Port of Edmonds, Downtown Edmonds... .
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2023 and 2024 (unsecured funding for all
phases).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$160,000
Construction
$702,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$160,000
$702,000
44
Packet Pg. 210
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 @ 76th Ave. W non- I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST:
motorized transportation safety improvements $1,210,000
mr—
Ra In a.
IqN r� w
MS.
-V
��19 ka,jdN95 WAraFFRq .. _ �
LAKE BA LINGER WAY ----- - Tm0F 0N0S WAY
PLO
a
,.fir
r s� sw
zr
Nla
V
--�dND5
RFLIIVF
LAKi iiAL1.IN
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Extend bike lanes within proximity of the intersection in
northbound and southbound directions. Install APS on all corners and new ADA curb ramps.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improve non -motorized transportation safety along this
section of the Interurban Trail.
SCHEDULE: All Phases are scheduled in 2023 and 2024 (unsecured funding for all
phases). This intersection is shared with Shoreline and they own the traffic signal.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration &
ROW
$224,000
Construction
$986,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$224,000
$986,000
45
Packet Pg. 211
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 191th St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $630,000
from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W
1�
192ND PL 5W
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 191th St. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave.,
with curb and gutter. This project ranked #8 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation
Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2026-2040
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$90,000
Construction
$540,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$630,000
46
Packet Pg. 212
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 10411 Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $990,000
from 238th St. SW to 106th Ave. W
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 104th Ave. W from 238th ST. SW to 106th
Ave. W, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #10 in the Long Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2026-2040
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$150,000
Construction
$840,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$990,000
a
U-
U
x
w
c
aD
E
r
a
47
Packet Pg. 213
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 801h Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000
from 218th St. SW to 220th St. SW
----- 77T---------------220THSTSW—
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 218th ST. SW to 220th ST.
SW, with curb and gutter. This project ranked #7 in the Short Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2026-2040
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$55,000
Construction
$260,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$315,000
48
Packet Pg. 214
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 84th Ave. W Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $315,000
from 188th St. SW to 186th St. SW
r`T rucq�
5■■
i i
.}
'■
��lW
r ri
186TH ST W
i
■-d6
NP'`
`
,7 ��
■
w
F■
18 TH 5 5W
■
L A
- F
A
188TH 5T 5W
LE
. 4 ■r7
■ P
L
7
'
L
' U
r
.; a _ L
r
■
o J
r ir
,
r
SFAMF W
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 84th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to 186th St.
SW., with curb and gutter. This project ranked #5 in Short Walkway List of the 2015
Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2026-2040
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$60,000
Construction
$255,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$315,000
a
49
Packet Pg. 215
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 23611 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $765,000
from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W
■
PARK
& RIDE
236TH ST
SN
2367
2303 SAFEN
235 JI
23607 NON
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 236th St. SW from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W.
This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2026-2040
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$115,000
Construction
$650,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$765,000
a
w
c.�
x
w
c
as
E
a
50
Packet Pg. 216
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 23811 St. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,170,000
from Hwy 99 to 76th Ave. W
1
PARK
r
.•nrIRL
NA LN
'
, ■ '
EOMONOs
APTS
BALL
' •
•
1
��r�
W
w
Ov
NORTH
m
CH RIST LH THE RAN CHURCH
S
N
PARK
& RIDE
R
n -
2
TH T
OFFICE
■
d `�
,4
,
W
r
SAFEWAY
�
L KJIHG
FC,�
I
'
L • .
SUNSET
'•n•1L LO•n:
CEj
BROOK
■
AURORA-
MARKETPLACE
FAMILYPANCAKEr
j7'
�
1 ■
238TH ST SW
"'
■
■
■
23821
seouL
PLAZA
'
■ ►
1
23827,
TRAVEL
LODGE
2397 ■
-MISISON TACO TIM
■
ST. FRA NCIS
MOTEL
WHSE ■
. .
.
- ■
■ ■
_+
K&EMOTEL
1
1
■
■
RT_II I F
1 ■
■ ■
,
IN
■
■
:yA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 238th St. SW from Hwy. 99 to 76th Ave. W
This project ranked #10 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2026-2040
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$175,000
Construction
$995,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$1,170,000
a
LL
c.�
x
w
c
as
E
a
51
Packet Pg. 217
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 801h Ave. W / 180th St. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $2,135,000
SW Walkway from 188th St. SW to OVD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 80th Ave. W from 188th St. SW to OVD. This
project ranked #13 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2023-2024 (unsecured funding).
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
20200
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering, ROW,
& Administration
$440,000
Construction
$1,695,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$440,000
$1,695,000
52
Packet Pg. 218
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: 189th PI. SW Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $585,000
from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave. W
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along 189th PI. SW from 80th Ave. W to 76th Ave.
W. This project ranked #14 in Long Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project would improve pedestrian safety.
SCHEDULE: 2026-2040
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$115,000
Construction
$470,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$585,000
53
Packet Pg. 219
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Ferry Storage ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $357,000
Improvements from Pine St. Dayton St.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Modify existing lane channelization on SR104 to add vehicle
storage for ferry users.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Reduce conflicts between ferry storage and access to
local driveways.
SCHEDULE: 2023 (unsecured funding)
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$50,000
Construction
$307,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$357,000
54
Packet Pg. 220
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Bicycle ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000,000
Improvements
x
a
T.,.,I�-.--
- -- -
Pnpo dBke Pekng �Bke
ur.e �Exsug
� b:te
® fw Vy 63x PaMNlLader � t
k��ta _. .
_
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation bike lanes and sharrows along various stretches as
identified on the Proposed Bike Facilities map of 2015 Transportation Plan
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will create new bike connections to various
destination points throughout the City (such as schools, parks, Downtown, Sound Transit
Station...). The intent of this project is to get more people riding their bikes and feel more
comfortable riding their bikes on the roadway (with safety improvements).
SCHEDULE: 2026-204
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026-2040
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$750,000
Construction
$4,250,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$5,000,000
55
Packet Pg. 221
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Dayton St. Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $205,000
between 7th Ave. S to 8th Ave. S
MAIN ST
I i f
Frances Anderson Center
m ,
Of i
navTn" IT
LU
sTj
_ 4
■
almF� I ILI
MAP
IlkW
Q
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk along Dayton St between 7th Ave. S and 8th Ave.
S. This missing link was identified as #1 in Short Walkway List of the 2015 Transportation
Plan.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve pedestrian safety along this
stretch.
SCHEDULE: The Design was completed in 2019 and construction is scheduled for 2020.
The project will be built with the Dayton St. Utility Replacements project (from 3rd Ave. S to 9th
Ave. S). The funding source is a 2019 TIB Complete Street grant.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
192,290
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$192,290
56
Packet Pg. 222
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Downtown Lighting ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,500,000
Improvements
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of street lights along various streets within Downtown
Edmonds.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve lighting along various stretches
within Downtown where street light poles / PUD pole don't currently exist. Those
improvements will improve night-time safety for all transportation system users. More users will
be encouraged to use active transportation to reach their destination during those hours
Sound Transit Station and many other destinations within Downtown).
SCHEDULE: The design and construction phases are scheduled to take place in 2023
(unsecured funding). Sound Transit has funding available through ST3 to improve accessibility
to the Sound Transit Station. Mukilteo and Edmonds have $40 Million in combined funding to
complete projects improving access to the Sound Transit Station (for all modes of
transportation). The City submitted this lighting project to be considered by Sound Transit and
it is currently being evaluated. A final response from Sound Transit regarding the projects that
will be selected is scheduled for late 2019.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering,
$100,000
Administration
& ROW
Construction
$1,400,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$1,500,000
57
Packet Pg. 223
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: SR-104 Walkway from ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $600,000
HAWK signal to Pine St. / Pine St. Walkway
from SR-104 to 3rd Ave. S
CITY PARK ■ _
f c'ER13EN DR J
� d +
we IL
moo. 0mum
® .I
A �
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Installation of sidewalk with ADA curb ramps along SR-104 from
the HAWK signal to Pine St. and along Pine St. from SR-104 to 3rd Ave. S
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve pedestrian connectivity between
the residential areas along 3rd Ave. S to Downtown Edmonds and City Park.
SCHEDULE: The design and construction phases are scheduled to take place in 2023 and
2024 (unsecured funding). A TIB grant was submitted for this project, with a response
scheduled for late 2019.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering,
Administration
& ROW
$135,000
Construction
$465,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$135,000
$465,000
58
Packet Pg. 224
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $57,710
to 7th Ave. S
Ma,
Fm ;7 F 0
120 In M 9 NQ dA , N i a
— tia, a . ... . — rT
ALDER 5T
-- .� ,1 --
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Install sidewalk on the south side of Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to
7t1 Ave. S.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: This project will improve pedestrian safety along this
stretch.
SCHEDULE: The Design and construction phases are scheduled to be completed in 2020.
The funding source is a 2019 TIB Complete Streets grant.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
$5,710
Construction
$52,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$57,710
59
Packet Pg. 225
9.3.a
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
V
to
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
O
a
m
:r
m
U-
m
U
m
N
O
O.
O
L
a
a
a_
U
r
t
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
2
r
Q
60
Packet Pg. 226
9.3.a
CFP
STORMWATER
a
LL
U
t
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
2
r
Q
61
Packet Pg. 227
9.3.a
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
V
to
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
O
a
m
:r
m
U-
m
U
m
N
O
O.
O
L
a
a
a_
U
r
t
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
2
r
Q
62
Packet Pg. 228
/
4\\
-z2
E (n04
_ ! C�
wji§
2 0 ■ @
»LTL@—
e)o
\°
0
q
9.3.a
Packet Pg. 229
9.3.a
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
V
to
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
O
a
m
:r
m
U-
m
U
m
N
O
O.
O
L
a
a
a_
U
r
t
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
2
r
Q
64
Packet Pg. 230
9.3.a
' 00 200
_Q11 C
-9tiI 1461 cw
Q
DAY TO N
w
a
�z
zo
C0
a ¢
ry -
CIP
Z
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Add a lift station in the Beach Place parking lot and supporting
stormwater conveyance structures. The scope also includes baffle manholes to divert flows
away from Harbor Square and the Edmonds Marsh, and provide a sub -surface connection for
overflows.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: To reduce flooding at the intersection of Dayton St. and
State Hwy 104. The Project is part of a series of projects recommended in the 2013 study of
necessary storm water improvements related to Shellabarger Creek, Willow Creek, and
Edmonds Marsh. The project is complimentary to the Willow Creek Daylighting project in that
the pump is required to manage flood conditions after the daylighting project is completed.
SCHEDULE: A construction contract has been awarded and is expected to be substantially
complete in 2019. Total cost est. at $2.1 M; 2020 budget shown is intended for project close-
out.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
COST
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$15,000
1 % for Art
TOTALI
$15,000
a
65
Packet Pg. 231
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Edmonds Marsh / Willow Creek ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $16,650,000
Daylighting — Design & Construction
Aerial photo of Marsh from 2018
General Project Location
Marsh as it existed in 1941
Updated project concept
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project will daylight Willow Creek and help begin restoration efforts in
the Marsh. The project has three sub -components including (1) daylighting Willow Creek through the
existing Unocal property, (2) daylighting of the Willow Creek through Marina Beach Park, and (3)
excavation/reestablishment of tidal channels within the Marsh. The project includes significant re -
vegetation and mitigation within the Marsh to improve habitat conditions and, depending on the final
recommended alternative, may also include significant flood wall and/or berms.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The daylighting of Willow Creek and subsequent redevelopment of
Marina Beach park (not included) will help reverse the negative impacts to Willow Creek and Edmonds
Marsh that occurred when Willow Creek was piped in the early 1960s. This project will provide habitat
for salmonids, including rearing of juvenile Chinook. The project, along with its companion CIP project
"Dayton Street Pump Station", will also help reduce the flooding problem at the intersection of SR-104
and Dayton Street. This project is a priority in the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
SCHEDULE: 2020 - 2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
$775,000
$1,875,000
Construction
$7,000,000
$7,000,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$775,000
$1,875,000
$7,000,000
$7,000,000
66
Packet Pg. 232
9.3.a
PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park Infiltration ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $742,700
Facility Phase 2
—P I
✓ti
�� Yafhot
Frederick
175th
Seaview
1
Park
__
78th
n
180
•` v'F
181.
2nd
h
+
! a
M
A r i
185th
172n
'
Y o IP
............ ..........
I
!P o i
173
d
N
Ck
a IP
IP E
y5
cc
LC
it
IP
IF o
-4
o IF
Ip
77t
1
7 h
�t V
l
79th
J
1
Oth
m
Distribution Chamber
-
8
nd
Q`
Q Diversion Structure
��
IP Inspection Port
Swirl Concentrator
ss
M
Z
(waler quahtyf tw.)
Well
� Modi}y flow
Limits of Phase 1
i0
exist.
diversion structure
r
Catch Basin
A sketch of the project
provided in grant application
materials.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City applied for and received a grant from the Department of
Ecology to design and construct an additional stormwater infiltration facility in Seaview Park.
The proposal will duplicate the system successfully installed during Phase 1 and is tentatively
planned for construction in 2022.
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. A flow reduction study for the Perrinville Creek basin was completed in
2015. This study recommended a number of flow control and water quality projects to improve
the conditions in Perrinville Creek. Control of the sediment loads in Perrinville Creek must be
achieved before proceeding with additional fish habitat improvement and removal of the
sediment collection structure the City currently maintains on the creek near Talbot Road.
SCHEDULE: Design is anticipated to begin in 2020 with construction planned for 2022 in order
to allow ample time to acquire permits and meet grant obligations during the design phase.
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
COST
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
$241,000
$6,100
Construction
$495,600
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$241,000
$6,100
$495,600
67
Packet Pg. 233
9.3.a
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
V
to
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
O
a
m
:r
m
U-
m
U
m
N
O
O.
O
L
a
a
a_
U
r
t
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
2
r
Q
68
Packet Pg. 234
9.3.b
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
2020-2025
DRAFT
Packet Pg. 235
9.3.b
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
f�
d
N
N
U
R
LL
R
a+
.Q
R
U
m
O
om
O
L-
a.
i7
W.
N
a+
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 236
9.3.b
CITY OF EDMONDS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2020-2025)
Table of Contents
GENERAL
Building
Maintenance
Public Works
7
112
Transportation
Public Works
11
125
Capital
Projects Fund
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
17
126
Special Capital /
Parks Acquisition
Parks & Recreation/
Public Works
21
332
Parks Construction
Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
23
421
Water Projects
Public Works
27
422
Storm Projects
Public Works
29
423
Sewer Projects
Public Works
33
423.76
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Public Works
35
PARKS — PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Capital
Parks & Recreation/
125
Projects Fund
Public Works
39
Special Capital /
Parks & Recreation/
126
Parks Acquisition
Public Works
63
Parks Construction
332
Grant Funding)
Parks & Recreation
71
Wastewater
423.76
Treatment
Public Works
79
Packet Pg. 237
9.3.b
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
f�
d
N
N
U
R
LL
R
a+
.Q
R
U
m
O
om
O
L-
a.
i7
W.
N
a+
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 238
9.3.b
CIP
GENERAL
E
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
Q.
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
f�
d
N
N
U
R
LL
R
a+
.Q
R
U
m
O
om
O
L-
a.
i7
W.
N
a+
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 239
9.3.b
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
f�
d
N
N
U
R
LL
R
a+
.Q
R
U
m
O
om
O
L-
a.
i7
W.
N
a+
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
Packet Pg. 240
9.3.b
LO
N
O
N
O
O
N
_o
y
U
d
0
a
Lf)
7 V
Lo Ln
It V
N N
V O
N o
O V
0 Ln
V O
N O
V 0
Ln eD
0 0
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
0 eD
O O
e3e30
O O
0
O O
e30
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
e3 -IT
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O V
0 m
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
V V
m N
V O
N 0
V O
m 0
O V 0
0 m e3
N
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
O O
O O
O O
h
Ln O
0
0 0
0 0
M
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
N
p
LO O
(s3M
O O
Ln 0
O O
u)m
1 n
N NM
O O
ON
O
O O
u)N
O 0 0
N Ln
1 n 1 n
Nuh
0 0
)
0 0 O
u7
O
MDNM
O O
O O
LnC
7
V
O O
NLn
O M
NN
O> 0
NEANN
0 0 1 n
f O O
V
1 n M
H)h
O 1 n
V
N 7
EAr
O 7
1 n O
EA V
0
F N
H3
N O
Hi r
w V
Hi EA
6s n
U3
H3 O
Lfl
eq
M eq
64
eq eq
fH eq
E9
Co
EA H3
Q9
eD
Hi
eD fH
H3
r H3
EA
e3 r
Hi
e3 eD
fH eD
eD
eD eD
eD
eD fH
H3
H3 H3
Q9
O
N
�
�
LO
O
O
O
O
O
o
N
O
O
LO
N
U3
EFJ
O
O
R
N
0
0
0
N
N
0
O
O
0
N
EA
o
O
Do
O
N
N
O
0
O
N
LO
L
H3
000
0
0
000
O
O
occ
0
0
Ln
LO LO
L0f)
Lon
N
eD
000000000
0
0
0
0
000
0
0
00000000o
000000000
O
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
OOO
000
O
0
O
0
Lo
N 0
0 0
0
0
O
O
O
N
L n
O L 2
N
O
O
M
Lf) O
Ln Ln
Ln N
U)
N
Ln
Ln
N
7
N
e3
N Ln
09- 09.
r
N
6i
eD
Q9Co
Eli
Q9Q9
H3 eD
eD
eD
E9
±
7 7
Ln W
7 7
m m
7 7
m Ln
7 7
Ln W
7
Ln
7
Ln
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
� �
� ,
, �
� ,
� j
I I
� I
I ,
I �
t
In
, ,
7-It-
rrn
Ln
V
m
00000
0000000
O
O
00
cc
00000
00000
0000000000
V
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
O 000
Coco
O
0
000
0
0 0
0 R
000000rl
000
OO1f)w
w
Lno
000
OOOOO
00000
(qq
N ^p
M0
00000
M
ci (500
OOOO
too
w m
O
V
OOO
V
Ln0
r
N N
Mm fA
N N
fA fA
N
EA fA
N
fA
U3 t`
M
H)
O
H)
M N
fA fA
N
fA
N��
fA
T
N N
fA fA
N
EA fA
eD
N 7
fA fA
e t`
fF)
U3
EA
e3 N
64
N._
H
eD
L9
W
0.
LL
U
U
a)
m
U
d
W
U
O
N
a
E
C
O
y
O
U
E
w
d
3
m
y
U
a)
Ld
m
a
0
c
0
O
C a)
>
— 0
Ld U
y
Ld
C)
'0
0)
E
C
>
C
M
C
Cm
0)
Y
3 N
"O C
a d
E
Co
U
0
N U
3 (l
6
At
ow
E5i
Y
Ua
-m
7j
c�i`c
--
O-a
0
O
U
S
E
Cl LL
y.m
ua-a
py
-�
oo
CL
a
c
__
y
va
0
a)
yo
O
is
c
U
-Q
m O
C
N
�
a)
N O
W
^�
C
y
O) ^
U•
a0 CuQ.
C
U Ctl
N
'O
S
y U
U
•(a
'V _
E E—
fC
0
Q U
O
Yd
N
O)
"a X
7as
y
y
N LL
Q
0 Ld
E��t2ocm��u
C
Q Vi
0 O
Z C
U
Co
d
C
�'v
Q=
cU`W
C
C
__
0)
o��a�Qyy)
N N
n
��
U
WgaZ,3�a;�>V
N m
O
d C
0 0 0
Z
0)
> O)
>
C—
a—
LC N
C
(U O
Y
U
d
U�
y
0 i
O)
"O
C_iS
-
_Y
U-
C
Na
U d
O E
N
N U
d U
C
U O_
¢
42$ O)
lL —
LC C
3
3 0.2
"6
N N
F.
V
O
7
L,L) —
LC
U
a ""'
tU
C
O �
O
i
LC UU
O
(U
7
y y
O) O).�
C
y •-
U N
N
y
"'
O) OU•L
C
N
LO
i. N
ya^
lL Il
O) tU
y N>
W
Y O
lL W
U N
a"6"OT
O�
O
C
Ly) �
LC
W
�C7ccl�_)
ci
vc=oa->iojo.YC7
c�ia�0
W
o�om'�a)a)
o�LE5sSo
NU)U—
U)Cl�a
oc3a)Mtn
V
a
L
C
d a
7
W U
S U
C
N r
U
2ll
C
E C
LPL y
S
U
U Cn
N
N
CoN
O y
W O U
O
Q 0=
U
U E
D
Q—
7
U>
O) d
S
S S
Y
LC i
C N
y U
7 N>
Q Q
i
U U
Q
Y l
i
N
y
l7 O
S S
r LC
Cn C
f0 S
y
U) O==
E 3
N N—
a
y¢
�-. 3
S
U
Q �j
i
O N
y
O
L1
Qum
W
2d
C 7dm
a)WUdUUmd�
W
22ll
LC
lLdJd}UU
LLSQUd�UUUZ�
CL
in
L
O
aL
r
C
N
E
d
0
cL
G
CL
m
U
ui
N
O
N
L
O
N
O
N
C
m
C
a
N
LL
.Q
d
N
O
om
O
L
a
a
v
L
N
Z
m
x
W
C
d
U
r
Q
Packet Pg. 241
9.3.b
vy
VI
61)
ull
\
a
04
coo
qqq
coo
2
��000
CD
CD
k�
Co
�J
m
§/
}�
CD
)£CD
IC■
</
7
\mm
\{)_ƒ/
§(\\
\§§7\�
§LL
LL
°kk(�
oeao�
C
«(DCrCr
k/AID
°§k§-0o(D
=ƒ
�)�§�i)�§
=®=(D
§)\\l±LLfU)
e=«)a«
>
> U)
,C\\:r<=aCd
3§
Cr
ull
k
Cli
Packet Pg. 242
9.3.b
H
�o�o
000�oo
O
O
O o
0
0 0
O
00
M(D
0h
(000
O
1�
N
N
O (D
0 00
O
O
N -
0 Co
7 M
V3
V3
V3 V3
V3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
(O
n
0)
O
N
Lo
En
V3
V3
Y N
N N
U U
a) N
N N
U U
O
O
O O
D
O O
O
O
�
(O fD
r-
O M
O
O
O O
O O
2
n
V3 fA
Co
d3
7
d3
c c
c c
O O
O O
m m
m m
O O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
> >
> >
C C
C C
C C
O
O
O O
O 000))N
O Lorr
O
O
-
Cli
Cb
n CD d3
V3 N
d3
V3
V3
(a m
m m
V)
N N
N N
f6 i0
i0 D
o0
C
ornmmm
p
0) 0)
0) 0)
o
(c
0
N
2 2
C C
2 2
C C
Co
N N
N N
U U
C c
U U
c c
O
p
O
O
'Y 'y
'y '
y
O
00
0
0 0
0
U U
U U
Lo
60
U a)
m m
a) a)
m m
O O
O O
O
0
00
N
CD
Vi
m
w(Lo
N�
MD m
V 't
N 000
Co EH
V3
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
c
E
m
N
�
C
C
Cz
m
E
v,
N
O
N
QN
c
c c
c
0) N
>
N
o
m
m
m m
O.
v y
�p
E
ya)a)amOEE
ECl
5
01
Cl
>
> >
N
cU9
2222
E�oaa))2
m
E �i
o
C Cl
E E
Cl Cl
E E
m
>
o C>
5 E
C
E E
>
O
c
O'
N C
E C
o
m
O
4:.:.:O
O
.
E
m O—
L
i
V O
O O
m-
C 5
c O
E (n
m
m e
c°
a)
E2
a) a)
E2�
> c
Q o
m
y
O
is
i
m (D
(D CD
m m
O>
>-
N
C C
C C
00 N
Co C
C
mm(n
in >,
m—
r !-'
�
� �
d
C
0 3L
,Cf)
rr
N.t
InJ
Co Co
�
m�
>
¢
dLoN0
O
45
Q
�E
11
N7
NNN
L .2@)L
Om
nCh(@@�!
�NN0J
0)0)000
N
QN
O�
Onl
(n c
N N
r 22222(nMr(n(n(n
0 0
000000000
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O O
0 0
O f�
0 0
o�ssVaooOmOo0
O
0 0
O
0 0
O O
0 0
N O
0 0
O O
0 0
O O 0
0 0
O s
O LL9
OQ)
lf)O(D
W
OIf)LL9
QlOM
OOI10(2
lf)I�n
W
MM
nONONOOOO
MQl
W
(D
0100
C Cli
N -
MV30)
r
-7
C` l
N -6a
EH
63
CD
6363N
(D Co
LLD
V3 63
00 N(f)
V3_
N<D
r 6'3
V3
V3 63
63
V3 63
V3 63
63
63
V3
00000
C
LoN
000
C C
OM
C 0
0
O
C
Lo
O
O
C
h
N
T EH-7
N
63
6F3
V3
V3
63
O O
C C
N (D
O Co
000
O O
000
666
f, 0
o
�
0000
0000
C C
M O
M O
C C
m O
Q l O
00
00
C C
O h
0 7
O
000
C
(O
Co
O
00
C
O(
O(
O
C
f)
D
aO NN
� 63
63
MN
63 63
Cc N
; 63
(n0
Vi V3
71-I
63
f
N�
V3
fA
V3
V3
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
(f)
O
O
O
r,
O O
00
o 0
n (D
O
000000
O
0
O O
O O
0 7
O O
O O
0 0
O
O
m
EA
Vi
63
63
63 63
63
63 6o
-
63
V3
0
f�
I�
o
C
W
m
N
N
LLD
60
M
0)
V3
Q
V3
o
o
m
rn
CoCli Lo
O000
N
w
(Al
Co
60
N 7
�2
N V)
V3 60
VT
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
ai
Q
'o
N
C
M
p
E
c
a)
O
C'
O E
�
>
m
N
p
>
>
Y
C
(n O
N
in
>
L333
3
T
3m>
°
L
oa
m(n
cn (n
m
j
Y 3Q
c0 Y
O
3
o<n
N
c c
O
m
y�$U)(nU)EL<
a
C\j
U O
w V
N w
L
(D
O 0
N V
In �
V) CD
0(D
C'
O
�2
CNNNON
_>.
a)
> >0,
> V1�
N
In
O
Q
2
mO
> N
O
N
C
V) O
O
N
O O
O O
L
=
=-2
L (n
c
o
2
d
CA
^
U y
L O
L
T
c
mQ
C�
V1 (n
V1 dfn
V1
070.E
O(n�
N
O
> >>j
EL
O(A
iA(A
inQ
.
�oQ
v,�
�
E
Ez
o oQ
2
2 O'pL
`0
mm
LL
cNao(o
LL
a)
> >
T
ma[
cc'
m
>�¢�
a) O
2
T�
a
E E
E
N
N N^
O L
Y
C N
Q O
L a
m>
O
3 E
YooEEEEoM(omom'C�rYYQ
CAC
ro
m
o
0 0
o
E E
E (u�
L
L N
3
O O��
O�
��
�_ r
J
m V13:
>
(n
��
��
U)�;
fn(n
(na>.
cad
N
Quin
>
> >
>tn��intnina
oin
m 3
)
o°)�x
.0
c=�a7
a
O O
C 0
0 N
c N(D
L.L.
.L.
8YW
m m(c
m
E m�Y
o
3
Y
fn NN
7W
000 N
000N��NN
C8,5)M _
W
0)S(n
02
U)M
Packet Pg. 243
9.3.b
R
N�
N
6-1
Co
b
N
6-1
Co
4040
Cl)
It
6-1
to
Lq
n
V
W
m
e
6.
a
Lo
r
co
M
O
W
b
M
M
f9
M
co
N
e
a
N
N
C/
(9
0
W
b
Go
oll
0
O
N
0
N
N
6s
O
C
N
o0
N
O
O
W
�
M
7
04
0
N
Co
EA
O
C
O O
C C
N
ON
m
00
C C')
C
N
lf3
CO
C C
O
Or
o0
V
N
EA
EA
O
O
O
O
O
�
O
000
Cm
Cm
N
N
I
d
o
0
O
0
O
O
O
CII
O
O
0
O
N
O
O
CM
4a
O
O
N
W
O
O
N
O
O
co
to
4a
a
N
n
fA
0
C
0
C
0
C
6
O
6 6
O O
o m
O O)
o
O
N
N
Con
6a
Oj
fR
LO
EA
(Al
6a
EA
(DD W
613
EA
m
61i
�
N
O
O
O
LO
N
O
00
C
LO
1-O
O
C
0
00
00
C C
LO eD
rn
0000000
(D
'"
I
<D
O O
C C
o 00
2
O O
O O
O o
ro
O
LO
fG
0000
0000
C C
m o
MO
C C
o o
W O�
N
6a
0
V3
1
EA V
00
V3
'I
EA r
fR
Cm
6a
V3
Co
EA 6a
d3
V3
M
N
O
N
O O
080
OO
C O
o In
LOno
N61-
Ki
O
O
Ui
r�
60
00000000
00000000
C C
0 o
00NN0NI�I�
oo
M
� 6f1
C C
N o
- -
6'9 V3
C C
0 o
h
o Vf
EA
O O
0 Co
EA
O
O
O
LO
EH
N
C-i
N
O
C
LO
LO
Co
O
N
O
N
a
0
N
E
N N
W
a
U.
U
E
0
U
w
ui
Co
Co
�
y
>
a
r
E
E«
y
0
3
U
>
£
>
£ E
y
c E
m¢
c
m
U
E«£>
E >'o
m U
m
c>i
-
Cl
N
>
«
y L
L L
E
cl
>l6NNN00
'C
E
N
d
UNUEOEU
w
C
N 0=
O
0
0 0
W
0
y
pN
C
a
N
Q
yO L
Co
0
N
N
N
07
y
a a
w a
a
0
m
C
3
3 may,
U 5
0) N
o E
N
E E
..:
o
C
o
L
rn
T>
d=£°
= 3
O
O
O O
L .�
`�
x
L
o m
3
3
3 m
m
C 3
�n
(V
y in
0
y
T
EO l0
W C
N Q
CO
3 td
y Y
5�cc
E Y
d
N Q
ppW
pN' L
a
C
N C)
UUU>
d
J
_
y
Ulminm
L
L
>vvvQUin
Q O
O O
N "O
>
L Q
> >
Q Q
>in
Q L
C
N
3
tD
L
C N
tD L
V
L L
0 0
y OD
C7Q
C
dN�
N2
��
�U7
(n U7
M
(n N
M
N OOOO
0
N
i
v
N
to
W
C
N
t
U
r
Q
10
Packet Pg. 244
9.3.b
0
0
a
rn
O O
O 0000
0 C
(n r
O C7�2
t»6n1V
0 0
0 0
0 0
Or-
Ovao0
6a606a606a
O O
0 C
r (D
7O
tnt»int»-
0 0
0 0
0 0
L6 W
O O
O
0 W
OO't
M�
0
0
0
<D
ao
00000
00000
C C
000(3)
O�OM
0 0
O o
0 0
ON
On
6a60
C C C
tnt»
U)
to
Q'
a
M
O
C
O
CL
E
_
N E
p
O
C. L
?�
$
E
E
N c
�
w a
M
CO
>
L
O M
N m
r
a
O C
0 LL
a
N
Q N
L
YO
YO
0
H
C
Q)
O
M
O
N C
V
o
m
;isD'o£EY
Co
N
"O
Q
_
D
>
E
E
p
r�
N O
N
j>>
O
O Q .N-
E
E
o
o°
Cl
E
m
o
D E
O—
E E
f
m
Y
3
.t y
o
D
(TO
Y m
T >mm
m
(TO m>
Y m
C
Q
Co
>
3
L
N E
dY
m 0
r J
a) N Oi
003��%o
0)
�L?�
0
n3ia
oo
3:
o
0
a
tO
E m
¢
3 aC
�N
W �
mQU7�2(nLL
to to
Co (D
a rn
Co aD
a v
M -
to to
O D�1
� N
of o)
rl
a co
(o rn
a
W
to
to
11
Packet Pg. 245
9.3.b
l(1
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
`o
N
d
2
IL
O
O
O O
o 0E13,m
O N
O O
000000310
O O
O O
O O
O
O N
EAM
O O
0006464
O O
O O
EFJ
O O
EFJ Hi
O O
O EA
N
O
001f1
O O
O
00
O O
N
O O
IA 00
O
O O
00
O D
0 0
000
0
O
If)
f0 N
K3
(A
H3
CUQ
M I�
Efl Efl
64 W
I�
Efl
(A (A
7
mM
CUl O0
Lo
I-
64
N
_
64
Z,
64 Efl
64
O
N
O
0
O
N
00
00
613 63
N
O
�
N
a
00
0
69
0
fH
0
0
-
00
0
N
0
fH
0
0
N�
N
O
64
N
CO
O
O
In
to
000
O
LA
(a
O
O O
Ln o
fA N
0
O
Ln
N
N
O
�
6s
N
N64
0
0
Ld
0
0
LO
00
O O
o v
iA �
00
O O
iri ui
64 64
0 0
0 0
0 0
N
N
0
6s
63
N
N
0 0
0 0
u) v
6
o
0
ui
69
00
0
ui
64
0
o
N
O
N
�
O
0)
0
o
N
O
0
v
O
o
o
6a
M
m
W
00
o
LO
6
0
o
0 64
0
LO
ta
N
Q
N
M
D
O
V
I,
W
a
o
0
00
0
G
00
K3 O
O
o
0
O
O
ui
0
O
OD
0
O
O
N
O
r
00
O O
O O
0o
O
O
O
V
69
EA 0
Q)
can)0
N N
W
IL
X
X
V
0
U
CO
O
o
f/1
4
W
o
c c
N
O N
�
0
E
a)E
U
o
ac
0 o
O U
>O
N
> "C
CS
E O
C U1
C E
Y
N
.o
a
y
a—
E o
p
o
o m
a c
ai
>
o aEi
n >
m E
E Cl
o 0
U
a'c
o E
3 v
y m
W
E
>
o
;� c
E o
0
m o
o
E a>
m 0
o
>.
m E
o
NNc
OO6
E Co
>Q
w
36
76
y
N
Co
Z
E
0
am
Eaco
aC
.
m
Cc
°
vrt>
raU
Wo
W
o
m
o
o
N
E
m
QaNU0
oa
>
C
o
r2Q
L0
rom
Uoa
pO
G.
Q
U
U ULUO
m
2
a M
653:
3:>70W
0>20Q
L
O
L
a
c
a�
E
d
O
L
cL
G
CL
m
U
LO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
m
C
m
a
N
O
y.i
Q.
d
N
O
CL
O
L
a
a_
V
N
Z
t
X
W
�.i
V
r
Q
12
Packet Pg. 246
9.3.b
a
N
01
(D {D
Co
a
O
O
0
aD
O
O
O
O
O
O
w
O
O
O
1l1
O
O
0
a
N
m
(V
V7
0/
N
n
M
O O
O O
O O
O L
(D Cl)
�
O
69
O O
C C
CD
O C)
U) m
V! V!
N D
0)
lD (D
L6 N
N lD
R O
6N ai
69
r �D
7
N 7
r uS
O O
� N
Ef!
Cl)
VJ
0
R
aS
n
Cl)
6A
IL
v
r
Q
13
Packet Pg. 247
9.3.b
N a N 7
_ N
7 7 N
N 7 M
H N EA (A (A
O
N
C t O� O
lcCC
O SO 61) 61)
N
LO
N Cl)
O N
N O
p N
N
O
N
O
N
N N
'0 O
N
N
O
N
c E» Efl e3
N
a
0
Co 0 a
y lc 'I W
O1rl E;E e3��
N N
W
IL
LL
fU
C
O
2
Cr
E a
R
i
CmY
0
IL a °N'
y m ma
E V mV
> V W c a
0CL °> m c
Q N Z 20
F CD
U L)
Cm W Q) CD
Q
v G U)U)
R
L) Li a 00
0
01
W
O
Ir
O
n
n
O
n
f9
Co
C
O
O
N
N
r"
W
i9
N
q
to
f0
O
v
Cl)
m
is
n
N
0.
E
c
r
T
Cli
C
O
CD
O
O
N
i9
O
C
O
N
60.
O
O
0
O
O
0
0
N61)
Cl)
M
n
N
O
0.
10 7
m 0
0 0
0 O
PR EA^
W 0
��0�0
0 0
0 0
00000
d
Offs
a
EA
W
N
0
N
0�0
12
0
O
Co
N
Pia
(A
7
e3
64
Efl
C
O
0
O
M
69
0
0
0
NKJ
O
0
O
M
O
0
O
N
O
O
Co
CO O
0
NK7
0
O
0
Co
0
O
0
N69 EA
O
0
0
M
69
O
C
0
N
61)
W m
O
r-
O
0�
0
0
W r-
a640
O
f-
O
W
O
a)0
O
O
L
Co
C\l
Efl
1*
64
Efl
63
rn
rn
Co
O
O
co
7 0)
N
W
OO
o W
N 1�
r un
W
m
m
a
0000
0000
Wv
r�ornM,
0000
LOCO
WO
LO
ea e3
ar�rrw
fA
7N!
ea
v3
Nr
69
ER
O
N
Co
ea
0000
N101,7
GO
ea fA
ea
X
X
X
U
N
_N
�
N
N
U
N
Q
lq
o
N
oz
d
U
z
y
�
Q
N
O
L
C
> L
O-
C
oo
0)
0
rn
W
o
O
OL
N
as
2
2 N
N
_C O
O L
C
O>
N a
d N
U
O
a j
t
(n a
C N
N9
C0
OT
C'<p
1i O.>H
YII i
«. __
C
E
O
N y
O
N
y
>.�am>
Co
Co
Co
N �aC
.N�
o�
m o
7mCo
d
N
dm
o
m
d>�O
N
�ma'Uo
�c
�CUa)
(N
I.�cc
C
N O
C
7�0
CY
N.L..�a
OOYWOD
LL
O V
Y'
2LO
L�
N�
� V._'-
N
E O
i
Q W
2 d
N W
N N
0 H
- U
r (}
d H
Q m
I-- O
N V
Lr W
W N
r- a
Cl) �
O
to
O
to
O
0
O
N
i9
O
C
O
N
0
O
0
W)
O
0
0
N
N
Lq
r--
W
Cl)
M
M_
N
ro
Lo
N
N
O
M
N
a
LO
w
N
N
m
N
K3
a
W
O
W
N
C
>
r
a_
V
1
N
m
LLJ
d
E
t
r
Q
14
Packet Pg. 248
9.3.b
Ln
O
N
C7
N
O
N
O
y
U
a
O
a
U LL
_0000000000000000
Q9
0
V3 V3
V3
V3 V3
l!'r
N
O
0 (G
O
0��
0
0
R N
O
0
O N
Co ColLn
N O
(Lo
O
Lo
O
�
O
OT
F NG4
cr "
ffl d3
03 V3
63
N
ffl
V)
O
N
Ln
O
N
N
0
N
O
0
0
M
N
to
N
O
N
V3
O
0
O
0
N
O
Cm
(n
N
0
0
C
O
0
o
0
U')
N
64
ONO
O (O
O
(n C
O
C
O
rO Cq N
O l00
O
O
M Mesta
O
V3
N
4, V)
N
O O
VJ
O O
O
O O
V3 �
{0
C)
IU.COD
C
7
(NO Lo
IOn
y
W
En
Lo Lo
e9
rn
0
N
a
LL
x x
X
U
m
c
Co
_
Q
C
o
L
O
C
S.
U
C
w
a)
Co
L
y
s
O
a
3
�
F
ULL
LS
O
C
t
m
R
� LL
O
N
m
a)
O
LL a
C C
C
Q
O
R
O
W
a)y
K
E
c
O
}
�
N E
E
CL
O O>
aa)i
C
y a)
C O
S
W
^2
H
O O>>
R c
c Y
Co
0, o
N
y
Q
O N
_Cl
O N
U 0
y �
R
O a
i6
N
y •a)•
R C
H
a R>
a) a)
R
dm
V
ONE
U S
Y C
C C
CC
m
a
a)
>
>
R R
a U
0 0
t t
0
t E
O m
(ca C
c
O a
N d
O
Q y
U U
l) a)
R R
a) E
R
..0
N
L 1]
�
N L
IL
L>
"tC)
,>
��U�2
O
R
y>
LT- a0U>2
7-
N
O
VT
O
0
0
N
V►
Vl
N
O
M
r.
o
n
O
N
N
M
�
O
N
N
61)
Ui
C
O
C
V
N
O
LoO
O
M
m
Vr
V(17
It
N
O
O
O N
O N
M
O
O N
M
N
n
m
W �
CODU)
N
V)
V3
In
(NO
O
O
O
r
N
n
0
oCo
�
CD
�
_M
Va
N
OD
O
N
W
O
N
N
N
pOj
Vi
N
V)
N
N
O
t`
O 7
O N
O
7
O 00
O
Co
It 61).
N
C\[
00
{
O C
W Co
N
Co
N O
V3
V
y
N
N 7
0
V3
W
^�
rn
0
N
a
LL
U
0
F-
R
2
7 i
H Y
N
7
U
y
�
R
8-2
Coy
oT
Sam
N
C f0 No
C
c N
o
E
(cc�LL
R N
�U
W
R
m
a) U
c R
N a)
c LL
o
t
R E
R R E
M
R
V
m Y
y
R R O
Co Co �
O r n
E y
a
y a
a)
to y C
0 0) a)
R
LL
U U E
c o
y
U-
C
N
0 N C
m
c
'c R
E 'c
c c
'c
r- c
- 0 E
C m
Y
C C E�
Y
a)
a) a)
R
a) a) N
a)
O 0 >
'r:mmamm[[Ua
S
u
n
n rn
V N
D O
N N
fl
T
u
n a
D N
u
N N
n
n
n
T N
N
O
A N
n
N
n N
fl N
n
n
7 N
A N
D O O O O O O 0 0 64
0 0 0 0 0 0 M O
\ O O O O O O O M u 7
O 1 n l o 0 0 0 0 0 N
hCm O Lr)r �M V3N 6V3
fl N V) V) V)
u
7
p
u
a
n
IA
O
V3
O
V)
i
v
15
Packet Pg. 249
9.3.b
LO
N
O
N
N
O
N
O
O
O
Cl) LO
N N
O
N fR
O O
O O
NCli O LO
N ��
O
0 O
0
0 0
O uo
LO C\j
N 6
O
N
O
N
O O
6, 61,
O O
O O
O O
LO to
N N
ff> 49.
O O
O O
O O
LO to
i. n
60� v>
r
Q
w
0
O
N
a
a
W _A
C
4 a
•2Co m a
v U 0
C N
m f
y
y a
16
Packet Pg. 250
9.3.b
(O
N
O
N
R
N
O
N
LO
N m
O N
N O
O N
N
O
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
a
G
N
O) (6
O
N N
W
C
f4
tm
O
a`
y N
C (D
N O
E a`
> `y W
O -g m
a a
E Z
F
(4 W
C O
U Li a
O n
0000000
W
n n
OD 0000
O
O V
O O
d3 Vf?0
O l n
000
O O
M
0 CD
(n n"
N 06c?0
n
O
fA 0
O
V Co
u7C
0Co
N(Dr
Nn(D
O
0
(0 ComItIt(n
fR LQ
fA o0
nM
r 00
al
O r
It
LO d3
m
(D
CoCo(D
Vil
FRS
N
MM'i
lqifH
fH
ER
ER
ER
ER d3
d3 d3
0,
N
(`M
7
(D
(D
7
LO
M
fA
n n
M M
O
p
N N
LO Ln
LO
M
69.
03
N
OODD
n
r
p
p
m
COLO
CD
LO
n
d3
69.
fA
N
vm
V (G
(OD Co
C,i 6'3
LO
C
It
O
N
M
(no
�
N
d
00
7
C, C)
O-
Oln
O V
OO
O
n
O
O
((D OODD
Co (D
N
d3 LO
It I
f/i V
fi?
M
fA
FR �
H3
d3
d3
In al
COn
M
O
O
�
nrn
nnnn
n
r
N W
nN
r N
W (nO
0 0
W
V
(D
O
Ocl
N 00(C)n
(DO
u2
N 7
O n
H3 O
D
M co,,
r d3
M M
N r
N
d3 d3
�
fA
fA H3
'
d3
ER
fA
x
xx
0
N
O
V) C
C N
CD E
E a'
Y
00
N N
0
000000
������
>2�
0-1
9O
ca)rn
E
a) a)
2
Con3n3n3a(a
CE
o(a'i
Co CoO
O
000000-
O
O O
O O
O
C
Cu U Co
p
a
a a
a
a
a a
a a
O
a C
d y C
EEE
a
W
�m
a�
a�a�a�a�a�a�o
r-Eu
..pp
y U
000000
y U
U U
U U
U
E U) N
U) O
��
•.• •.•
i
m-------
i
JO'cc)
N
N
N N
N
cc)
EEO(a0(a(a(a(a(a(am
>o[>o[o[o[o
foN r
for
Y¢N`
L
U U
a) 7
a) C
r 7
7 7
7
N N
�
y
m(aj�
L¢
ir ir
a�
f 0 O
a�
N Co
l n
m
I n O
m
Q
w C
F Fa
7 7
O N
O N
N N
N N
N
N
a> ¢
N 3
Co
N (O
Co Co
Co Co
Co a)
C
Cl
(n�QQ
Nd
NddddddLL
fn
CL r,
0
n O C n
(D M OM On
7 fA d? R
L' L'
Cl) Cl)
N N
61) ffl
N � N
N W
M M
N N
LO � LO
n n
N N
V1 �
fR f9
0 OER 0
T W
O O
T T
Co Cq
n � Cl)
0 0
n n
Cl) Cl)
f9 f9
T 6% T
(7Cl
(D (D
W W
N N
fit fit
Cl) O O Cl)
N O N
r ri Cl) o
(o m 61) n
C
R R
fA f9
(D O (D
T fA T
M Cl)
O O
C C
Cl) Cl)
fif fii
N
Z
m
x
W
C
t
cv
r
Q
17
Packet Pg. 251
9.3.b
LO
N
O
N
R
N
O
N
N Cl)
O N
N O
O N
N
O
N
_O
N
N N
O
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
E
R
0
a
N
c
d
E
o E W
Q o z
N F
_ N04 U
LU
C O
U ii a
C� 0
0 0
l2 O
d3 (�D
fa
0
C
0
O
fA
0
O
0
O
0
C
n
0
Y3
O 0
O O
A If)
� n
H3
PM W
Co 0
0
0
m
0
Z
N
Co
d
a C
O C
E
M '�'
0
Q
p V
0)
O
(�0
m w
00
LL w
E
LL
o m
a
i o
y7 Co
U
{00
C d
C
N a
pIL
E
LL
0
E
am
a0ma°i
ycgd(q
O
=m
C
a
in
a
O
O O
O O
O o
m w
fA
O C O
N
0
C 0 O
O n
7 n
V 0
N M
OD T
O O
g r
Nl 0
n
0)lD
O o
Co
M
m O
m N
O Cl)
r
r N
N fa
fA
6% fA
6% fA
6%
O
W N
C
O
n D)
o
It O
n
n M
r 64
K3
v3
0
O
T
N
w
7
O
n
rn
�
CoM
CoM
r
6%
64
0 CD
O
O
(*
V 7
n
fA
N N
<D Mo
F»
0
0
0
O
C
C
O
N
Co
CD
N
M
-1
En
O
O
O 0
O C
n
Efl
O O
Lq M
r fA
U3
O O
C N
00 D)
64 a
W Co
Co
v
r
o
N Q)
nWLO
N
Co Co
fl3
O
r N
M 7
in (O
N
O
N N
O O
N N
O O
N N
O O
y
U
N
U U
N N
U U
N N
U U
N N
U
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
.o
0
C
C C
C C
C C
a
N
C
U E
E E
E E
E E
p
2 N
0) N
0) N
0) N
d
a a
a a
a a
a a
a
E
E E
E E
E E
U
O O
O O
O O
O O
o�uNiU)(nU)(nU)Un(n
�a
m
a m
a m
a m
�
O
C
C C
C C
C C
O
a
m r
N M
V l0
Co n
>.
Y Co
Cu Co
Cu t0
Cu ttl
w -CL
L
L L
L I_(UJdddddad
O a
LQ n
Cm [O
� M
O
V
r
of
OMi
N
Co
O
W
N
FR
O
0)
W
Cq
Q7
fA
0
l0
n
N
Hi
O
O
CO
n
M
0 CM
0)
Lq (0
Cm
0)
613,
0)
W
Co
a
C
Q.
N
E
U
m
C6
a�
t
CO
CO
a
N
N O
E a
o R
U O
r
a
v
N
Z
t
K
LU
E
t
r
Q
18
Packet Pg. 252
9.3.b
ta
0 CD
N
O
N
OCD
F N
O
N
LO
N
O
N
CD
N
O
N
O
N Cl)
O N
N p
O N
N
O
N
w O
N �
N N
O O
N
a
N
O
N
ON
O
N
O
N
0
0> CD 0
M In !n
N N
W
E
a
U)
0
N
m
m
O
Cl
Cm
Co
N
r C
d
N = N
m C �
0 m
yQ Cq m
j C
E co 0
E 0
O
Co
O In
64Cm
o
Ln
_ N
R
N
NLO
OCD
F N
O
N
LO
O
N
R
N
O
N
O
N
N
N
N
O
r
Cl)
V!
N
N
rl
LO
4
N
N
r
�r
O
N
K3
CL
°r
0
0
C
0
C
0)y
M
L2
f
It
C\j
O
Lo
Lo
6%
._
N N
W
0.
x
x
x
v
0
W
0
O
0
0
O-CL
L
N_
E
0
a�
o
N
0
C/n
C
m
E
N
C
E
C,
>O
O
Cu
E
a a
[Cm
—
E
�
T T
m
w
m
al
C
C
LL LL
O
O CO
o
O
3
--• w
C C
N
=
2
Y
oa r
06
a a
N
O
m
0
(%
N
C z
C
N (D
N
y0 m
O
m
-> >
Co
m
0 �..
p
a) CD
CA Cn
Z
vy
ON
rn
0)
O
4&
7
C
m
tr
a
N
m
(A
0
0
Lq
_ N W
R N 7
O N
F N tFJ
O
N
LO
N
O
N
R
N
O
N
O
M
co
O cD
Lo
N
O
M
co
O u7
64
0
rn
n
N �
O
N y3
O
N
O
N
a
0
9.3.b
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
IL
0
N
O m
o E
N N
W
a
LL
L)
pm IL
O d
i C.)
a
y N Co
C
N O aa)
E a aEi
O W Ca
U
y N aCl
Z CC
E E
F
M U 'Co
R w
o
U 3 a C
0 0
0 0'e
0)
W'D
I- O
w g M
6130
O EA
rhr
moo
mr�
MOO
00
M7(O
N
N OD
O N(O
00
NMaNM'tC
Co O
M T
n
U9,
N-
N
N NU9,
N
63 646a
b4
ER 6S
6A 6a
Co
n
(M
m r
O 't
M
w N
O
m (LO
N
e9
ER E9
O
O
0 Cor
O
Co
O
Lf)
to
EiJ
fH
H3
0
O
N
h
O)
N
W)
V)
O
LO
Co
O
Co
m
U)
�3
Co
LOn
un 0
N
(O 0
N
Co0(MM
Co
r fA
64
fA
O
O
0
V
�
n
M
(o
m
Cm
(0
r
fA
H3
;;
O
O
n
O
0
Co
M fl
N
O
O
n M
Co
CD Co
LOf)
A
eD
W
M O
O
rn
rn00
0)
V
OM
O
W V
a
V
In
W
w
e9�
eD
N
H3
x
O
O C
N M
e u7
to
N
N N
N
O
N
O O
N N
O O
N N
O O
N N
O
N
N
N N
v N
N C
N N
C C
N
C
C
a)
C C
N m
C a)
N E
N a)
E E
N
E
E
E E
E ow
o
w
N
N N
N>>>>
N
O
O O
O O
ananc
O O
O O
o.a-CL
E
EE EE
E E
E
E E
E
d
a
0 a
0 f0
(C f0
(C C C
tsts
C
m
(U �6
m m
(C 0
a)
m CC
m a)
0 0
CC CC
0 O O
mom-'+
CC � Ya
aaaCA
N
c
C
C C
N LL
LL LL
LL t L
O
o[
[[ o[
o[
m m
N
N N
N CC CC
>Cz
3333000ma`�a`>
0 3
m
m m
m m
M m
M 3 3
Y
O-
fnMfnM-
�C
(C C6
(C M CO
0 D
m D
m c
c c
c a a
a)
>
a¢¢¢¢
o
r N
M U U
¢
M On
ODO)
-
- -
- m m
�
(�(noaaaaaaaaUU
(Ctttttttt.-
O � � O
O O
In
O
ENA �
CoLO a LO
69 Co
% C
Co m
O w
O T
N N
Y! Ef7
Co Vk W
O) a
00) CO)
� �
n 0 00
ER f-
N N
O O
n
69. 64
N O N
00 vk 00
a R
Co Co
a R
N N
fH ER
V EOA -T
N N
M (M
V Co
N N
m EA
N CD N
� V
OD OD
LO V3 0
O7 M
n �
N N
C
m
E
N
N O
O
-0
d
o
a`
m
.0aC
xsLL
3
m
-
w
-0
O
v)'C
CO
1 N
C
O
U
N
C N
a) c
Z5r3
3
U)
w
y F
m m
C-tf
i
C
y
y
Q
C
xso==
C E-
O E
m mY
U
E m
a mm
m
o �2
'd 2
U)
a) a)
IL
o CC a`
Y�
C j
:° E
o :° m
C
F CC
O O
H H
Z
m
x
W
C
d
C�
r
Q
20
Packet Pg. 254
9.3.b
C
M
i
01
O
a
y
C
E
N
O
Q
fC
Q
R
U
6n,o
_ N
O N M N
H N N �
N �
O O O O
00 O to
00 O d>
to Oo oa
CMO O O Co
O �� CD 0)
N
O O O O
O O O N
O O O 01
00 0v
c U')
� ��
CmH
O
N
O
N
a v
c °'
ant N
y � rn
01 l0 7 Un
O "It 6
N N
W
a
LL
U
y
N
N D
0
c
C 0 N
U �
N N L-
W U U
Q O O d
Z as
0 c N
F O U
W > 2 aZi
� U
O �7�;
OC o o 0
a 1810 D
00
O Un
O T
O V
O co
nn
am
W n
N n
n(o
v), fR
N N
O Un
d> 0)
a of
f0 N
f0 Un
n N
M M
CO CD
rnn
N N
�o
40 fR
O
O
to
N
60.
O
N
N
i9
69
Co
a
v
N
t
K
W
d
E
t
U
r
Q
21
Packet Pg. 255
9.3.b
a
cj
22
Packet Pg. 256
9.3.b
CIP
PARKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
E
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
Q.
E
.Q
U
uo
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
f�
d
N
N
U
R
LL
R
a+
.Q
R
U
m
O
om
O
L-
a.
i7
W.
N
a+
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
23
Packet Pg. 257
9.3.b
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
f�
d
N
N
U
R
LL
R
a+
.Q
R
U
m
O
om
O
L-
a.
i7
W.
N
a+
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
24
Packet Pg. 258
9.3.b
CIP PARKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
FUND 125 - CAPITAL PROJECTS
25
Packet Pg. 259
9.3.b
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
f�
d
N
N
U
R
LL
R
a+
.Q
R
U
m
O
om
O
L-
a.
i7
W.
N
a+
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
26
Packet Pg. 260
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Beautification I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $126,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Beautification citywide to include Library, outdoor plazas, 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: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
$21,000
E
L
0
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
0
L
Q
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
f�
d
N
N
U
R
LL
R
a+
.Q
0
U
0
a
0
L-
a.
W.
N
a+
x
w
c
a�
E
U
0
a
27
Packet Pg. 261
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Flower Pole Replacement I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $120,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Flower Poles in various places as needed
throughout City.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Replacement of Flower Poles in various places as needed
throughout City.
SCHEDULE: 2020 - 2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Construction
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
TOTAL
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
a
v
a
2s
Packet Pg. 262
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Citywide Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $300,000
Improvements / Misc Small Projects
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 4t" 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: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering / Administration
Construction
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
1.1
T
N
rr
t
x
w
aD
E
V
M
a
29
Packet Pg. 263
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Sports Field Upgrade / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $25,000
Playground Partnerships
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: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$0
$25000
$0
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$25000
$0
$0
a
U
a
30
Packet Pg. 264
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Anderson Center ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
Field/Court/Stage
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.
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: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Professional
services
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$5,000
$5,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$5,000
$5,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
a
U
N
x
w
CD
E
U
M
a
31
Packet Pg. 265
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Brackett's Landing ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
Improvements
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
upgrades.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Retention of infrastructure for major waterfront park,
regional park that serves as the gateway to Edmonds from the Kitsap Peninsula.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$5,000
$5000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$5,000
$5000
* all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
a
U
N
x
w
a�
E
U
a
32
Packet Pg. 266
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: City Park Improvements I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $5,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
City Park.
Continued pathway, access improvements and ongoing upgrades to
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Make ongoing upgrades to City Park as referenced in the
PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$5,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$5,000
*all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the arts
a
U
N
x
w
c
as
E
U
r
Q
33
Packet Pg. 267
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $13,100,000
IMM M91
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic Park master plan is complete and has been adopted,
funds (including carryover, grants, bonds, REET, Park Impact Fee's and General Fund) have
been allocated and we are prepared to go to bid in February with ground breaking in April or
May of 2020.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE:
The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds have been set aside, and grant funds
secured. With the approved bonding we are ready to begin the project. This is a high priority in
the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
COST
Planning and
$395,000
Design
Engineering
$140,000
Construction
$11,937,092
1 % Art
$88,000
TOTAL
12,560,092
T
34
Packet Pg. 268
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Fishing Pier & Restrooms I ESTIMATED COST: $30,000
LWCF/IAC Acquisition and Development Project
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Capital improvements maintain this asset as needed.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Capital improvements to retain capital assets and
enhance western gateway to the Puget Sound.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$10,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$5,000
$10,000
$5,000
$10,000
T
all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
35
Packet Pg. 269
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Community Garden I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $72,000
PRIVATE LIVING AREA FORMS. JOHNSON
m
PRf VACY FENCE
h
s ,lr 3
I �N
z z
a
w z W a
o w
V
� m
I � y O
❑ O
z
o
COMP ~20 ��-
i p o ¢ Y
0
¢ a
ACCESS ROAD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Funds allocated to support the purchase and sale agreement for a
1-acre parcel of land near Yost Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE:
in the community.
The community garden has been a long-standing interest
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Professional
Services
Lease Terms
$24,000
$24,000
$24,000
TOTAL
$24,000
$24,000
$24,000
$0
$0
a
U
a
36
Packet Pg. 270
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Maplewood Park ESTIMATED COST: $5,000
Improvements
89t" Place West and 197t" 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: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$0
$5000
$0
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$5000
$0
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
a
U
N
a+
x
w
c
CD
E
U
M
a
37
Packet Pg. 271
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park ESTIMATED COST: $34M
Improvements
(F
` 1
�.,. y vwugs rt..Abw
P
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: Redefine the park to better serve the community as it accommodates
the new alignment of Willow Creek. The project will include parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn
areas, potential concession areas, restrooms, upgraded play area, upgraded benches and picnic tables
and BBQ's, Improved ADA accessibility, a loop trail system including two pedestrian bridges
connecting the park across Willow Creek, personal watercraft staging and launching area, bicycle
racks, fencing, and retaining the existing beach/ driftwood area and off leash area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Marina Beach Park is a highly used and beloved public open
space in the City. Through the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan the community identified the need to restore the adjacent
Edmonds Marsh, re-established for salmon habitat. After careful review and the completion of a
feasibility study, the preferred method to accomplish this is to daylight Willow Creek from Edmonds
Marsh into the Puget Sound, through Marina Beach Park.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/StudyPlanning/Study
$30,000
$250,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction REET
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
Construction 332
$1,500,000
$1,250,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$30,000
$250,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$250,000
$250,000
all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
a
U
N
a+
x
w
a�
E
U
a
38
Packet Pg. 272
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Mathay Ballinger Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
781h Place W. & 241" St. at Edmonds City Limits. 1.5 acres/Neighborhood Park/Zoned Public.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Improvements to Mathay Ballinger Park.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset in the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$0
$5,000
$0
$0
$5,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$5,000
$0
$0
$5,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
a
U
N
++
B
x
w
a�
E
U
a
39
Packet Pg. 273
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Pine Ridge Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
Improvements
83`a Avenue West and 204" 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: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$0
$5,000
$0
$0
$5,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$5,000
$0
$0
$5,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
a
U
N
a+
x
w
a�
E
U
2
a
40
Packet Pg. 274
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Seaview Park ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $10,000
Improvements
80" Ave W and 186t' St. SW, Edmonds City Limits, within Snohomish County
6.93-acre neighborhood park; zoned entirely Park.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Trail improvements, habitat improvements, tree planting, athletic
field, tennis court and restroom maintenance.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Improvements to retain site as an asset to the
neighborhood park system.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Stud
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
$0
$0
$5,000
$0
$0
$5,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$0
$0
$5,000
$0
$0
$5,000
* all or a portion of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
a
U
N
x
w
a�
E
U
2
a
41
Packet Pg. 275
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,805,198
sruvs:
--
__.__.__ ....— --
�78ptM� �i►,:p,
Brsh `, l
Aw R— _
T
i
Prr�ppsed Edmards
Waterfront center
II
•-:, ,Kxr i� ara+ nwr ss.acc .o.wrrr err w rx
M�ryr�kOrldr� �..
r —
wpo-.e rarq
K+r+� rrra,wcn
ara �----•- re+.a
k,w¢',n�va, n Raw
M1opw�tl �Imn Owe Yw
♦or�.�yrro�.r.. anM
vueew..�e r.n p.r.r� n
r+sRfr�,-Owf yF."
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot,
and frontage improvements. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife.
Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. This project includes the
Cit 's support for the parking lot and frontage improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center. One of the top priorities in the PROS
Ian is too en up beachfront access.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering
$67,500
Construction
$2,588,645
1 % for Art
$24,920
TOTAL
$2,681,065
all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
42
Packet Pg. 276
9.3.b
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final design and construction of 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. Starting
from 2009 public process and concept design, develop site design and construction documents for a
safe, pedestrian friendly, and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way which provides a strong
visual connection along 4th Avenue N between Main Street and Edmonds Center for the Arts.
Interim work on this project since the concept was developed includes a 2015 temporary light artwork
"Luminous Forest", installed to draw attention and interest to the corridor and enhance the visual
connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Cultural Heritage Walking
Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America
grant program, was implemented in 2011-2014 with 8 artist made historic plaques on 4th Avenue.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection between the ECA and downtown
retail. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the
economic vitality in the downtown. The project has been supported by the community in the 2014
Community Cultural Plan and in the recently established goals and priorities for the State certified
Creative District application.
Design completion will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the
total project implementation phase.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/StudyPlanning/Study
$100,000
$250,000
Engineering & Administration
Construction
$500,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$100,000
$750,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
r-
(L
U)
a)
U
M
LL
.Q
U
m
O
a
O
a
W.
N
x
w
a�
E
U
a
43
Packet Pg. 277
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Yost Park / Pool ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $180,000
Improvements
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Chlorine injector, pool cover, fiberglass drain covers, boiler
maintenance and 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: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$75,000
$25,000
$30,000
$25,000
$25,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$75,000
$25,000
$30,000
$25,000
$25,000
all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
T
N
x
w
aD
E
t
r
a
44
Packet Pg. 278
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within
the park system. Zones scheduled for Mathay Ballinger Park and Civic Park. Supported by grant
from Verdant.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health
and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while
their children play. This is a priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Professional
Services
Construction
$175,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$175,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
a
U
N
x
w
a�
E
U
a
45
Packet Pg. 279
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,250,000
Completion — Ebb Tide
r�r
AV
idi-
s i`� R:. i - -•i.
'1. ISO
AIL
PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to
Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to
open up beach -front access.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/StudyPlanning/Study
$100,000
Engineering
Construction
$150,000
$1,000,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$250,000
$1,000,000
x all or part of this Project may quality for 1 % for the Arts
T
46
Packet Pg. 280
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Unpaved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $ 30,000
Trail / Bike Path Improvements
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: 2020 - 2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering &
Administration
Construction
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
* all or part of these projects may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
T
47
Packet Pg. 281
9.3.b
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
f�
d
N
N
U
R
LL
R
a+
.Q
R
U
m
O
om
O
L-
a.
i7
W.
N
a+
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
48
Packet Pg. 282
9.3.b
CIP PARKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
FUND 126 - SPECIAL CAPITAL /
PARKS ACQUISITION
49
Packet Pg. 283
9.3.b
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
f�
d
N
N
U
R
LL
R
a+
.Q
R
U
m
O
om
O
L-
a.
i7
W.
N
a+
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
50
Packet Pg. 284
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Debt Service on Approved ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $988,118
Capital Projects and Acquisitions
P=-rr,
1! w i
-�_------------- _---�----
Willa
III
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Approximate annual debt service payments on:
Marina Beach / Library Roof: $80,830
PSCC (Edmonds Center for the Arts): $54,300
Anderson Center Seismic Retrofit: $26,850
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: Debt service to pay for approved capitol projects
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST
BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Eng. & Admin.
Construction
1 % for Art
Principal &
Interest
$163,120
$165,820
$167,250
$170,080
$167,710
TOTAL
$163,120
$165,820
$167,250
$170,080
$167,710
all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
T
N
t
x
w
E
CU
r
a
51
Packet Pg. 285
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $13,100,000
IMM M91
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic Park master plan is complete and has been adopted,
funds (including carryover, grants, bonds, REET, Park Impact Fee's and General Fund) have
been allocated and we are prepared to go to bid in February with ground breaking in April or
May of 2020.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE:
The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds have been set aside, and grant funds
secured. With the approved bonding we are ready to begin the project. This is a high priority in
the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
COST
Planning and
$395,000
Design
Engineering
$140,000
Construction
$11,937,092
1 % Art
$88,000
TOTAL
12,560,092
T
52
Packet Pg. 286
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Miscellaneous Open ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,100,000
Space / Land
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: 2019 - 2024
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Land
$300,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$300,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
53
Packet Pg. 287
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,805,198
sruvs:
--
__.__.__ ....— --
�78ptM� �i►,:p,
Brsh `, l
Aw R— _
T
i
Prr�ppsed Edmards
Waterfront center
II
•-:, ,Kxr i� ara+ nwr ss.acc .o.wrrr err w rx
M�ryr�kOrldr� �..
r —
wpo-.e rarq
K+r+� rrra,wcn
ara �----•- re+.a
k,w¢',n�va, n Raw
M1opw�tl �Imn Owe Yw
♦or�.�yrro�.r.. anM
vueew..�e r.n p.r.r� n
r+sRfr�,-Owf yF."
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot,
and frontage improvements. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife.
Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. This project includes the
Cit 's support for the parking lot and frontage improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center. One of the top priorities in the PROS
Ian is too en up beachfront access.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering
$67,500
Construction
$2,588,645
1 % for Art
$24,920
TOTAL
$2,681,065
all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
54
Packet Pg. 288
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,250,000
Completion — Ebb Tide
r�r
AV
idi-
s i`� R:. i - -•i.
'1. ISO
AIL
PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to
Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to
open up beach -front access.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/StudyPlanning/Study
$100,000
Engineering
Construction
$150,000
$1,000,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$250,000
$1,000,000
x all or part of this Project may quality for 1 % for the Arts
T
55
Packet Pg. 289
9.3.b
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
f�
d
N
N
U
R
LL
R
a+
.Q
R
U
m
O
om
O
L-
a.
i7
W.
N
a+
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
56
Packet Pg. 290
9.3.b
CIP PARKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
FUND 332 - PARKS CONSTRUCTION
57
Packet Pg. 291
9.3.b
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
f�
d
N
N
U
R
LL
R
a+
.Q
R
U
m
O
om
O
L-
a.
i7
W.
N
a+
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
58
Packet Pg. 292
9.3.b
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Final design and construction of 4th Avenue Cultural Corridor. Starting
from 2009 public process and concept design, develop site design and construction documents for a
safe, pedestrian friendly, and art enhanced corridor in the public right of way which provides a strong
visual connection along 4th Avenue N between Main Street and Edmonds Center for the Arts.
Interim work on this project since the concept was developed includes a 2015 temporary light artwork
"Luminous Forest", installed to draw attention and interest to the corridor and enhance the visual
connection between Main Street and the Edmonds Center for the Arts. The Cultural Heritage Walking
Tour project, funded in part with a matching grant from the National Park Service Preserve America
grant program, was implemented in 2011-2014 with 8 artist made historic plaques on 4th Avenue.
PROJECT BENEFIT/RATIONALE: The corridor improvements in the public right of way will
encourage pedestrian traffic & provide a strong visual connection between the ECA and downtown
retail. Improvements will enhance connectivity as an attractive walking corridor & contribute to the
economic vitality in the downtown. The project has been supported by the community in the 2014
Community Cultural Plan and in the recently established goals and priorities for the State certified
Creative District application.
Design completion will assist the City in the process of identifying & acquiring funding sources for the
total project implementation phase.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/StudyPlanning/Study
$100,000
$250,000
Engineering & Administration
Construction
$500,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$100,000
$750,000
* all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
r-
(L
U)
a)
U
M
LL
.Q
U
m
O
a
O
a
W.
N
x
w
a�
E
U
a
59
Packet Pg. 293
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Civic Center Park I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $12,600,000
IMM M91
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Civic Park master plan is complete and has been adopted,
funds (including carryover, grants, bonds, REET, Park Impact Fee's and General Fund) have
been allocated and we are prepared to go to bid in February with ground breaking in April or
May of 2020.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE:
The Civic Master plan was adopted in 2017. Funds have been set aside, and grant funds
secured. With the approved bonding we are ready to begin the project. This is a high priority in
the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
COST
Planning and
$395,000
Design
Engineering
$140,000
Construction
$11,937,092
1 % Art
$88,000
TOTAL
12,560,092
T
60
Packet Pg. 294
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Marina Beach Park ESTIMATED COST: $34M
Improvements
(F
` 1
�.,. y vwugs rt..Abw
P
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: Redefine the park to better serve the community as it accommodates
the new alignment of Willow Creek. The project will include parking lot reconfiguration, overlooks, lawn
areas, potential concession areas, restrooms, upgraded play area, upgraded benches and picnic tables
and BBQ's, Improved ADA accessibility, a loop trail system including two pedestrian bridges
connecting the park across Willow Creek, personal watercraft staging and launching area, bicycle
racks, fencing, and retaining the existing beach/ driftwood area and off leash area.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Marina Beach Park is a highly used and beloved public open
space in the City. Through the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Action Plan and the
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan the community identified the need to restore the adjacent
Edmonds Marsh, re-established for salmon habitat. After careful review and the completion of a
feasibility study, the preferred method to accomplish this is to daylight Willow Creek from Edmonds
Marsh into the Puget Sound, through Marina Beach Park.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/StudyPlanning/Study
$30,000
$250,000
Eng. & Admin.
Construction REET
$250,000
$250,000
$250,000
Construction 332
$1,500,000
$1,250,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$30,000
$250,000
$1,500,000
$1,500,000
$250,000
$250,000
all or part of this project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts.
a
U
N
a+
x
w
a�
E
U
a
61
Packet Pg. 295
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Outdoor Fitness Zones I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $175,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Create outdoor fitness zones by adding fitness equipment within
the park system. Zones scheduled for Mathay Ballinger Park and Civic Park. Supported by grant
from Verdant.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Provide outdoor places to exercise to improve the health
and wellness of citizens and park users, which provides adults the opportunity to exercise while
their children play. This is a priority in the PROS plan.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Professional
Services
Construction
$175,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
TOTAL
$175,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
a
U
N
x
w
a�
E
U
a
62
Packet Pg. 296
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Redevelopment ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $4,805,198
sruvs:
--
__.__.__ ....— --
�78ptM� �i►,:p,
Brsh `, l
Aw R— _
T
i
Prr�ppsed Edmards
Waterfront center
II
•-:, ,Kxr i� ara+ nwr ss.acc .o.wrrr err w rx
M�ryr�kOrldr� �..
r —
wpo-.e rarq
K+r+� rrra,wcn
ara �----•- re+.a
k,w¢',n�va, n Raw
M1opw�tl �Imn Owe Yw
♦or�.�yrro�.r.. anM
vueew..�e r.n p.r.r� n
r+sRfr�,-Owf yF."
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Work with Sr. Center to renovate surrounding park, parking lot,
and frontage improvements. Remove creosote pier, reintroduce habitat for fish and wildlife.
Increase access to the waterfront to accommodate increased growth. This project includes the
Cit 's support for the parking lot and frontage improvements.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound. Provide a new Senior and Community Center. One of the top priorities in the PROS
Ian is too en up beachfront access.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/Study
Engineering
$67,500
Construction
$2,588,645
1 % for Art
$24,920
TOTAL
$2,681,065
all or part of this Project may qualify for 1 % for the Arts
63
Packet Pg. 297
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Waterfront Walkway ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $1,250,000
Completion — Ebb Tide
r�r
AV
idi-
s i`� R:. i - -•i.
'1. ISO
AIL
PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Connect waterfront walkway from Brackett's Landing South to
Olympic Beach, including completion in front of the Ebb tide condominiums.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE: Public access of waterfront and tidelands on Puget
Sound and provide a new beachfront walkway. One of the top priorities in the PROS plan is to
open up beach -front access.
SCHEDULE: 2020-2025
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT COST
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Planning/StudyPlanning/Study
$100,000
Engineering
Construction
$150,000
$1,000,000
1 % for Art
TOTAL
$250,000
$1,000,000
x all or part of this Project may quality for 1 % for the Arts
T
64
Packet Pg. 298
9.3.b
CIP PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
FUND 423.76
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
65
Packet Pg. 299
9.3.b
E
L
O
L-
a.
c
m
E
m
O
L
Q
E
.Q
U
uO
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C
R
C
f�
d
N
N
U
R
LL
R
a+
.Q
R
U
m
O
om
O
L-
a.
i7
W.
N
a+
L
K
W
C
N
E
t
u
R
r
Q
66
Packet Pg. 300
9.3.b
PROJECT NAME: Carbon Recovery I ESTIMATED PROJECT COST: $24,585,000
Belt Dryer
F q:IcullLL�e
1Q
—► B1 a uaay
ao
tAtragm Printing
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Carbon Recovery project would replace the sanitary sewage incinerator (SSI) and
associated equipment. The SSI is 30 years old and must meet stringent EPA and PSCAA regulations which mandate a full
replacement after 50% of the original cost in O&M upgrade has been expensed. Cost of regulatory compliance alone is
estimated to be >$100,000/year. Many pieces of equipment within the SSI system are beyond their life expectancy and many
are not supported by manufacturers. The Design for the proiect is scheduled for completion in earlv 2020.
PROJECT BENEFIT/ RATIONALE:
The replacement technology being proposed in the Phase 6 Carbon Recovery project is a belt dryer, pyrolysis units and odor
control system. The pyrolysis equipment will be housed in a new building within the current WWTP footprint and would be
fully integrated into the plant control system.
Furthermore, the Carbon Recovery project is the single best opportunity for the WWTP to meet the goals and objectives of the
Council Resolution 1389 which commits Edmonds to achieving or exceeding the environmental goals established in the Paris
Accords by reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions. The project will provide a beneficial use of the end product, referred to as
"biochar", while reducing O&M cost in terms of electricity, regulatory compliance, ongoing maintenance, hauling and disposal
costs.
The project would be shared with our treatment partners as follows:
Mountlake Terrace
23.17%
$6,423,034
Olympic View Water/Sewer
16.55%
$4,587,367
Ronald Sewer District
9.49%
$2,629,747
Edmonds
50.79%
$14,076,406
SCHEDULE: 2020-2022
COST BREAKDOWN
PROJECT 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
COST
Design
Construction $11,037,000 $16,358,000 500,000
TOTAL 1 11,449,456.15 I $16,358,000 I 500,000
67
Packet Pg. 301
9.3.c
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2019 TO 2020)
ADDED PROJECTS
FUND PROJECT NAME I UP I DESCRIPTION
Building I Public Safety Ground Fence I linstall new security fence around the parking lot at the public safety building.
112
Walnut St. Walkway from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S
Install walkway on south side of Walnut St. from 6th Ave. S to 7th Ave. S (funded
X
by TIB Complete Street grant)
112
SR-104 Walkway from HAWK signal to Pine St / Pine St. from SR-104 to 3rd
Install walkway along SR-104 from HAWK signal to Pine St. and along Pine St.
Ave. S
X
from SR-104 to 3rd Ave. S
112
Citywide Bicycle Improvements
X
Add bike lanes and sharrows along various stretches throughout the City.
112
Downtown Lighting Improvements
Installation of new light poles at various locations throughout Downtown to
X
improve night-time safety for all modes of transportation.
126
Civic Park design
x
Ongoing, anticipated completion in 2020/2021
126
Waterfront Redevelopment/Ebb tide walkway design
x
lOngoing, anticipated completion in 2019/2020
421
Phase 15 Annual Replacement Program (2026)
jEstimated future costs for waterline replacements.
421
Citywide Pedestrian Enhancements
I
jPeclestrian enhancements at various locations in the City
421
2020 Waterline Overlays
jEstimated future costs for road repairs due to waterline replacements.
422
Phase 7 Annual Storm Replacement Project (2026)
jEstimated future cost for Storm pipe replacements
422
Seaview Park Infiltration Facility Phase 2
x
Enlargement of infiltration facility to decrease peak flows into Perrinville Creek
423 Phase 13 Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Improvements (2026) Estimated future costs for sewerline replacements/rehab/impr.
423 Lake Ballinger Sewer Estimated future costs for sewer project.
Page 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 302
9.3.c
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2019 TO 2020)
DELETED PROJECTS
FUND PROJECT NAME I CFP I DESCRIPTION
112
76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
Completed in 2019
112
SR-104 @ 226th St. SW / 15th St. SW Intersection Improvements
X
I
Completed in 2019
ITo
112
2nd Ave. S Walkway from James St. to Main St.
X
be installed as part of up -coming development
112
238th St SW. Island and ADA Curb Ramps
I
lCompleted in 2019
112
Pavement Rating Study
I
lIncluded within Annual Street Preservation Program
125
Audible Pedestrian Signals
Completed in 2019
125
Anderson Center playground
Completed
125
Civic Stadium removal
Completed
125
Veterans Plaza
Completed
125
City Park Storage
JAnticipate completion
126
Trackside Warning System
Completed in 2019.
126
220th St. SW Signal Coordination
Completed in 2019
126
238th St SW. Island and ADA Curb Ramps
Completed in 2019
126
Admiral Way
Anticipate completion
126
89th PI Retaining Wall Replacement
lCompleted in 2019
421
2016 Water System Plan Update
Completed in 2018.
421
2018 Waterline Overlays
Completed in 2018.
421
76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements
Completed in 2019.
421
Annual Replacement Program (Phase 8) 2017
Completed in 2019.
421
Annual Replacement Program (Phase 9) 2018
lCompleted in 2019.
422
Northstream Culvert Abandonement
Completed
422
Seaview Infiltration Facility Phase 1
Completed
422
City-wide Drainage Replacement Projects
Project completed at 71st & 174th; funding for out years revised into individual
phased annual repalcement proejcts
422
76th Ave @ 212th St SW Intersection Improvements (Storm)
lCompleted in 2019
422
2018 Lorian Woods Study
IStudy complete
423
Phase 4 Annual Sewer Replacement/Rehab/Impr (2016)
lCompleted in 2018
423
Phase 6 Annual Sewer Repl/Rehab/Improvements (2018)
1 I
lCompleted in 2019
423
76th Ave. W @ 212th St. SW Intersection Improvements
lCompleted in 2019
Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 303
9.3.c
UP / CIP COMPARISON (2019 TO 2020)
CHANGED PROJECTS
FUND PROJECT NAME I UP I CHANGE
422 1 Perrinville Creek Flow Management Projects 1 12020 & 2021 values reduced to provide funding for Seaview Phase 2
Project split into Waterfront Redevelopment and Waterfront Walkway
125
Waterfront Redevelopment
Completion
Project split into Waterfront Redevelopment and Waterfront Walkway
126
Waterfront Redevelopment
Completion
Project split into Waterfront Redevelopment and Waterfront Walkway
332
Waterfront Redevelopment
Completion
Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 304
9.3.d
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
October 9, 2019
Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 51 Avenue North.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Todd Cloutier
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig (left at 8:00)
Mike Rosen
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Roger Pence (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Joe Herr, Chair
Maureen Jeude
Bruce Owensby
Cary Guenther
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Laurie Strauss, Vice Chair
Kim Bayer
Tom Walker
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Rob English, City Engineer
Shannon Burley, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER MONROE MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 BE APPROVED AS
PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
Packet Pg. 305
9.3.d
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
There were no comments related to the Development Services Director Report
JOINT MEETING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD (ADB): DESIGN REVIEW ROLES AND
PROCESS
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the Planning Board and ADB discussed revisions to the ADB's roles and involvement in project
reviews at a joint meeting on July 24', and the Planning Board discussed revisions to the ADB's roles and processes at a
joint meeting with the City Council on September 241. The purpose of this meeting is to have continued discussion about the
ADB's changing roles in developing the guidance and standards necessary to influence design in Edmonds and its specific
role in the project design review process. It is anticipated that, at the end of the discussion, the two groups will provide
direction to staff to draft code revisions to implement the changes.
Mr. Clugston reviewed that the ADB is concerned that the design standards are incomplete and do not always yield the
results that the ADB and the Edmonds community want to see. The ADB feels it spends too much time approving already -
designed projects without being able to influence design decisions early in the development process. They have expressed a
desire to have an earlier role in the review process, as well as a role in reviewing and developing design standards. He
referred to Attachment 1, which provides a summary of the ADB's current codified powers and duties compared with the
ADB's desired roles and a list of recommendations from the ADB. He also referred to Attachment 2, which is a flowchart of
the proposed new design review process. He reviewed the ADB's recommendations are as follows:
1. Mandatory pre -application meetings with prospective applicants, before designs are completed and
applications submitted. For the past 30 years, the ADB's work has focused on making quasi-judicial decisions at
the end of a project review, and this has caused it to miss opportunities to participate in recent design work related to
Westgate, Highway 99, Five Corners, etc. As was discussed at the last joint meeting, quasi-judicial decision making
at the end of a project review cycle is not the best use of the ADB's time and expertise. In addition, the City
Council, via Resolution 1367, has stated its intent to remove volunteer boards from the quasi-judicial decision -
making role. As envisioned, the ADB would have two touches of larger projects during the design review cycle.
The first would be at the pre -application phase when an applicant is still in the early stages of project development,
and the second would be during the application review as a recommendation to the final decision maker. A
mandatory pre -application meeting would allow the ADB to provide guidance on a variety of elements, including
massing, site context and open space, before an applicant spends significant time and money preparing design plans.
The second review would allow the Board to take a second look at a project to see if the applicant addressed the
Board's design vision from the pre -application meeting and propose design conditions if it did not.
2. Periodic reviews of completed projects, comparing approved designs to completed projects. Post -hoc reviews
of completed projects would allow the ADB to see how projects age into sites and whether what was envisioned by
the design standards and guidelines are working or if they need to be revised to ensure the community is getting the
design it wants.
3. Review City codes and policies related to design, making recommendations to the City Council on
adjustments or, when appropriate, new standards or design guidance. The ADB would like to have a role in
developing and recommending citywide design guidelines and standards, as well as context -sensitive standards for
special design districts such as Highway 99, Five Corners, Westgate, etc.
Board Member Owensby said the ADB hasn't had a lot of opportunity to discuss how the proposed recommendations would
be implemented, but they all feel frustration with the current process and their inability to provide input relative to design. In
some cases, the ADB has approved projects it normally wouldn't have simply because they meet all of the City's design
standards and they had no choice. He said the ADB would like to play a larger role in developing policies and codes that
affect design. There are currently a lot of design standards that appear to be requirements, when in fact, they are just
guidelines and the ADB doesn't have the ability to enforce them. It would be good to have guidelines in place that are both
consistent and enforceable. He suggested that, rather than one -size -fits -all design standards, the standards should recognize
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 306
9.3.d
that the setbacks, building modulation and other design standards need to based on the type of building, as well as its use and
location.
Chair Herr recalled that, just recently, an applicant presented a project that the ADB really liked but could not approve as
presented. While the intent of the design standards is good, it wasn't possible to meet them without making significant
structural engineering changes. The Board's hands were tied because it has no discretionary ability to modify the standards.
If the ADB had been involved early in the design, perhaps it could have recommended some potential solutions. In the end,
the applicant came back with a project that met all of the Board's recommendations, but a lot of time and money was required
to get to that point. They could have got out in front of these issues if they had had an opportunity to meet with the applicant
early in the design process. He summarized that the Board can recommend changes as part of its quasi-judicial review, but it
has no authority to stop a project that meets all of the design guidelines and code standards. The fact that this developer took
the ADB's recommendations to heart and redesigned the building was a bonus, but he didn't have to do it.
Chair Herr explained that, with the current process, applicant's present projects and the Board reviews the Design Guideline
Checklist and signs off on them without having an opportunity to provide significant input. They can make
recommendations, but there are no teeth to require applicants to implement changes. If the ADB doesn't like a project, they
have to approve it anyway if it meets all of the design guidelines and codes. The ADB would like to be involved earlier in
design review to help guide projects.
Board Member Guenther pointed out that the ADB has never been invited to provide input on design elements when the
Comprehensive Plan is updated. He expressed his belief that the ADB needs to be more involved in both Comprehensive
Plan policies and legislative code amendments related to design. Besides just approving projects, the ADB can offer a lot
more.
Board Member Rosen asked what the Planning Board's role will be in the process of changing the ADB's role and the design
review process. Mr. Chave explained that, as per code, the Planning Board is responsible for making recommendations to the
City Council regarding amendments to the Development Code, including ADB procedures and responsibilities, and that is
why the ADB is meeting jointly with the Planning Board to share its recommendation.
Mr. Chave said the ADB has discussed having all of the design standards in one section of the code, and then having the
ADB the body in charge of making recommendations to the City Council regarding design code changes. He suggested it
would be awkward for the ADB to have study sessions and public hearings on proposed amendments, only for the Planning
Board to have to repeat the process before making a recommendation to the City Council. The ADB is interested in having a
stronger role in the development of design guidelines (Comprehensive Plan) and design standards (Development Code), and
staff believes it would make sense for the ADB to submit their recommendations directly to the City Council.
In an attempt to advance the recommendations with the best opportunity for success, Board Member Rosen asked if it would
be better to have the recommended changes come from the Planning Board or from both boards together. Mr. Chave
suggested that it would be appropriate to present the proposed changes to the City Council in a joint meeting.
Regarding Board Member Guenther's comment about the ADB being left out of the Comprehensive Plan process, Board
Member Rubenkonig pointed out that there hasn't been a comprehensive review of the Comprehensive Plan for quite a while.
The most recent amendments were unrelated to design. Board Member Guenther recalled that he was a member of the
Planning Board when the design element of the Comprehensive Plan was updated, and the Planning Board did not solicit
feedback or help from the ADB. He suggested that it would be appropriate for the ADB to participate the next time the
design element is updated.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked Mr. Chave to explain the City's process for reviewing the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Chave said the City completes a comprehensive update of its Comprehensive Plan every seven years. In between, the City
conducts an annual update to address minor changes that are needed for one reason or another. He said the ADB has
suggested it would like to take a larger role in modifications to and development of the design guidelines, some of which are
in the Comprehensive Plan. They would also like a larger role in creating and modifying the design standards in the
Development Code. He noted that their input has been largely left out of previous updates.
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 307
9.3.d
Board Member Monroe recalled that at the last joint meeting, the two boards talked about the need for a deviation process.
He asked if the ADB had a chance to talk about the concept further. Board Member Owenby answered no. Mr. Chave
explained that the proposal currently before the Board would modify the code to allow the ADB to be involved earlier in
design review and to have a role in developing and modifying design guidelines, design standards and other code regulations
related to design. If and when the current proposal is adopted by the City Council, the ADB can begin to discuss potential
code amendments, including a provision that allows for deviations to the design standards.
Vice Chair Robles recalled that at the joint meeting, he recognized that the ADB members are creative, technically -minded
and safety conscious in taking care of details. At their joint meeting with the Council, the Planning Board expressed its belief
that the ADB is being underutilized at this time. For example, it was pointed out that the ADB has some great ideas related
to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) that could be beneficial to the Housing Commission. When the City Council made it
clear that ADU's were under the purview of the Housing Commission, he pointed out that allowing the ADB to study the
issue and recommend a set of specifications that can work for ADUs would help the Housing Commission move quicker. He
said he can see how the ADB's work at the front end could actually lubricate the issue and allow it to run smoother rather
than hold it back. He wholeheartedly agreed that having ADB participation closer to the front end of design review would be
beneficial, as well. He asked what would be the best approach for pushing the ADB's recommended changes forward to the
City Council.
Chair Herr referred to Attachment 1, which outlines what the ADB is striving to accomplish. However, implementing all of
the changes will take baby steps. The ADB's recommendation list only includes three items as a place to start. As the
changes are implemented, the Board will get a better idea of how it can best serve and help applicants present their projects.
If the ADB is allowed to comment earlier, their feedback will come more as a suggestion or recommendation. If they are
presented at the end after a project has been fully designed, applicants are much less willing to consider the
recommendations. Having the review come earlier in the process will benefit developers, the ADB, the City and the
community.
Vice Chair Robles stressed the need to clearly articulate the ADB's vision. If you flip the politics, it becomes an easy
change. It is all about communicating the proposal to the City Council in a way that they are open to the rest of the changes.
Mr. Chave referred to Attachment 1, which lists the ADB's current powers and duties, noting that most of what the ADB
currently does (reviewing projects) isn't even on the list. Their major job now is to act as the approval body for projects
rather than providing design expertise for the development of design in the City. The ADB is suggesting going back to the
powers and duties that the current code assigns to them. They would still have a role in project review, but it would be
pushed much earlier in the process to better influence how design develops. Having a provision in place that allows for
design standard modifications would encourage good design to happen. He summarized that if the Planning Board supports
the ADB's recommendations, staff could schedule a joint meeting with the ADB, Planning Board and City Council. If the
Council is receptive to the recommendation, staff could draft the appropriate code changes to make it happen.
Board Member Owensby agreed that the proposal's success will depend on how it is presented to the City Council. He
doesn't want to step on anyone's toes. As an architect, he has to gather and assimilate a variety of information (building
codes, soil conditions, client desires, etc.) in order to do a good project. The ADB members excel at doing this. With regards
to ADUs, the ADB could help the Housing Commission think through the process creatively so that Edmonds gets the type
of housing it needs.
Vice Chair Robles agreed that the Housing Commission is necessary, and the ADB could support their efforts so they don't
get bogged down with details that would be easy for the ADB to address. Mr. Chave explained that the Housing
Commission's role will be to come up with policies relative to ADUs and not to develop detailed standards for ADU's. Once
the policies are in place, they will allow the Planning Board and/or ADB to come up with specific implementation standards
to implement the policies. The City Council didn't want the Planning Board and ADB to "get too far into the weeds" before
the Housing Commission comes up with the big picture policy direction.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she watched the video of the Planning Board's joint meeting with the City Council and
observed that there was a misrepresentation of the ADU concept and that some Board Members confused the issue. She
appreciates that Mr. Chave has set the Board straight. She said the way the Board could impact the ADU discussion was also
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 308
9.3.d
misrepresented. It is her understanding that the Planning Board and ADB can look at the current criteria for detached ADUs
and consider other criteria that would result in acceptable design for the City, and it is time for that to take place. There is no
new policy being made at this time for detached ADU's, and it is not within their purview to discuss policy changes.
However, the Planning Board can work with the ADB to see if there is another way for ADUs to look that might be more
palatable for the neighborhoods and the City. The current regulations have been in place for a long time, and perhaps they no
longer represent the present concerns or future needs. Discussing these regulations are well within the purview of the two
Boards. She recalled previous discussions with the Development Services Director, indicating that the Planning Board could
work with the ADB on the design issues related to ADU's. However, policies as to who can benefit from ADU's will come
from the Housing Commission. That is what the City Council was trying to clarify.
Board Member Rubenkonig concluded that, with this understanding and staff s support, the Planning Board can engage with
the ADB in looking at the design standards for ADUs. However, they must be clear they can always do what they have been
doing, which is making preferences known as to the benefit these structures could be for other people in the City aside from
family members. The Planning Board is expected to represent different views and be part of the conversation. Striking a
chord on the Board will require communication and that they are all in agreement when it comes to agenda setting for when
they meet with the City Council. They need to be clearer, publicly, about how they discuss things as a Board. Once they
make plans, they have to protect those plans and represent the Board in a fine manner. They have to be very clear tonight
about the difference between the policies the Housing Commission will be setting and the Planning Board's future work with
the ADB. She concluded that it was disconcerting to see the issue become so mottled, and she didn't want the confusion to
continue at this meeting.
Board Member Crank said she supports the ADB's recommendation and the flowchart that was attached to the Staff Report.
The last thing that volunteers want to feel like is that their time and talent is not being utilized because their hands are being
tied or that the work is not going down the right pathway for them to be effective. She recalled that, at the Planning Board's
joint meeting with the City Council, Councilmember Johnson brought up that some items have been on the Planning Board's
extended agenda for years. She would like these items to be revisited. She suggested that the 2020 Planning Board Chair
should proactively work with staff to schedule these projects on the Board's extended agenda and find ways to incorporate
the ADB where appropriate.
Board Member Rosen said that whenever he considers potential changes, he tries to consider what issues might come up that
will kill a new idea. He asked what are the worst things someone might say in opposition to the ADB's recommended
changes. Chair Herr responded that, without the changes, good volunteers may decide to leave their position on the ADB.
Board Member Rosen agreed that will be an outcome of the proposed change.
Board Member Guenther commented that if the ADB is able to make recommendations directly to the City Council, it will
appear they are being promoted a level up the chain. The current process requires the ADB to make recommendations to the
Planning Board and then the Planning Board makes a recommendation to the City Council. Along the way,
recommendations get modified, and what is eventually adopted may not be consistent with the ADB's original
recommendation. He said it makes sense for the ADB to make recommendations directly to the City Council, but this change
could raise some concerns.
Board Member Owensby voiced concern that elements of an ADB recommendation can get lost in the translation as it is
moved through the Planning Board and then to the City Council. The Planning Board may not have an adequate
understanding of an ADB recommendation to clearly explain to the City Council why it is important. If the ADB, is able to
make recommendations directly to the City Council, they can clearly explain their reasoning. Board Member Rosen agreed
that many good ideas have been derailed by the current process, which is a compelling argument in support of the proposed
changes.
Mr. Chave said they may receive some pushback on the mandatory pre -application meeting requirement. He explained that
pre -application meetings are not mandatory at this point. Quite a number of applicants do them anyway, but it is something
else to make it mandatory. Some element of the development community is used to the current process, and adding a new
step early in the process might cause some pushback. He said that, in his view, it isn't really a penalty to require a pre -
application meeting; it just means that people will have to think of that earlier in the process.
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 309
9.3.d
Board Member Rosen asked if other jurisdictions in the region require pre -application meetings. Chari Herr said he works in
a lot of jurisdictions, and most have pre -application meetings. He said he doesn't think they will receive a lot of pushback
from the development community because they are used to it in most jurisdictions. Mr. Chave commented that some of the
local developers are not used to pre -application meetings, but they provide a potential benefit, particularly if the City has a
process for deviations to the standards. A pre -application meeting will allow the ADB to engage a prospective developer
early enough that they can see possibilities they may not have recognized themselves.
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD ENDORSE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD AND SET UP A TIME TO CO -PRESENT THE RECOMMENDATION TO
THE CITY COUNCIL. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER SECONDED THE MOTION.
Board Member Cloutier pointed out that, as proposed, the pre -application meeting would only be mandatory for significant
projects and not every project. Developers of larger projects will have a different level of visibility anyway. Mr. Chave
referred to the flowchart (Attachment 2) that was attached to the Staff Report, emphasizing that it is just a draft now. Once
they get into the details of the process, they can set different thresholds, depending on where projects are located. For
example, he can see that the threshold for mandatory pre -application meetings would be different for development in the
downtown versus Highway 99, Westgate, etc.
Board Member Owenby said he would like to make sure that any project that is publicly oriented should require a pre -
application meeting. This would include development on Highway 99, downtown, Five Corners, etc. The threshold should
be based on both size and location. Board Member Cloutier cautioned that it will be important to clearly define the threshold
so it is easy for people on the outside to understand. The process outlined in the flowchart is simple, setting the threshold at
projects that require State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review. Chair Herr agreed that would be a good place to start.
However, the pre -application meeting could remain an option for all projects, and some developers might take advantage of
the opportunity.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she has no comments regarding the contents of the Staff Report, but she is concerned that
the ADB hasn't had enough time to consider their recommendation and some of their members are not present. She observed
no action is required at this time. They can reconvene the joint meeting on a future date if necessary for the ADB to have
more preparation time. Chair Herr responded that the ADB has discussed the recommendation at length in prior meetings.
All members of the ADB have participated in the discussion and all are in agreement with the recommendation.
Board Member Owensby clarified that the intent of his earlier comment is that the ADB hasn't had time to go beyond the
initial recommendation to look at the specific design guidelines and design standards they might recommend in the future.
Once again, Chair Herr reminded them that it will take small steps, starting with outlining the framework and gaining the
Planning Board and City Council support. As they move forward, the details will all be fleshed out.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked the Planning Board members why they are comfortable moving the ADB's
recommendation on to the City Council. Board Member Cloutier clarified that they are not recommending a complete
rewrite of the code. They are simply endorsing the three recommendations provided in Attachment 1 of the Staff Report,
which outline what they want the ADB to be doing. The proposed recommendations set a vision for where the ADB should
be going, and then the recommendations will be implemented with new actions.
Board Member Monroe commented that the ADB recommendation represents a thoughtful process and is exactly the process
he wants to have for the design review board. The proposed changes offer a great way to keep the citizen boards engaged,
and they need to be able to fix things that aren't working. He is open to hearing the ADB's ideas for implementing the
changes in the future.
Chair Cheung said he appreciates the ADB's recommendation and found their arguments to be compelling. He supports
empowering the ADB to do work where they can help the most. Rather than the ADB making a recommendation to the
Planning Board and then the Planning Board making a recommendation to the City Council, he would support the ADB
making their own recommendations to the City Council.
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2019 Page 6
Packet Pg. 310
9.3.d
Vice Chair Robles said he is an engineer and works with architects. They rely on each other, and the working relationship is
very important. It is also important that both boards represent the citizens. They need to take every opportunity to increase
the weight of the citizen comments, and he trusts the architects on the ADB to do that. He looks forward to their active
participation in forwarding the goal of protecting the health, safety and welfare of people and property.
Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that the ADB is made up of a planner, a civil engineer, at least one architect, a design
professional, and two representatives from the community. They are not all architects, but most are related to the design
profession. She cautioned against an overemphasis on the ADB members all being architects when the reality is, they
represent the design profession.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Board Member Rubenkonig left the meeting at 8:00 p.m.
PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED 2020 — 2025 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PLAN (CFP/CIP)
Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is required by the Growth Management Act and covers a
planning horizon of 6 to 20 years. It is intended to identify longer term capital needs (not maintenance) and be tied to the
City's Level of Service (LOS) Standards. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a budgeting tool that includes capital and
maintenance projects, and it ties the projects to the various City funds and revenues. The CFP is required to be consistent
with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, and there are restrictions on how often it can be amended. There are no
restrictions tied to the CIP. The two plans intersect when identifying 6-year capital projects with funding sources. The CIP is
organized based on the City's financial funds and provides a description of each of the capital projects identified for the six -
year period.
Mr. English explained that projects are added to the CFP and CIP based on adopted elements of the City's Comprehensive
Plan. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, the Transportation Plan and Utilities Plans all go through
extensive public processes of updating and establishing policies and goals. The CIP is tied to the City's budget and several
funds make up the overall document:
• Fund 112 is a Transportation Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. It is funded via grants and the
gas tax.
• Fund 125 is a Capital Projects Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Departments. It is funded by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET).
• Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET.
• Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department.
It is funded by grants.
• Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department.
Mr. English shared highlights of 2019 Projects:
The $1.8 million Pavement Preservation Program was a key part of the program for maintaining City streets. In
2019, the City overlaid 6.5 lane miles and 13 new Americans with Disabilities (ADA) ramps were added using
funding from both the Street Overlay Program and the Utility Programs.
The 89t1i Place Retaining Wall Project was funded with REET dollars. The project is on a small cul-de-sac street.
The existing wall was failing and causing the street to settle and slope away. They were able to rebuild the rockery
with a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall and the project was completed last spring at a cost of about
$125,000.
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2019 Page 7
Packet Pg. 311
9.3.d
• The 841 Avenue Overlay Project started in the middle of September and is expected to be finished by mid -October.
It is a combination of stormwater improvements plus 2-inch-grind overlay. It is a half -mile section between 2201
and 212' Streets.
• The Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project was completed this year.
• The Dayton Street Utility Improvement Project is in progress. They are currently paving Dayton from 3rd to 5t1i
Avenues, and all of the utilities within that segment are being replaced. The final pavement work will be done on
Friday if weather permits. There will be a break in activity, and the project will resume in March on the segment
between 5t' and 9r' Avenues.
• Phase 1 of the Seaview Infiltration Project was completed this summer and was funded by a State grant. The
infiltration facility was installed in Seaview Park, itself, and collects stormwater off the Perrinville system and
infiltrates it into the ground. The goal is to minimize the impact to the Perrinville system and the existing creek.
The cost of the project was about $350,000.
Mr. English also shared highlights of 2020 Projects:
• The 2020 Pavement Preservation Program will be funded at $1.2 million, which should provide for about 3 lane
miles of street overlay.
• The Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project is funded with federal dollars and will upgrade safety at nine intersections
in the City, primarily by upgrading pedestrian ramps and installing rapid flashing beacons at crossings. A Hawk
Signal will be installed at the intersection of SR-524 and 81 Avenue, similar to the HAWK signal on SR-104 near
City Park.
• The Highway 99 Revitalization Project will continue to go forward in 2020 using State funding. The corridor study
has been completed and the City learned that the cost of upgrading Highway 99 with all of the streetscape and safety
improvements would be well over $100 million, and the State's allocation was only $2 million. The City is working
to pick the low -hanging fruit, installing center medians and taking out some of the turn lanes along the corridor to
improve safety at high accident intersections. Staff will continue its work to secure additional grant funding to move
other elements of the project forward.
• The Dayton Street Walkway Project is also grant funded and part of the Main Street to 9t' Avenue Improvement
Project. The portion between 5t' and 9r' Avenues will be constructed in 2020, and the portion between 3rd and 5t'
Avenues is currently in progress.
• REET funding will be used for the Pedestrian Safety Program, which started last year and is proposed to continue in
2020. Projects include flashing beacons at 31 Avenue and Bell Street, a project that was funded in 2019. The
equipment has been purchased but hasn't been installed.
• Several Traffic Signal Upgrades will be done in 2020. They will make several improvements to the existing control
cabinets on Highway 99, and the program will continue into 2020 with improvements to signal detections.
• The Guardrail System Program will continue into 2020, with replacement of existing guardrails that need upgraded
and adding new guardrails in areas where they are needed.
• The Traffic Calming Program has been in place for several years and will be funded with REET dollars in 2020.
• The Dayton Street Utility Improvement Project will resume in March on the segment between 5' and 9r' Avenues.
With the exception of the sewer line, all other utilities will be replaced. The existing sewer line will be refurbished
with a cured -in -place pipe process, which is less costly.
• The Water Utility Replacement Program will continue and the plan is to replace over 1,000 feet of watermain,
including the work that is part of the Dayton Street Program. They will also overlay about .35 lanes miles of street,
and most of that work is related to the Dayton Street Project.
• The Stormwater Utility Program will replace 4,900 feet of pipe.
• The Willow Creek Daylight Project will continue, with $750,000 identified for design.
• Phase 2 of the Seaview Infiltration Facility Project will be another infiltration facility that adds capacity to the one
that was completed in 2019.
• The Ballinger Regional Facility Project is a predesign project that the City is evaluating the potential of building a
new infiltration facility in Mathay Ballinger Park to try and minimize the impact of stormwater runoff on Lake
Ballinger.
• The Perrinville Creek Flow Management Project will continue to look for opportunities to install raingardens within
the drainage basin to reduce runoff into the system.
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2019 Page 8
Packet Pg. 312
9.3.d
• The Sewer Utility Program will replace 2,500 feet of sewer main and rehabilitate 6,300 feet of sewer pipe using the
cured -in -place method, overlay 0.35 lane miles of street affected by sewer main replacement, and complete the Lake
Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study.
• Design will start on the Pyrolysis Project at the Sewer Treatment Plant in 2020.
Ms. Burley noted that most of the park projects identified in the CIP and CFP fall within the Parks, Recreation and Open
Space Plan. She shared highlights of 2019 projects:
• The first inclusive playground in the City was installed this year at Seaview Park.
• All of the tennis courts at Seaview Park were refinished and the restroom was refurbished.
• The Olympic Beach Restrooms were completely revamped. The project was scoped to be done by a contractor, but
it ended up being done in house by City staff. This resulted in a significant savings, and the project turned out nice.
• The Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project is ongoing. Staff believes they found a solution, and they are working to put
together the pieces to float the labor underneath to seal it up. They are optimistic the project will be completed in
2020.
• The City Park Walkway Project will happen this fall and includes widening the exit to allow for better pedestrian
access. The work will be completed in house by a parks crew.
• Design work is complete for the Gateway Sign Project.
Next, Ms. Burley shared highlights of the proposed 2020 projects:
• Civic Park was designed in 2019. The City has secured funding necessary to build the park, including a $2 million
request from the 2020 budget. The $2 million request originally included $500,000 from the general fund, but that
is no longer needed. The entire $2 million will be funded with balances in the various park funds, including the Park
Impact Fee and REET funds. Everything associated with issuing the bonds has been completed. She summarized
that $3.1 million of the project funding is in carry-over funds, $3.7 million bonds, and $3.4 million grants. The goal
is to get to 90% design in December and submit for permits in November of this year. This will enable the City to
issue a Request for Proposals in February or March of 2020 and break ground in the spring. Construction is
expected to take one year to complete. The Parks staff is working diligently on solutions to handle the ground water
and address the high-water table. The grade needs to be raised significantly enough to allow water to dissipate and
for the drainage system to be above the current grade but below the new grade. They are also working to address
water mitigation, which is incredibly difficult in addition to taking care of the onsite water. They are exploring
options at Yost Park, which is in the same watershed, just upstream. There is potential to do some water infiltration
at Yost Park, which will provide four mitigation credits for the Civic Park Project.
• The Marina Beach Park Project will continue in 2020 and go hand -in -hand with the Willow Creek Daylighting
Project. The Park needs to be designed simultaneously. RCO grants are coming up in 2020, and the design money
will be spent to get the project to a place where they can submit confidently for grants for the project. They plan to
submit three grant applications for this particular project.
• Funding was included to support ongoing maintenance and repair at Yost Pool. In 2020, replacing and rehabilitating
the pool grates will be the largest maintenance project. They will also replace the acid/chlorine injector and the pool
cover.
• The 41 Avenue Cultural Corridor is a significant project that will take longer than some people like. The estimated
cost to design the project is about $350,000, and $50,000 has been spent to date. Another $100,000 is allocated in
2020 to continue the design work. Design is critical for the City to secure grant funding. To get much further, they
will also need to identify some funding sources.
• The City has identified a 1-acre parcel for a Community Garden. They had hoped to purchase it in 2019, but the
Purchase and Sale Agreement still hasn't been finalized. The funds will be rolled into the 2020 CIP.
• The City has plans for two outdoor fitness zones, one of which was programed in 2019. They were unable to get to
the project, so both are now programmed in 2020. One will be at Civic Park and the other at Mathay Ballinger Park.
The City received grant funding for the projects.
• The Waterfront Redevelopment Project will continue in 2020. About half of the funding for the project was
programmed in 2019 and the remaining half in 2020. This is not really a funding request; it is just a carryover of the
budget that was identified in 2019.
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2019 Page 9
Packet Pg. 313
9.3.d
Ms. Burley advised that the draft CIP and CFP also include a list of projects that go out beyond the 2020 timeline, such as
relatively minor park improvements, ongoing maintenance, etc.
Mr. English summarized that staff started development of the capital budgets in July and proposals were submitted to the
Finance Department in August and September so that the draft CIP and CFP could be prepared. A public hearing before the
Planning Board is scheduled for October 23'. Following the hearing, the Board will be asked to forward a recommendation
to the City Council. The plans will be presented to the City Council on November 4', and the Council will hold a public
hearing on November 121. It is anticipated the City Council will adopt the plans before the end of December.
Board Member Crank asked if the 234' Street/Highway 99 Traffic Signal Project would be done in tandem with the housing
project that is supposed to take place at that intersection. Mr. English answered no. The traffic signal is part of a grant the
City secured a few years ago for safety improvements and it is not tied to the housing development.
Board Member Monroe requested more information about the $6.5 million that is identified in the CIP for professional
service fees over the next five years. Mr. English responded that building maintenance is managed by the City's Facilities
Manager. The allocation is intended to show the needed funding to maintain the facilities, and it won't necessarily all be
used to fund engineering and design. It probably should be distributed to both construction and professional services, but the
intent is to identify the dollar amount that needs to be programmed each year to maintain the City's facilities.
Board Member Monroe noted that no funding is identified for traffic calming. Mr. English responded that the Traffic
Calming Program was funded by the 112 Fund through 2019 via a General Fund contribution. Starting in 2020, the program
will be funded with the REET 125 Fund at an amount of $15,000.
Board Member Monroe asked Mr. English to explain the process for adding projects to the table on Page 187 of the Staff
Report. Mr. English explained that there are several components that factor into when projects are added. The City Council
has the ability to add projects, and staff can recommend projects to the City Council. Projects may be added because of
maintenance reasons or because the City has an opportunity for grant funding. Citizen can also recommend projects. The
projects on the list on Page 187 are new projects that were added throughout 2019 for potential funding.
Chair Cheung requested an update on the Waterfront Walkway Project. Ms. Burley answered that the City is still in
litigation. Chair Cheung asked how the delay will impact the Waterfront Redevelopment Project. Ms. Burley answered that
while a few permits are connected, the projects are separate. They have cleared all of the milestones for the Waterfront
Redevelopment Project and it will move forward. The City will continue with litigation on the connecting Waterfront
Walkway.
Student Representative Bryan said he had fun looking through all of the proposed sidewalk additions. He said he runs cross
country for the high school, and he and his team run about 8 miles per day throughout the community. While he sees clear
reasoning for many of the proposed projects, there were others where there is already a wide shoulder and very little
vehicular traffic. He said he would prefer not being confined to a little sidewalk in these locations. He asked Mr. English to
speak to the criteria that is used to identify projects for the CFP and CIP. Mr. English responded that a number of factors are
considered when selecting projects for the CIP and CFP, including the Comprehensive Plan, which includes the
Transportation Plan that is updated every six years. Updating the Transportation Plan involves a public process where the
City seeks input from the public on potential projects. A citizen committee is formed to evaluate and rank the projects. In
2015 the committee reviewed a long list of potential sidewalk projects that were categorized and ranked. The final list
provides the basic groundwork for what shows up in the transportation section of the CFP. The priorities also help staff
identify projects to seek funding for. He emphasized that there isn't a lot of funding. The capital program for streets is only
$150,000, as most of the REET funding goes towards preservation work and parks projects. They have a long list of needs
relative to walkway projects but a shortage of funding. The City's Transportation Engineer has been very successful in the
past securing grant funding. Student Representative Bryan summarized that a major part of the prioritization is based on
citizen input in monetary form. Mr. English explained that grants are typically issued by the Federal or State Government.
Board Member Cloutier referred to the 196' Street/88' Avenue Intersection Improvement Project, noting that the
recommendation for a signal in that location is based on a model that was done in 2009. He suggested that perhaps they
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2019 Page 10
Packet Pg. 314
9.3.d
should review the improvement as a potential roundabout instead of yet another signal. He said he loves the roundabout at
Five Corners. Mr. English advised that this project has a long history. It doesn't meet warrants for a signal, and that's why a
signal has not been installed. One of the challenges with using a roundabout in that location is the line of sight and the
inability to see all of the different movements within a roundabout. It will be a challenge on whatever improvement is built
at the intersection, and he agreed that a roundabout should be one of the options considered.
Board Member Cloutier suggested they also consider a roundabout at the intersection of Main Street and 9r' Avenue. Mr.
English advised that, if the City is able to secure funding for improvements at that intersection, a roundabout would definitely
be one of the options considered.
Chair Cheung pointed out that traffic backs up at the Intersection of 761 Avenue and 1961 Street. At certain times, traffic
backs up on 76r'', and he has witnessed several accidents when people try to turn left out of the QFC parking lot. He asked if
the intersection is in Lynnwood or Edmonds. Mr. English answered that the intersection is controlled by the City of
Lynnwood, and he can take the concern to the City's Traffic Engineer to pass on to the City of Lynnwood. Chair Cheung
asked if it would be possible to widen 76' Avenue as it approaches the intersection. Mr. English responded that the
Edmonds portion of 76t1i Avenue is south of the QFC, but it becomes Edmonds again north of the intersection. Again, he
agreed to pass on the concern. However, he acknowledged that doing a widening project at the intersection would be very
costly. Perhaps they could look at the operation of the signal to see if anything can be done with channelization to address
the concern.
Vice Chair Robles referred to the SR-104/951 Place West Intersection Improvement Project and asked what participation the
State would have and how much empathy they have for what is going on at the four corners of the intersection where more
population density is planned. He asked what $420,000 would buy to mitigate for all that is going on at that intersection.
Mr. English pointed out that the 2281 Street Improvement Project would tie into the improvements at this location because it
will provide direct access to the transit station in Mountlake Terrace. When they get to the stage of improving 2281 Street,
they could potentially redesign the intersection to make it function better in both its connection to residential communities
and the transit station. He acknowledged that the $420,000 shown in the CIP will not solve the problem. The scheduled
improvements are just trying to improve access management at the intersection by putting in C curbs, creating ramps at
intersections, and improving pedestrian safety at crossings. He agreed to forward Vice Chair Robles' question to the
Transportation Engineer with a request to provide more information about the scope of the improvements.
Vice Chair Robles asked if future problems at the intersection could be blamed on inactivity on the part of the City because it
failed to attend to the issues. Mr. English said there is nothing on the near horizon for doing any city -sponsored work at the
intersection. However, there is a private development on the south side of SR-104 that could result in some changes to
access. Vice Chair Robles asked if there is a proposed action that involves all four corners of the intersection, or just two
corners. Mr. English said there is an active proposal for the south side, but he isn't sure about the status of the north side.
Chair Cheung said he likes the crosswalk light on 212r' Street near the high school. He asked if they are expensive to install.
Mr. English said they cost between $15,000 and $20,000 per system. Chair Cheung suggested that the City consider
providing the systems around schools where there is heavy pedestrian traffic. Mr. English agreed and said the Traffic
Engineer is always looking for opportunities to install the systems. He noted that a system would be added on 84' Avenue as
part of a project that is currently under construction, and another would be added at the intersection of 3rd Avenue and Dayton
Street. In addition, seven of the nine locations included in the Citywide Pedestrian Safety Improvement Program will have
rapid flashing beacons added at the crosswalks.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION (REFERRED FROM
THE CITY COUNCIL)
Mr. Chave explained that there are various implementation actions in the Comprehensive Plan relative to housing. One in the
Housing Element talks about developing a Housing Strategy by 2019. He recalled that the City considered a Housing
Strategy at the end of 2018, but the City Council elected not to adopt it. Instead, they formed a Housing Commission.
Because the Commission's work is scheduled to take place during 2019 and 2020, the Council felt it was appropriate to
modify the related implementation action that identified 2019 as the date for developing the Housing Strategy. Council -
adopted Resolution 1420 identified two options to consider as ways to amend the implementation action in the plan, and staff
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2019 Page 11
Packet Pg. 315
9.3.d
has also identified a third option. He explained that the first two options were developed by the Council by resolution prior
to the establishment of the Housing Commission. Option 3 was developed by staff in response to the Housing Commission
being started. It reads, "Provide housing policy options by the end of 2020 for City Council consideration. " He noted that the
Housing Commission's work is supposed to be done by the end of 2020. Staff s recommendation is that the Board choose
one of the three options to forward to the city Council so that the Comprehensive Plan can be appropriately updated.
Board Member Monroe asked what happens if they get to the end of 2020 and the work has still not been completed. Would
they have to go through the same process again to amend the Comprehensive Plan to change the date to 2021. Mr. Chave
answered affirmatively. Board Member Monroe suggested that a better approach would be to use the language in Option 2,
but eliminate the date. The amendment would read, "Develop a strategy for increasing the supply of affordable housing and
meeting diverse housing needs.
Board Member Crank said her understanding was that the City Council determined that the Housing Commission would
sunset at the end of 2020. If the recommendation exceeds that date, it could get push back because it goes beyond what the
City Council has already identified as a sunset date. Board Member Monroe said his suggestion was to eliminate the date
entirely.
Mr. Chave advised that a public hearing on the proposed amendment is scheduled for October 23ra
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Cheung reviewed that the Board's October 23ra meeting agenda will include a Housing Commission Update, a public
hearing on the 2020 — 2025 CIP/CFP and a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment regarding housing
implementation. The November 13' meeting agenda will include a presentation on potential amendments to the Commercial
Waterfront Zone to allow lodging or hotels as permitted uses, a presentation and potential amendments to the unit lot
subdivision application procedure, and an update on the Vision 2050 Multicounty Planning Policies. The December 11'
meeting agenda will include a public hearing on potential amendments to the Commercial Waterfront Zone to allow lodging
or hotels as permitted uses, and a public hearing on potential amendments to the unit lot subdivision application procedure.
The November 27t1i and December 25t' meetings were cancelled.
The Board agreed to add "Election of 2020 Officers" to the November 13' agenda. Board Member Rosen recalled that, at
their last meeting, the Board reviewed a list of agenda items that they hoped could be placed on the extended agenda. The
agenda items were identified in the Board's discussions with the City Council at the joint meeting. Chair Cheung said he
would like to work with the 2020 Planning Board Officers and staff to schedule the items into the 2020 agenda. The Board
agreed that the items should be listed as "pending" on the next Extended Agenda.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
There were no Planning Board comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
October 9, 2019 Page 12
Packet Pg. 316
9.3.e
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Meeting
October 23, 2019
Chair Cheung called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 51 Avenue North.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip
Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their
sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Matthew Cheung, Chair
Daniel Robles, Vice Chair
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig
Mike Rosen
Conner Bryan, Student Representative
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Roger Pence (excused)
Todd Cloutier (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Rob English, City Engineer
Shannon Burley, Deputy Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder
Karin Noyes, Recorder
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that she appreciated the description provided in the minutes regarding the
differences and similarities between the Capital Facilities Plan and the Capital Improvement Plan.
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 9, 2019 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
Packet Pg. 317
9.3.e
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Cheung referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were
no comments or questions from the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2020 — 2025 CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN (CFP)/ CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)
Mr. English explained that the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) is required by the Growth Management Act to identify long-term
capital needs to address the City's growth. It covers a planning horizon of 6 and 20 years with projects to address level of
service (LOS), safety and transportation. The CIP is organized by the City's financial funds and includes projects in the next
6-year planning horizon. The two plans intersect when identifying the 6-year capital projects with funding sources.
Mr. English explained that projects are added to the CFP and CIP based on adopted elements of the City's Comprehensive
Plan. The Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan, the Transportation Plan and Utilities Plans all go through
extensive public processes of updating and establishing policies and goals. The CIP is tied to the City's budget and several
funds make up the overall document:
• Fund 112 is a Transportation Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department. It is funded via grants and the
gas tax.
• Fund 125 is a Capital Projects Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Departments. It is funded by the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET).
• Fund 126 is a Special Capital Project and Parks Acquisition Fund that is managed by both the Public Works and
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Departments. It is also funded by REET.
• Fund 332 is a Parks Construction Fund that is managed by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department.
It is funded by grants.
• Fund 421 is the Water Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 422 is the Stormwater Utility Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department.
• Fund 423 is the Sewer and Wastewater Treatment Fund that is managed by the Public Works Department.
Mr. English shared highlights of 2019 Fund 112 Projects:
• The $1.8 million Pavement Preservation Program was a key part of the program for maintaining City streets. In
2019, the City overlaid 6.5 lane miles and 13 new Americans with Disabilities (ADA) ramps were added using
funding from the Street Overlay Program and the Utility Programs.
• The 891 Place Retaining Wall Project was funded with REET dollars. The project is on a small cul-de-sac street.
The existing wall was failing and causing the street to settle and slope away. The rockery was replaced with a
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall and the project was completed last spring at a cost of about $125,000.
• The 84r' Avenue Overlay Project started in the middle of September. It is a combination of stormwater
improvements plus a 2-inch-grind overlay on a half -mile section between 220' and 212' Streets. The project
includes replacing 17 curb ramps to be ADA complaint, and it is likely the overlay portion of the project will extend
into 2020. The overlay portion of the project was funded by a federal grant the City received a few years ago, and
only a small local match was required.
• The Five Corners Reservoir Recoating Project was completed this year. The older 1.5-million-gallon tank presented
a lot more challenges that required additional budget appropriation, but work on the 3-million-gallon tank went
smoothly. The project cost was close to $4 million.
• The Dayton Street Utility Improvement Project is in progress. They are currently paving Dayton from 3rd to 51h
Avenues. The project includes replacement of 1,200 feet of water main, 1,200 feet of storm pipe, and 1,300 feet of
sewer pipe, followed by a complete reconstruction of the street. There will be a break in activity, and the project
will resume in March on the segment between 5' and 9' Avenues.
• Phase 1 of the Seaview Infiltration Project was completed this summer and was funded by a State grant. An
infiltration facility was installed to take stormwater off the Perrinville system and infiltrate it into the ground. The
Planning Board Minutes
October 23, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 318
9.3.e
goal is to minimize the impact to the Perrinville system and the existing creek. The cost of the project was about
$350,000.
Mr. English also shared highlights of 2020 Projects:
• The 2020 Pavement Preservation Program will be funded at $1.1 million, which should provide for about 3 lane
miles of street overlay.
• The Citywide Pedestrian Crossing Project is funded with federal dollars and will upgrade safety at 7 intersections in
the City, primarily by upgrading pedestrian ramps and installing rectangular rapid flashing beacons at crossings. A
Hawk Signal will be installed at the intersection of SR-524 and 81 Avenue, similar to the HAWK signal on SR-104
near City Park.
• The Highway 99 Revitalization Project will continue to go forward in 2020 utilizing a $10 million state grant. The
corridor study has been completed and the City learned that the cost of upgrading Highway 99 with all of the
streetscape and safety improvements would be well over $100 million. The City is now taking a different approach
going forward, installing center medians and taking out some of the turn lanes along the corridor to improve safety
at high accident intersections. Staff will continue its work to secure additional grant funding to move other elements
of the project forward.
• The Dayton Street Walkway Project is also grant funded and part of the Main Street to 9t' Avenue Improvement
Project. The portion between 5' and 9r' Avenues will be constructed in 2020, and the portion between 3rd and 5t'
Avenues is currently in progress.
• REET funding will be used for the Pedestrian Safety Program, which started last year and is proposed to continue in
2020. Projects include flashing beacons at 31 Avenue and Bell Street, a project that was funded in 2019. The
equipment has been purchased but hasn't been installed.
• Several Traffic Signal Upgrades will be done in 2020. They have made a lot of progress over the last three to four
years and work will continue into 2020.
• The Guardrail System Program will continue into 2020, with replacement of existing guardrails that need upgraded
and adding new guardrails in areas where they are needed.
• The Traffic Calming Program has been in place for several years and will be funded with REET dollars in 2020. In
previous years, the program was funded via the 112 Fund.
• The Dayton Street Utility Improvement Project will resume in March on the segment between 5' and 9r' Avenues.
With the exception of the sewer line, all other utilities will be replaced. The existing sewer line will be refurbished
with a cured -in -place pipe process, which is less costly.
• The Water Utility Replacement Program will continue and the plan is to replace over 8,000 feet of watermain,
including the work that is part of the Dayton Street Program. They will also overlay about .35 lanes miles of street,
and most of that work is related to the Dayton Street Project.
• The Stormwater Utility Program will replace 4,900 feet of pipe.
• The Willow Creek Daylight Project will continue, with $750,000 identified for design. An update on the project
was recently provided to the City Council.
• Phase 2 of the Seaview Infiltration Facility Project will be another infiltration facility that adds capacity to the one
that was completed in 2019.
• The Ballinger Regional Facility Project is a predesign project that the City is evaluating the potential of building a
new infiltration facility in Mathay Ballinger Park to try and minimize the impact of stormwater runoff on Lake
Ballinger.
• The Perrinville Creek Flow Management Project will continue to look for opportunities to install raingardens within
the drainage basin to reduce runoff into the system.
• The Sewer Utility Program will replace 2,500 feet of sewer main and rehabilitate 6,300 feet of sewer pipe using the
cured -in -place method, overlay 0.35 lane miles of street affected by sewer main replacement, and complete the Lake
Ballinger Sewer Trunk Study.
• Design will start on the Pyrolysis Project at the Sewer Treatment Plant in 2020.
Ms. Burley noted that most of the park projects identified in the CIP and CFP fall within the Parks, Recreation and Open
Space Plan. She reminded them of the decision criteria that goes into choosing parks projects and then shared highlights of
2019 projects:
Planning Board Minutes
October 23, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 319
9.3.e
• The first inclusive playground in the City was installed this year at Seaview Park.
• All of the tennis courts at Seaview Park were refinished and the restroom was refurbished.
• The Olympic Beach Restrooms were completely revamped. The project was scoped to be done by a contractor, but
it ended up being done in house by City staff.
• The Fishing Pier Rehabilitation Project is ongoing and will likely extend into the spring of 2020. They have found a
solution and have submitted the final permits and designs.
• The City Park Walkway Project will happen this fall and includes widening the exit to allow for better pedestrian
access. The work will be completed in house by a parks crew.
• The Gateway Sign is currently being constructed.
Next, Ms. Burley shared highlights of the proposed 2020 projects:
• Civic Park was designed in 2019. The City has secured funding necessary to build the park, including a $2 million
request from the 2020 budget. The $2 million request originally included $500,000 from the general fund, but that
is no longer needed. The entire $2 million will be funded with balances in the various park funds, including the Park
Impact Fee and REET funds. Everything associated with issuing the bonds has been completed. She summarized
that $3.1 million of the project funding is in carry-over funds, $3.7 million bonds, and $3.4 million grants. The
project is currently at 50% design, and the goal is to get to 90% design in December and submit for permits in
November of this year. This will enable the City to issue a Request for Proposals in February or March of 2020 and
break ground in late spring or summer. Construction is expected to take one year to complete.
• The Marina Beach Park Project will continue in 2020 and go hand -in -hand with the Willow Creek Daylighting
Project. The proposed $30,000 will be used for design to prepare the project for grant applications in 2020. RCO
grants are coming up in 2020.
• Funding was included to support ongoing maintenance and repair at Yost Pool. In 2020, replacing and rehabilitating
the pool grates will be the largest maintenance project. They will also replace the acid/chlorine injector and the pool
cover.
• The 4r' Avenue Cultural Corridor is currently in the design phase, and the estimated cost for design is about
$350,000. About $50,000 has been spent to date, and another $100,000 is allocated in 2020 to continue the design
work. Design is critical for the City to secure grant funding.
• The City has identified a 1-acre parcel for a Community Garden. They had hoped to purchase it in 2019, but the
Purchase and Sale Agreement still hasn't been finalized. The funds will be rolled into the 2020 CIP.
• The City has plans for two outdoor fitness zones, one of which was programed in 2019. They were unable to get to
the project, so both are now programmed in 2020. One will be at Civic Park and the other at Mathay Ballinger Park.
The City received grant funding for the projects.
• The Waterfront Redevelopment Project will continue in 2020. About half of the funding for the project was
programmed in 2019 and the remaining half in 2020. This is not really a funding request; it is just a carryover of the
budget that was identified in 2019.
Ms. Burley advised that the draft CIP and CFP also include a list of future projects that go out beyond the 2020 timeline, such
as relatively minor park improvements, ongoing maintenance, etc. The City will continue to set aside funds for future land
acquisition, as well.
Mr. English summarized that staff started development of the capital budgets in July and proposals were submitted to the
Finance Department in August and September so that the draft CIP and CFP could be prepared. The CIP and CFP were
presented to the Board at a workshop on October 91. Following the hearing tonight, the Board will be asked to forward a
recommendation to the City Council. The plans will be presented to the City Council on November 41, and the Council will
hold a public hearing on November 12'. It is anticipated the City Council will adopt the plans before the end of December.
Board Member Crank asked about the schedule for 234r' Street/Highway 99 Traffic Signal Project. Mr. English answered
that the intent is to start the project in February or March of 2020, but the actual signal will not likely be activated until late
fall of 2020. Board Member Crank asked if the City will need to do a traffic study to identify the traffic patterns at the
intersection. Mr. English answered that the City was required to coordinate with the Washington State Department of
Planning Board Minutes
October 23, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 320
9.3.e
Transportation (WSDOT) and obtain approval for the project. There was some assessment on how the intersection would
operate from a Level of Service (LOS) standpoint, and WSDOT has approved the project.
Board Member Monroe asked if area equity was a factor in scoring and identifying projects for the CIP. Mr. English
explained that they rely heavily on the City's current planning documents and grant funding opportunities to identify
transportation projects for the CIP. The scope of the work plays a significant role in the City's ability to obtain grant funding,
so the City doesn't have a lot of ability to distribute capital projects based on area equity. However, on the preservation side,
they try to focus on different pockets of the City as the programs continue year to year. Ms. Burley said most parks projects
are related to maintenance, but the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PROS) Plan looks at underserved areas where there
are no parks. From a land acquisition point of view, one of the first criteria is looking for areas that are underserved by parks.
Board Member Rubenkonig said that when she looked at the overview of projects, her initial sense was that more projects
will take place in the downtown area. However, she also recognized that this area is more densely populated. It is also
important to keep in mind that there are a large number of drainage basins throughout the City that must also be maintained.
It is important for the public to understand why the City needs to put money towards the highest and best uses. The need to
keep the drainage basins operating drives some of the necessary decision making.
Regarding transparency, Board Member Rubenkonig commented that it is important that citizens can understand the reports
and that they are laid out in a way that nothing appears to be hidden. They need to be written in a language that citizens can
understand. She said she enjoyed the information provided in the staff's presentation, particularly the information explaining
where the funding will come from. However, she would have liked the information to be on the slides provided for each of
the projects, too.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if Parks projects are funded entirely by one fund. Ms. Burley answered that a significant
amount of the park funding comes from Real Estate Excise Taxes (REET) via the 125 and 126 funds. The 332 fund is the
grant exchange fund. Again, Board Member Rubenkonig said it would be helpful to show funding sources on the slides for
each project.
Student Representative Bryan asked if the traffic calming involves installation of speed bumps. Mr. English answered that
radar speed feedback signs are the primary approach for the traffic calming program. There are both pros and cons associated
with speed humps. While they do slow traffic, they tend to cause people to break and accelerate more, and this results in
increased noise in residential neighborhoods. They goal is to find other ways to solve speeding issues and speed humps are
the last resort. The signs have been effective and they try to rotate them into different areas. Student Representative Bryan
agreed that the radar speed signs are more effective than speed humps.
Vice Chair Robles asked where the proposed community garden would be located, and Ms. Burley answered that it would be
just east of the entrance to Yost Park. The one -acre parcel is being gifted to the City as part of a will; but in the meantime, it
is the owner's desire that the City build the community garden while she is still here to see it.
Vice Chair Robles commented that Meadowdale Field is being utilized in orders of magnitude greater than it was used
before. He said he is a strong advocate for creating and improving the social fabric of the City. He also commented that the
improvements at Seaview Park are beautiful. He said he appreciates all of the projects the Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Services Department and Public Works Department are able to accomplish each year. He asked if there are currently enough
staff resources. Mr. English reported that Public Works just filled a few vacancies, but they are still down one employee.
There are few large projects coming up in 2020, including Civic Park, Waterfront Redevelopment, and Wastewater
Treatment Plant. There are often constraints associated with managing the workload, and Public Works often hires
consultants to help manage the large projects.
Board Member Crank asked Mr. English to speak to whether or not the pedestrian crossing projects would also involve
lighting improvements or adjustments. She said she lives at 236' and Highway 99 where there have been numerous
accidents and lighting seems to be a factor. There are numerous types of lighting on Highway 99, but it still gets quite dark
in some locations. Mr. English said he is not familiar enough with the project designs to know if new street lighting will be
added, but his recollection is that there will just be some minor adjustments. Board Member Crank asked if flashing lights
could be added in the pavement, similar to what was done on 212t' Street near the high school. Mr. English said the City is
Planning Board Minutes
October 23, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 321
9.3.e
steering away from that approach because they have had maintenance issues. The Citywide pedestrian improvement projects
will not have inground lights, but there will be lights on the side.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that during the Board's review of the CIP/CFP in 2018, Board Member Cheung
suggested that the City consider providing a covered area for pedestrians at Holmes Corner across the street from Edmonds-
Woodway High School. She also expressed the need for more design elements at that intersection. At that time, staff had
agreed to consider these two ideas. Mr. English agreed that it would be great to provide a covered pedestrian area at the
intersection, but from a funding standpoint, he is not sure the project would rank high enough to be included in the CIP.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she would still like to see what could be done to improve the intersection. She also voiced
concern about the lane channelization at the intersection as you head westbound on 761 Avenue. It seems to be unclear as to
where the turn lane starts and the lines are inconsistent with other intersections in the City. Mr. English agreed to pass this
concern on to the Traffic Engineer.
No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate in the public hearing, and the hearing was closed.
CHAIR CHEUNG MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT 2020 — 2025 CIP/CFP TO THE CITY
COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE
MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT REGARDING HOUSING
IMPLEMENTATION (REFERRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL)
Mr. Chave explained that the Comprehensive Plan elements have implementation actions that indicate additional steps the
City intends to take to move forward goals and policies. One in the Housing Element talks about developing a Housing
Strategy by 2019. He reviewed that the City Council recently established a Housing Commission to study housing policy
issues. Because the Commission's work is scheduled to take place during 2019-2020, the City Council felt it was appropriate
to modify the related implementation action contained in the Housing Element, which identifies 2019 as the date for
developing a "Housing Strategy." They adopted Resolution #1420, which provides two options to consider as ways to amend
the implementation action in the plan. Given that the City Council recently created a Housing Commission that is scheduled
to sunset at the end of 2020, staff has also identified a third option. The issue was forwarded to the Planning Board for a
public hearing and recommendation. He reviewed the options as follows:
• City Council Option 1 — Delete the existing language in its entirety.
• City Council Option 2 — Amend the existing language to read, "Develop a strategy by 2020 for increasing the
supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. "
• Staff Option 3 — Amend the existing language to read, "Provide housing policy options by the end of 2020 for City
Council consideration. "
Mr. Chave said staff is recommending Option 3, as it best reflects where the City Council is at this point in time. Again, he
said the Housing Commission is set to sunset at the end of 2020, and it is supposed to forward its recommendations to the
City Council by that date.
Board Member Monroe asked if the implementation action item would have to be amended again in 2020 if the Housing
Commission does meet the deadline for presenting recommendations to the City Council. Mr. Chave responded that the
Housing Commission has a pretty definite date for completing its work and reporting back to the City Council by the end of
2020. There is some urgency to the Commission's agenda and actions, and it intends to meet that date. Board Member
Monroe summarized that because the Commission has a charter date of 2020, it might make sense to be silent on the date and
let the charter dictate the timeframe for the implementation action. Mr. Chave explained that implementation actions are
statements of intent, and having a date makes it clear that the action is important to move forward. It provides a milepost in
the plan that helps people understand the City's current priorities. While a date is not required, it would be helpful. Board
Member Monroe said his thought was that removing the date from the implementation action would eliminate the need to
change the Comprehensive Plan in two places if the City Council decides to extend the work of the Housing Commission
beyond 2020. He said he would also support Option 1, which would eliminate the implementation action item entirely.
Planning Board Minutes
October 23, 2019 Page 6
Packet Pg. 322
9.3.e
Mr. Chave explained that when the City Council adopted Resolution #1420, it hadn't yet created the Housing Commission
and staff created Option 3 in response the Commission's charter. Board Member Rubenkonig observed that even if the
Housing Commission presents its recommendations to the City Council by the end of 2020, the City Council may decide to
extend the Housing Commission's charter to allow them to do additional work. Mr. Chave agreed that is possible, but it is
more likely the City Council will find that the Housing Commission has accomplished its mission. At that time, the City
Council will determine the best approach for moving the recommendations forward.
Board Member Rosen observed that the City Council is looking for a recommendation from the Housing Commission. He
recalled that when the Planning Board met jointly with the City Council, they expressed a sincere desire to be an informal
part of the process. He questioned it if would be appropriate to recommend inserting a requirement for Planning Board
participation into the implementation action language. He reminded them that one of their responsibilities is to provide
recommendations to the City Council when they have strong opinions, and housing is one of those topics.
Vice Chair Robles said his impression at the joint meeting with the City Council was that the Planning Board was not to get
involved with the Housing Commission's work. He expressed his belief that the Housing Commission's timeframe will be
dictated more by public input and velocity of public input. He questioned the ability to impose a limit on public input. He
felt the process should go as long as necessary to solicit input from as many citizens as possible. He concluded that the issues
are not so simple that they can be resolved in one year. There are so many factors emerging that can impact the final
recommendations and some sort of contingency plan should be in place.
Board Member Crank stressed the need to work smarter and not harder and authorize resources in the best way possible. The
worse -case scenario is that the Housing Commission and City Council decide to extend into 2021. If that is the case, Options
2 and 3 would require an additional amendment to change the date. She suggested that Option 1 might be the best solution
since it wouldn't require additional staff and Planning Board time to go through another public process to amend the
timeframe in the future if necessary.
Mr. Chave explained that most implementation actions in the Comprehensive Plan include general target dates that allow the
projects to be added to the work plans of the City Council and various City departments. Given that the Housing
Commission is intended to finish relatively soon, Board Member Crank said she would lean towards Options 1 or 2 to avoid
having to come back and spend time changing the date again.
Board Member Rosen said he supports giving the public a timeline for when an implementation action will be delivered.
However, they must recognize that conditions and information will change, necessitating the need for deadlines to be
adjusted. He said he supports the timeline, which sets up an expectation to the public and sends a signal to the City Council
that the project should not go on for an extended period of time.
Board Member Rubenkonig commented that Board Member Rosen brought up a good point about Planning Board
involvement in the process. Although both the City Council and staff have indicated that the Board would be involved in the
process at some point at the request of the City Council, she would like the Board Members to have an opportunity to provide
feedback and share their points of view. She asked if there is something more formal that would establish that the Housing
Commission would present its findings to the Planning Board for feedback prior to presenting their recommendations to the
City Council for action. Mr. Chave explained that the City Council established the Housing Commission to provide policy
options. Once the Housing Commission has completed its work and presented its recommendations, it will be up to the City
Council to decide the best approaches for implementation. Implementation strategies that require Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code amendments will be referred to the Planning Board.
Mr. Chave explained that the document that was prepared by a consultant and sent through the Planning Board for a public
hearing and recommendation to the City Council was a housing strategy and not an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
It was a set of potential ideas or actions the City could take to address housing needs. The City Council determined that it
wanted to have a more robust public process and discussion, and the Housing Commission was created to complete that task.
The Planning Board's role is to advise the City Council, but most of its work is related to codes and plans. The Housing
Strategy is different. Although it was run through the Planning Board initially, it was not a requirement. The project is
moving a different direction now. The idea of the process going forward is that the Housing Commission will provide the
City Council with a number of ideas and policies and then the City Council will decide the next steps. They may refer some
Planning Board Minutes
October 23, 2019 Page 7
Packet Pg. 323
9.3.e
things back to the Planning Board (Development Code and Comprehensive Plan amendments), but the City Council could
elect to take action on certain items that do not require Planning Board input. The Planning Board's role moving forward
will depend on what the City Council decides to do. At this time, it is unclear exactly what that set of actions or referrals
might be. He suggested it would be prudent to wait for the Housing Commission to complete its task and report to the City
Council, and then the City Council can decide the next steps.
Denise Miller, Edmonds, said she is a member of the Housing Commission and there is no plan at this time to extend the
Commission beyond 2020. The Commission will provide periodic updates to the City Council, and the intent is to be very
transparent throughout the process. As the Commission gets into discussions about different ideas and policies, it is likely
that groups of Commissioners will be assigned to work on specific suggestions. The group is diverse and plans to take its
information out to different areas of the City. The goal is to involve all interested citizens in the discussion and make sure
that all information is made available to the public. No minutes will be prepared for the Commission meetings, but video
recordings will be available on the City's website. Again, she said the Commission will provide periodic updates to the City
Council and the Commission does not plan to go beyond the 2020 deadline. The idea is to get the work done and move on.
The Planning Board will not be precluded from getting involved, but its participation will depend on what the City Council
determines its role in the decision -making process should be.
Board Member Rosen asked if the Housing Commission would simply provide a list of options for the City Council to
consider or if it would provide a recommendation for specific policies and/or strategies. He pointed out that Option 2 calls
for developing a strategy and Option 3 calls for providing housing policy options. Mr. Chave said "policy options" means a
series of ideas that would logically lead to additional future actions. He does not anticipate that the Housing Commission
will be involved in writing code or doing the type of detailed work that the Planning Board is responsible to do. Instead, they
will provide a recommendation on the direction the City should go and address various housing needs and options. The
Housing Commission is not intended to dive into the specific details of the code. Instead, they are to recommend general
things the City should explore and expand upon to address housing issues. Strategies will take the general policies to the next
step of implementation. He summarized that the Housing Commission's recommendations will presumably lead to
Comprehensive Plan and Development Code amendments.
Vice Chair Robles suggested that Option 1 would provide the greatest flexibility and be more efficient. Commissioner
Monroe voiced concern that Option 3 extends beyond the scope of what the City Council asked the Board to do because it
redefines the scope of the Housing Commission. He said he support either Option 1 or Option 2.
Board Member Rubenkonig said she doesn't see much difference between Options 2 and 3; it is a simple matter of semantics.
She likes the idea of "providing housing policy options" as opposed to "developing a strategy for increasing the supply of
affordable housing and meeting the diverse housing needs."
Board Member Rosen said the record shows that, on multiple occasions throughout its review of the Housing Strategy, the
Planning Board talked about the public process being inadequate. Rather than being a power grab, the Planning Board was
the initial voice that the outreach program needed to be more robust. The City Council's decision to step back and form a
Housing Commission was good. What was not wrong in the original process is that the Planning Board was an important
part of the receptacle for hearing and processing ideas and concepts. That is part of the Planning Board's role, and that part
of the process should remain intact. The City Council's decision to form the Housing Commission was in response to citizen
input. They want to hear from the citizens without stacking the deck in any way, and the Housing Commission meets that
intent. However, he doesn't believe the Planning Board's involvement is any less important in the current process than it was
the first time around. The Planning Board should be part of the work, and it would make sense for the Planning Board and
Housing Commission to engage in joint conversations. While the Housing Commission would continue to report directly to
the City Council, the Planning Board could add value to the Housing Commission by providing valuable input.
BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND OPTION 3, WITH ADDITIONAL
LANGUAGE TO READ AS FOLLOWS: "PROVIDE HOUSING POLICY OPTIONS BY THE END OF 2020 FOR
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION, INCLUDING INPUT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD." VICE CHAIR
ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION.
Planning Board Minutes
October 23, 2019 Page 8
Packet Pg. 324
9.3.e
Board Member Crank questioned how the discussion got from simply changing the date of the implementation action to the
idea that the Planning Board would not be part of the process. The Planning Board has been part of the process up to this
point. She cautioned against making the latter statement. She said she cannot justify its inclusion because she doesn't see
how anything has changed.
Board Member Rosen commented that the additional language gets rid of the ambiguity. He recalled that the City Council
made it clear that it is a Housing Commission project and the Planning Board should stand down. The City Council and staff
have both indicated that the Planning Board would not be involved in the process until after the Housing Commission has
present its policy recommendations. The additional language indicates the Board's desire to be part of the Housing
Commission's process, and the City Council can decide whether to adopt it or not.
Student Representative Bryan said he would favor the inclusion of a date as part of the implementation action because it
provides more transparency and informs the public of what the plan is for the Housing Commission. Board Member Crank
concurred.
Board Member Crank asked if the proposed motion would imply that the Board's input is required before the Housing
Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council. She cautioned that requiring Planning Board input before
presenting a proposal to the Commission would add more time to the process. Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that it is
not the Planning Board's intent to be the judge and jury for the Housing Commission's recommendation. It is not the
Planning Board's role to give a stamp of approval to the Housing Commission's work.
Board Member Monroe commented that the Planning Board has been interested in the housing issue for a long time, and now
they are being told to step back. Board Member Rubenkonig said the Board was never told by the City Council or the
Development Services Director that they would be out of the loop. However, the Housing Commission will not be required
to consult with the Planning Board as it goes about its business.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Board Member Monroe pointed out that the Extended Agenda indicates that a Housing Commission Update was supposed to
have been on the October 23rd agenda. Mr. Chave said the update will likely take place on November 13' and will be
provided by the Development Services Director.
Chair Cheung asked that "Election of Planning Board Officers" be added to the November 131 agenda. He also reminded
staff of the items the Planning Board wanted to add to the "Pending" list. Mr. Chave said he hasn't had a chance to formally
add the items to the extended agenda, but he would do so by the next meeting. Board Member Rosen suggested that Chair
Cheung review the extended agenda prior to the next packet being posted to make sure the items are included. Mr. Chave
said that may be tricky, depending on timing, but he agreed to try.
Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that, at the Planning Board's joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board (ADB),
there was some discussion about the two boards working together to update the detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU)
regulations. She noted that there are many illegal ADUs in the City, and they are at a place where the design criteria
currently in place prohibits property owners from providing such housing for family members. She is not suggesting that
policy changes be made, but the criteria could be updated.
Mr. Chave clarified that the current code does not allow detached ADUs, even for family members. However, ADUs that are
attached by a breezeway that meets the definition in the code are considered attached ADUs. Board Member Rubenkonig
suggested that perhaps it is time to reconsider the attachment criteria.
Mr. Chave said the current code contains general language that says if you are constructing an ADU, it needs to be done in
such a way that is consistent with the design of the existing house so it looks like one structure. That is as far as the
guidelines go. An ADU must resemble a single-family house. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the ADU criteria is
Planning Board Minutes
October 23, 2019 Page 9
Packet Pg. 325
9.3.e
generally left up to staff s interpretation, and Mr. Chave answered affirmatively. He explained that staff generally looks at
whether the ADU would have similar materials, colors, etc.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if Mr. Chave sees potential for the Planning Board to work with the ADB to review the
ADU criteria. Mr. Chave said he isn't sure what the end result would be. Board Member Rubenkonig said the standards are
old and need to be updated. Mr. Chave explained that the most substantial changes would come after the Housing
Commission has presented its recommendations to the City Council and the City Council has indicated a desire to consider
detached ADUs. At that point, the Board would become involved in the process and would have an opportunity to identify
potential design parameters. For attached ADU's, which is all the code currently allows, it makes sense that they be required
to be designed consistent with the existing house. If the Board gets into discussions about detached ADUs at some point in
the future, they can consider the need for different types of design parameters; but right now, he is not sure it would be
beneficial to bring in the ADB to talk about the attached ADU regulations.
Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it would be beneficial to talk about good quality and what needs to be changed to update
the outdated codes. She said she was hoping the Board could be more proactive in laying the groundwork for future policy
changes. Mr. Chave cautioned against the Board going off on a tangent that does not ultimate relate to any policy choice the
City Council wants to make. Again, Board Member Rubenkonig expressed her belief that the current ADU codes are
outdated and she would like the Planning Board and ADB to look at the impact of a legal ADU for family members and its
criteria. She felt that some things could be better attended to in order to make ADU's more pleasing to the neighborhoods in
which they exist. She said she understands Mr. Chave's point of view, but she would rather be more proactive and do some
of the homework before being asked to consider potential policy changes.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Cheung did not provide any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
There were no Planning Board comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
October 23, 2019 Page 10
Packet Pg. 326
9.4
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/26/2019
Renewal of City Attorney Contract
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Council
Preparer: Maureen Judge
Background/History
The proposed city attorney contract is attached. Here are some historical city attorney fees for
comparison purposes:
2009 $530,079
2010 $605,363
The proposed Lighthouse Contract fees over the next three years:
2020 $598,596
2021 $622,536
2022 $647,436
Staff Recommendation
Approve the three year contract now and reevaluate it during 2020 once the current City Attorney
Services Comparative Study is completed.
Narrative
The proposed fees for 2020 are actually less than what the city paid in 2010. The proposed contract has
a 60 day cancellation clause and reverts from a flat fee arrangement to an hourly billable rate system
based on certain triggers as described in "Section 3 Payment for Services".
Attachments:
2019-11-12 Lighthouse contract with Edmonds
City Attorney Evaluation Process 190731
Evaluation Tally 191018
Lighthouse Estimated Contract Costs v3
Packet Pg. 327
9.4.a
AGREEMENT FOR CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT entered into between the City of Edmonds ("the City") and Lighthouse Law
Group PLLC ("LIGHTHOUSE") effective January 1, 2020, is entered into in consideration of the terms and
conditions set forth below, the parties agree as follows:
1. Services to be Provided. LIGHTHOUSE will serve as attorneys for the City on all civil legal
matters assigned or referred to LIGHTHOUSE by the City during the term of this Agreement, and
will perform all civil legal services for the City with the exception of litigation covered by the City's
insurance pool and legal services related to the issuance of any municipal bond or similar security.
This is a nonexclusive agreement and the City at its sole discretion may engage other legal counsel
regarding any service that is expected to be provided by LIGHTHOUSE. Examples of such services
expected to be provided by LIGHTHOUSE include, but are not limited to:
1.1 Preparing for and attending meetings of the City Council and City Council
Committees, if applicable, as necessary or requested to do so;
1.2 Drafting ordinances, resolutions, and decisions;
1.3 Answering telephone calls from City elected officials and staff and providing general
consultation on civil legal matters;
1.4 Attending meetings with City staff (including regular office hours if requested), the
Mayor, and/or Council Members on civil legal matters;
1.5 Attending meetings of other City boards and commissions, such as the Planning
Board and Hearing Examiner, when requested to do so; and
1.6 Negotiating with third parties other than in a litigation context, e.g., negotiating
interlocal agreements.
1.7 Representing the City and its officials in litigation matters, provided, that in cases
where the City and its officials have insurance coverage through WCIA or another
insurer, LIGHTHOUSE will represent the City and its officials only until WCIA
retained attorneys are actively handling the case or to the extent necessary to deal
with non -covered claims or to provide consultation and coordination between the
City and the WCIA retained attorneys;
1.8 Labor negotiation or arbitration;
1.9 Services related to local improvement districts;
Packet Pg. 328
9.4.a
1.10 Services related to taxation;
1.11 Services requiring expertise in CERCLA, MTCA, or other state or federal
environmental cleanup laws;
1.12 Representing the City in administrative proceedings before another governmental unit
(such as Boundary Review Board hearings, proceedings before the State Shoreline
Hearings Board, or proceedings before the State Growth Management Hearings
Board); and
1.13 Telecommunications services, including franchise negotiation and leasing.
1.14 Office hours at City Hall will be provided by LIGHTHOUSE at least two days a
week.
2. Personnel Performing Services. Jeff Taraday will be the lead attorney and shall have the
primary responsibility for attending City Council meetings and delegating work to other
LIGHTHOUSE attorneys as needed. Mr. Taraday may assign work to any attorney affiliated with
LIGHTHOUSE. Provision of service by any other attorney shall require prior approval by the Mayor
with notification provided to the Council of such assignment and approval.
3. Payment for Services.
a. Except as provided in Section 3.b, below, during the year 2020, the City will pay
LIGHTHOUSE for the services specified in Section 1 the sum of Forty-nine Thousand
Eight Hundred Eighty-three Dollars ($49,883) a month (the flat fee). Except as provided
in Section 3.b, below, during the year 2021, the City will pay LIGHTHOUSE for the
services specified in Section I the sum of Fifty-one Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-
eight Dollars ($51,878) a month (the flat fee). Except as provided in Section 3.b, below,
during the year 2022, the City will pay LIGHTHOUSE for the services specified in
Section I the sum of Fifty-three Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-three Dollars ($53,953) a
month (the flat fee).
b. If any of the Option Triggering Events described in Section 3.c, below, occur,
LIGHTHOUSE shall have the option to convert the flat fee compensation arrangement
described in Section 3.a, above, to an hourly compensation arrangement. If exercised by
LIGHTHOUSE, this option will have the effect of applying the hourly rates described in
Section 3.d, below to all of the work performed by LIGHTHOUSE, including work that
was performed prior to the Option Triggering Event, subject to the retroactive billing cap
described in Section 3.e, below. Under no circumstances may LIGHTHOUSE apply
hourly billing to work performed prior to January 1, 2020. LIGHTHOUSE shall have the
ability to exercise this option, if triggered, at any time after the Option Triggering Event
occurs by sending written notice to the City of its decision to exercise the option. If the
option is exercised, LIGHTHOUSE shall send the City invoices that reflect the additional
hourly charges owing after crediting the flat fee payments previously made by the City.
c. Any of the following shall constitute Option Triggering Events for the purposes of
triggering the option in Section 3.b, above:
i. The City terminates the Agreement with LIGHTHOUSE prior to November 1,
2022; or
ii. The City approves an in-house City Attorney position prior to November 1, 2022.
Packet Pg. 329
9.4.a
d. The discounted hourly rates below shall apply to the hourly invoices that will be paid by
the City if LIGHTHOUSE exercises the option described in Section 3.b, abov.
i. For 2020,
the following hourly rates
shall apply:
1.
Jeff Taraday
$295
2.
Tom Brubaker
$295
3.
Mike Bradley
$295
4.
Rosa Fruehling-Watson
$295
5.
Sharon Cates
$221
6.
Patricia Taraday
$221
7.
Angela Tinker
$221
8.
Beth Ford
$221
9.
any other attorney
$221
ii. For 2021,
the following hourly rates
shall apply:
1.
Jeff Taraday
$324
2.
Tom Brubaker
$324
3.
Mike Bradley
$324
4.
Rosa Fruehling-Watson
$324
5.
Sharon Cates
$243
6.
Patricia Taraday
$243
7.
Angela Tinker
$243
8.
Beth Ford
$243
9.
any other attorney
$243
iii. For 2022,
the following hourly rates
shall apply:
1.
Jeff Taraday
$337
2.
Tom Brubaker
$337
3.
Mike Bradley
$337
4.
Rosa Fruehling-Watson
$337
5.
Sharon Cates
$253
6.
Patricia Taraday
$253
7.
Angela Tinker
$253
8.
Beth Ford
$253
9.
any other attorney
$253
e. If LIGHTHOUSE exercises the option described in Section 3.b, above, the total number
of months that LIGHTHOUSE may convert retroactively to hourly billing is limited,
depending upon the year in which the Option Triggering Event occurs, as follows:
i. If the Option Triggering Event occurs in 2020, LIGHTHOUSE may not convert
retroactively any more than eight months to hourly billing;
ii. If the Option Triggering Event occurs in 2021, LIGHTHOUSE may not convert
retroactively any more than four months to hourly billing, but these months may
include months in 2020 if the Option Triggering Event occurs during the first four
months of 2021;
iii. If the Option Triggering Event occurs in 2022, LIGHTHOUSE may not convert
retroactively any more than two months to hourly billing, but these months may
include months in 2021, if the Option Triggering Event occurs during the first two
months of 2022.
Packet Pg. 330
9.4.a
4. Awards of Attorneys Fees. If the City prevails in a legal matter and the tribunal awards
reasonable attorneys fees to the City as the prevailing party, the hourly rates in Section 3.d, above
shall apply for the purposes of calculating such fee award. These rates shall also be used where the
City is able to charge a third -party (e.g. a real estate developer) for work performed by
LIGHTHOUSE.
Upon receipt of a fee award, the City shall keep the entire award PROVIDED THAT in cases
initiated by the City including abatement actions, utility lien foreclosures, and other matters
involving collection of a debt that is less than One Hundred Thousand Dollars, any attorneys fee
award shall be paid to LIGHTHOUSE.
5. The City will not be charged separately for normal clerical or secretarial work, the expense
of which has been calculated into LIGHTHOUSE's flat fee. Reimbursement will be made by the
City for expenditures related to fees paid to a mediator, expert witness fees, court costs and fees,
copying, postage, process service and courier costs. Other expenses shall be reimbursed when
authorized in advance by the City.
6. Billing. The City shall pay the amount of the flat fee to LIGHTHOUSE on the last day of the
month for which the legal services have been rendered. It shall not be necessary for LIGHTHOUSE
to send an invoice for the flat fee to be paid. For informational purposes only, LIGHTHOUSE will
send a detailed monthly description of the services rendered during the past month. If
LIGHTHOUSE exercises the option in Section 3.b, above, then it shall invoice according to that
section.
7. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall commence on January 1, 2020 and shall remain in
effect until December 31, 2022. This is an agreement for legal services and the City as client may
terminate the Agreement for any reason upon sixty (60) days notice following a vote of the City
Council to terminate the Agreement. In the event of termination, work in progress will be completed
by LIGHTHOUSE if authorized by the City under terms acceptable to both parties. If completion of
work in progress is not authorized or acceptable terms cannot be worked out, LIGHTHOUSE will
submit all unfinished documents, reports, or other material to City and LIGHTHOUSE will be
entitled to receive payment for any and all satisfactory work completed prior to the effective date of
termination.
8. Professional Liability Insurance. LIGHTHOUSE will maintain professional liability
insurance throughout the duration of this Agreement in the minimum amount of $2,000,000.
9. Discrimination. LIGHTHOUSE agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant
for employment or any other person in the performance of this Agreement because of race, creed,
color, national origin, marital status, sex, age, or physical, mental or sensory handicap, except where
a bona fide occupational qualification exists.
10. Independent Contractor. LIGHTHOUSE is an independent contractor with respect to the
services to be provided under this Agreement. The City shall not be liable for, nor obligated to pay
to LIGHTHOUSE, or any employee of LIGHTHOUSE, sick leave, vacation pay, overtime or any
other benefit applicable to employees of the City, nor to pay or deduct any social security, income
tax, or other tax from the payments made to LIGHTHOUSE which may arise as an incident of
Packet Pg. 331
9.4.a
LIGHTHOUSE performing services for the City. The City shall not be obligated to pay industrial
insurance for the services rendered by LIGHTHOUSE.
11. Ownership of Work Product. All opinions, data, materials, reports, memoranda, and other
documents developed by LIGHTHOUSE under this Agreement specifically for the City are the
property of the City, shall be forwarded to the City at its request, and may be used by the City as the
City sees fit.
12. Hold Harmless. LIGHTHOUSE agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City, its
elected and appointed officials, employees and agents from and against any and all claims,
judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or omissions of
LIGHTHOUSE. The City agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend LIGHTHOUSE, its
members, employees, and approved sub -contractors (e.g. Special Counsel), from and against any
and all claims, judgments or awards of damages, arising out of or resulting from the acts, errors or
omissions of the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees and agents. To the extent
necessary to fully fulfill these promises of indemnity, the parties waive their immunity under Title
51 RCW.
13. Rules of Professional Conduct. All services provided by LIGHTHOUSE under this
Agreement will be performed in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys
established by the Washington Supreme Court.
14. Work for Other Clients. LIGHTHOUSE may provide other services for clients other than the
City during the term of this Agreement, but will not do so where the same may constitute a conflict
of interest as defined by the Rules of Professional Conduct unless the City, after full disclosure of
the potential or actual conflict, consents in writing to the representation. Any potential conflicts shall
be handled in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct referred to above.
15. Subcontracting or Assignment. LIGHTHOUSE may not assign or subcontract any portion of
the services to be provided under this agreement without the express written consent of the City,
PROVIDED THAT such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and FURTHER PROVIDED
THAT by this Agreement, the City hereby consents to LIGHTHOUSE's subcontracting with the
following Special Counsel: Mike Bradley and/or the respective legal entities through which they
perform their legal services.
16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire integrated agreement between the
City and the LIGHTHOUSE, superseding all prior negotiations, representations or agreements,
written or oral. This Agreement may be modified, amended, or added to, only by written instrument
properly signed by both parties hereto. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Exhibit
A, this Agreement shall control.
Date: Date:
CITY OF EDMONDS LIGHTHOUSE LAW GROUP PLLC
Packet Pg. 332
9.4.a
David O. Earling Sharon Cates
Mayor Managing Member
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Scott Passey
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 333
9.4.b
City of Edmonds
Performance Evaluation for City Attorney Services
July 31, 2019
Purpose of Evaluation:
The purpose of the performance evaluation process to be conducted by and between the City
Council and the City Attorney are:
1. To strengthen the relationship between the City Attorney and the City's duly authorized
constituents (City Council, Mayor, Directors, etc.) through clarification of the City
Attorney's roles and responsibilities
2. To provide feedback to the City Attorney and identify areas where improvement may be
needed
3. To determine whether the cost -to -service -level ratio is in balance (e.g. whether the City
Attorney has performed satisfactorily given the resources allocated and whether those
resources should be adjusted in the future)
4. To determine if it is time to develop an RFP to rebid our city attorney services and what
might be included in those services for the city (current level of services and/or new levels:
i.e. prosecuting attorney services, etc.)
This process and policy recognizes that the current City Attorney is a private law firm retained by
the City Council under contract with the City.
In addition to this evaluation process, a parallel process will be undertaken to determine whether to
switch to an "in-house" city attorney model and what the potential costs vs service levels that would
be.
Evaluation Procedure:
The Mayor, the City Department Directors, or their designated managers and all City Council
members will complete the evaluation form along with the current City Attorney. When Directors
happen to know that a particular city employee, below the level of Director, has worked with the
City Attorney's Office on a frequent basis, the Director should consult with those employees prior
to completing the evaluation form or may ask those employees to complete their own form. Each
form will identify the person completing the form so that that person can be contacted by City
Council with follow up questions about any concerns raised. The completed forms will remain
confidential and only reviewed by Council Members Mesaros and Teitzel. Please be candid with
your feedback. It is very important to have accurate and full evaluation feedback to ensure
we make fully informed decisions regarding Edmonds' legal representation.
Once the evaluation forms have been completed, an aggregated summary copy of the forms --with
all names, titles and contact information excluded-- will be submitted to the City Attorney's Office
for review and comment. If any of the evaluation feedback raises performance concerns, those
City of Edmonds Performance Evaluation for City Attorney Services
July 31, 2019 Page 1
Packet Pg. 334
concerns will be discussed with the City Attorney by Council Members Mesaros and Teitzel prior to
being reviewed with the full city council.
The two council members will present the aggregated evaluation and any written response from the
City Attorney to the City Council for their review. Unfortunately, City Council discussion of these
documents may need to be limited due to Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) rules. While the
OPMA allows the City Council to review the performance of a public employee in executive session,
it does not allow the City Council to review the performance of a contracted City Attorney in
executive session. Furthermore, it is reasonably likely that any public discussion by the City Council
of these documents could reveal or invite revelation of communications that would ordinarily to be
protected under RPC 1.6 Confidentiality of Information. Therefore, if, upon review of these
documents, certain council members may want to discuss the results of the evaluation with the City
Attorney, it may be more appropriate to have council members meet individually and informally
with the City Attorney.
Completed evaluation forms should be returned directly to Maureen Judge at the council office for
review by Council Members Mesaros and Teitzel by August 31, 2019.
City of Edmonds Performance Evaluation for City Attorney Services
July 31, 2019 Page 2
Packet Pg. 335
9.4.b
City Attorney Performance Evaluation Form
Please complete and return this form to
Reviewed by:
Date of Review:
Performance Evaluation:
by
Rate each item on a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 being low and 7 being high. For any ratings of 4 or lower,
please provide additional explanation for the rating. Write "N/A" if the particular question is not
applicable to your own interaction with the City Attorney. References herein to "City Attorney"
include all attorneys associated with Lighthouse Law Group PLLC, not a particular attorney.
1) Trustworthiness / Integrity / Ethical Compliance:
a. Does the City Attorney seem to understand that its client is the municipal
corporation and not any particular constituent that is authorized to act on behalf of
the municipal corporation?
b. Does the City Attorney execute its role in a manner that is fair to the various duly
authorized constituents of the City of Edmonds (as opposed to taking a result -
oriented approach where one constituent or set of constituents is favored over
another constituent regardless of the law)? (7 for high levels of fairness; 1 for high
levels of result -oriented approach)
c. In general, has the City Attorney acted in the best interests of the municipal
corporation?
d. When presented with knowledge that an officer or employee intends to act in a
manner that is in violation of a legal obligation to the municipal corporation, has the
City Attorney appropriately referred the matter to a higher authority in the
organization?
e. Would you trust the City Attorney to refer matters of the type mentioned in "item
d", above, to a higher authority if they were to arise in the future?
City of Edmonds Performance Evaluation for City Attorney Services
July 31, 2019 Page 3
Packet Pg. 336
9.4.b
f. If and when the City Attorney itself has made an error or an incorrect statement, has
the City Attorney made a timely and appropriate disclosure of that error?
g. Would you trust the City Attorney to make a timely and appropriate disclosure of its
own future errors?
2) Legal Consultation:
a. Has legal advice provided by the City Attorney proven to be accurate and technically
correct?
b. Does the City Attorney provide its best and honest recommendations given all
existing legal issues and ramifications?
c. Does the City Attorney possess and provide an efficient and effective knowledge of
the City's Municipal Code and regulations?
d. Does the City Attorney possess and provide an efficient and effective knowledge of
other government regulations and case law regarding municipal government
regulations and case law regarding municipal government and issues facing the City?
e. Does advice provided by the City Attorney regularly take into account and balance
the overall goals and objectives of the City?
f. Does the City Attorney regularly provide the scope of legal expertise necessary to
meet the City's needs on issues that arise?
g. Does the City Attorney proactively identify potential issues when it is aware of them
to avoid problems from occurring?
City of Edmonds Performance Evaluation for City Attorney Services
July 31, 2019 Page 4
Packet Pg. 337
h. Are alternative and innovative solutions provided rather than just raising problems?
i. Is the City Attorney able to maintain the City Council's and City Staffs confidence
while informing them of the different legal risks that proposed actions might
generate?
J. Are city staff and the City Council advised on key changes in municipal law as it
pertains to the City's activities?
3) Litigation:
a. Does the City Attorney zealously advocate for the interests of the City?
b. Is the City Attorney's approach effective in achieving the best possible legal
outcomes for the City's interest given the issues that arise?
c. Does the City Attorney represent the City in a professional and ethical manner?
d. Does the City Attorney make effective use of executive session to advise the City
Council on the status and risks associated with pending or potential litigation?
e. Are the City Attorney's estimates of legal impacts reasonably accurate on a regular
basis?
Has the City Attorney been successful in accomplishing the City's litigation
objectives?
City of Edmonds Performance Evaluation for City Attorney Services
July 31, 2019 Page 5
Packet Pg. 338
9.4.b
4) Document Review and Preparation:
a. Does the City Attorney prepare ordinances, resolutions, contracts, correspondence
and other legal work accurately and consistent with the direction and objectives
communicated by the City Council, Mayor and/or department directors?
b. Does the City Attorney make beneficial suggestions about how the city code should
be updated or revised? Does the City Attorney accurately identify and address all
legal issues within documents and items that it reviews?
5) Cost/Fiscal Accountability and Control:
a. Are regular legal activities achieved within budgetary goals and limits?
b. Has the City Attorney been effective in minimizing legal costs by limiting tasks to
those regarding legal issues and utilizing City in-house staff when possible to
perform administrative and other functions?
c. Are standard forms developed and used where possible to minimize preparation of
legal documentation?
d. Are legal tasks performed with appropriate authorization according to established
procedures and contract requirements?
e. Do invoices accurately identify tasks and expenses in sufficient detail to provide
accountability?
f. Does the City Attorney display the ability and knowledge to research issues in a
minimum amount of time?
City of Edmonds Performance Evaluation for City Attorney Services
July 31, 2019 Page 6
Packet Pg. 339
g. Have legal costs been effectively managed and controlled given the issues,
assignments and requests made to the City Attorney?
h. Do you feel that the City has benefitted from the flat fee arrangement with the City
Attorney?
i. Do you believe that the City would have incurred more legal expenses than it has
actually incurred if the City Attorney was compensated on an hourly basis?
6) Responsiveness/Timeliness of Actions:
a. Are requested legal work and assignments completed within a clearly established time
frame?
b. Is the City Attorney accessible by email when needed to respond to requests for legal
information and assistance?
C. Is the City Attorney accessible by telephone when needed to respond to requests for
legal information and assistance?
d. Is the City Attorney accessible in person when needed to respond to requests for legal
information and assistance?
e. Are legal review and requests for information completed in time to avoid delays to City
projects, programs and other tasks?
f. Does the City Attorney follow up efficiently to requests that are made?
City of Edmonds Performance Evaluation for City Attorney Services
July 31, 2019 Page 7
Packet Pg. 340
g. Does the City Attorney accurately interpret and clarify City Council and Mayor
direction?
h. Has the City Attorney provided an appropriate level of service considering the amount
of the City's flat fee arrangement with the City Attorney?
i. Has the City Attorney appropriately prioritized the various projects needing attention
when considering the best interests of the municipal corporation?
7) Communications and Interpersonal Relations:
a. Does the City Attorney communicate effectively with the City Council, the Mayor, city
staff and community?
b. Are answers provided in an understandable manner?
Are timelines for follow up to requests clearly communicated?
d. Does the City Attorney maintain appropriate confidentiality with regard to all matters
discussed with the Mayor, City Council, department directors and city staff?
e. Does the City Attorney effectively report to the City Council and/or Mayor
communications by project attorneys of a substantive nature regarding significant or
sensitive matters?
£ Does the City Attorney maintain good working relationships and serve as an effective
member of the management team?
City of Edmonds Performance Evaluation for City Attorney Services
July 31, 2019 Page 8
Packet Pg. 341
g. Does the City Attorney display a positive attitude in carrying out its responsibilities and
responding to requests?
h. When asked to do so, has the City Attorney effectively mediated disputes among various
constituents within the organization?
Is the City Attorney tactful and diplomatic in its communication?
k. Is the City Attorney's oral communication during council meetings clear and direct?
Has the City Attorney been a positive force toward improving and/or maintaining a
positive relationship between the City Council and the Administration?
8) General Comments Regarding the City Attorney's Performance:
City of Edmonds Performance Evaluation for City Attorney Services
July 31, 2019 Page 9
Packet Pg. 342
City of Edmonds
Summary Scores from City Attorney Services Evaluation
Respondents.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Mean Score*
Median Score*
Question Numbers:
1.a
7
7
7
5
7
5
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
6.62
7.00
1.b
7
7
7
3
6
4
7
5
5
3
6
7
5
6
5.57
6.00
1.c
7
7
5
5
7
5
7
6
7
2
7
7
7
7
6.14
7.00
1.d
3
7
5
7
7
5.80
7.00
Le
7
6
7
5
7
6
7
7
7
6
7
7
7
6.62
7.00
1.f
6
7
4
5
7
6
7
1
7
7
7
6
5.83
6.50
1.g
7
7
6
3
7
7
6
7
1
4
7
7
6
5.77
7.00
2.a
7
7
6
5
6
5
7
6
7
2
6
7
7
6
6.00
6.50
2.b
7
7
7
6
7
5
7
6
7
1
7
7
7
6
6.21
7.00
2.c
6
7
7
4
7
4
7
6
6
5
7
6
6
6.00
6.00
2.d
1 5
7
7
5
7
1 5
6
6
7
6
6
6.09
6.00
2.e
5
7
6
2
4
3
7
6
6
7
7
7
7
5.69
6.00
2.f
6
7
6
5
6
4
7
5
7
2
6
7
7
6
5.79
6.50
2.g
6
7
5
5
6
5
7
6
6
4
7
7
7
5
5.93
6.00
2. h
6
7
5
3
5
5
7
2
6
7
6
6
5.42
6.00
2.i
7
7
6
3
7
2
6
6
5
7
6
5
5.58
6.00
2. j
7
7
5
3
7
2
5
5
6
7
5
6
5.42
5.00
3.a
6
7
4
4
4
7
6
7
7
7
6
6
5.92
6.00
3.b
7
7
5
6
4
7
7
7
7
7
6
5.83
7.00
3.c
7
7
5
7
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6.67
7.00
3.d
7
7
6
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
6.80
7.00
3.e
7
7
4
6
5
7
6
7
7
7
6.30
7.00
3.f
7
7
3
4
5
6
7
6
7
7
7
6.00
7.00
Q
R
L
r-
0
U
a�
c
0
Q
r
U
4-
0
3
a�
c
m
00
0
rn
c
0
r
0
�a
w
c
m
E
t
0
r
r
Q
October 18, 2019
Packet Pg. 343
City of Edmonds
Summary Scores from City Attorney Services Evaluation
4.a
7
7
3
4
7
4
7
5
6
7
7
7
6
5.92
7.00
4.b
6
3
5
5
5
5
6
5
7
6
5
5.27
5.00
5.a
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7.00
7.00
5.b
6
7
6
7
7
6
6.50
6.50
5.c
6
4
2
1
5
1
2
5
7
6
1
3.64
4.00
5.d
5
7
7
5
6
7
6
7
6
7
7
7
6.42
7.00
5.e
7
7
7
7.00
7.00
5.f
7
5
5
2
5
2
7
1
4
7
6
5
4.67
5.00
5.g
7
7
4
7
7
7
7
7
6.63
7.00
5.h
7
6
4
5
7
7
6
6
7
7
7
6.27
7.00
5A
7
7
4
3
7
7
6
6
7
7
7
6.18
7.00
6.a
6
6
1
4
3
7
4
5
1
5
7
5
4
4.46
5.00
6.b
7
7
7
5
7
4
7
5
6
2
6
7
5
6
5.79
6.00
6.c
1 7
7
5
4
7
5
7
5
5
2
7
7
7
6
1 5.79
6.50
6.d
7
5
4
5
7
5
7
4
4
2
6
7
6
5
5.29
5.00
6.e
6
6
4
5
5
7
4
5
2
4
7
6
6
5.15
5.00
6.f
6
7
1
2
3
7
4
6
1
5
7
6
4
4.54
5.00
6.g
7
7
7
5
7
5
6
6
7
7
7
6
5.92
7.00
6. h
6
7
1
5
7
5
7
6
1
6
7
7
6
5.46
6.00
6. i
7
7
5
3
6
3
7
7
2
5
7
7
5
5.46
6.00
7.a
7
7
5
5
7
5
7
6
6
6
7
7
6
6.23
6.00
7.b
7
7
5
5
7
5
7
6
7
7
7
7
6
6.38
7.00
7.c
7
5
4
3
4
3
3
7
4
7
7
5
4.54
4.50
7.d
7
7
7
2
7
2
6
7
7
7
7
7
5.62
7.00
7.e
7
7
5
5
7
6
7
7
6
6.33
7.00
7.f
7
7
2
7
3
7
7
6
6
7
7
6.00
7.00
7.g
7
7
4
6
7
5
7
7
7
5
7
7
7
6
6.36
7.00
R
L
c
0
U
a�
c
0
Q
r
U
4-
0
3
a�
c
m
00
0
rn
c
0
r
0
0
�a
w
c
m
E
t
0
r
r
Q
October 18, 2019
Packet Pg. 344
City of Edmonds
Summary Scores from City Attorney Services Evaluation
7.h
7
7
4
4
1
6
7
6
5.25
6.00
7.j
7
6
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
1
6
7
7
6
6.29
7.00
7.k
7
7
5
5
7
6
7
6
7
7
7
7
7
6.54
7.00
7.1
7
7
2
7
1
7
3
5
6
7
5
6
5.25
6.00
Average Score
6.64
6.58
5.16
4.14
6.44
4.05
6.75
5.50
6.14
1.86
6.07
7.00
6.59
5.86
5.63
5.79
*Mean Score is the average of all the scores
*Median Score is the middle value of all the scores.
Blank Items Represent a Not Applicable Answer
Q
October 18, 2019
Packet Pg. 345
9.4.d
2020 Scenario:
Assumptions:
1) Date City Terminates: Select from drop down menu
2) Total Annual Hours Worked by Lighthouse (fill-in)
Steps to Calculate "Look Back" Costs
Step 1) Calculate hours worked during "Look Back" period
(i) average monthly hours worked = Total Annual Hours Worked / 12 months
Step 2) Calculate hours worked during "Look Back" period
(i) Number of months in "Look Back" period'
(ii) Number of hours worked during "Look Back" period
= average monthly hours worked X number of months in "Look Back" period
Step 3a) Calculate "Look Back" costs
(i) Select hourly rate from drop down menu:
(ii) Hours worked during "Look Back" period
(iii) Calculation of Hourly Cost = Hourly Rate X Number of hours worked in "Look Back" period
(iv) Number of months in "Look Back" period
(v) Deduct flat fee @ $49,833/month X number of months in "Look Back" period
Look Back cost
'Note: 2020 "Look Back" period contractually limited to 8 months
8/31/2020
3,930
328
8
2,620
$258
2,620
$675,960
8
($398,667)
$277,293
Packet Pg. 346
9.4.d
2021 Scenario:
Assumptions:
1) Date City Terminates: Select from drop down menu
2) Total Annual Hours Worked by Lighthouse (fill-in)
Steps to Calculate "Look Back" Costs
Step 1) Calculate hours worked during "Look Back" period
(i) average monthly hours worked = Total Annual Hours Worked / 12 months
Step 2) Calculate hours worked during "Look Back" period
(i) Number of months in "Look Back" period'
(ii) Number of hours worked during "Look Back" period
= average monthly hours worked X number of months in "Look Back" period
Step 3a) Calculate "Look Back" costs
(i) Select hourly rate from drop down menu:
(ii) Hours worked during "Look Back" period
(iii) Calculation of Hourly Cost = Hourly Rate X Number of hours worked in "Look Back" period
(iv) Number of months in "Look Back" period
(v) Deduct flat fee @ $51,827/month X number of months in "Look Back" period
Look Back cost
'Note: 2021 "Look Back" period contractually limited to 4 months
5/31/2021
3,930
328
4
1,310
$284
1,310
$372,040
4
($207,307)
$164, 733
Packet Pg. 347
9.4.d
2022 Scenario:
Assumptions:
1) Date City Terminates: Select from drop down menu
2) Total Annual Hours Worked by Lighthouse (fill-in)
Steps to Calculate "Look Back" Costs
Step 1) Calculate hours worked during "Look Back" period
(i) average monthly hours worked = Total Annual Hours Worked / 12 months
Step 2) Calculate hours worked during "Look Back" period
(i) Number of months in "Look Back" period'
(ii) Number of hours worked during "Look Back" period
= average monthly hours worked X number of months in "Look Back" period
Step 3a) Calculate "Look Back" costs
(i) Select hourly rate from drop down menu:
(ii) Hours worked during "Look Back" period
(iii) Calculation of Hourly Cost = Hourly Rate X Number of hours worked in "Look Back" period
(iv) Number of months in "Look Back" period
(v) Deduct flat fee @ $53,900/month X number of months in "Look Back" period
Look Back cost
'Note: 2022 "Look Back" period contractually limited to 2 months
8/31/2022
3,930
328
2
655
$295
655
$193,225
2
($107,799)
$85,426
Packet Pg. 348
10.1
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/26/2019
2020 Budget Review
Staff Lead: Scott James
Department: Administrative Services
Preparer: Scott James
Background/History
Mayor Earling presented his Proposed 2020 Budget to Council on October 8, 2019. The Proposed 2020
Budget can be accessed on the City's website at:
file:///C:/Users/sjames/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/2R24WD6N/2020_City_of_Ed
monds_Proposed_Budget.pdf
Staff Recommendation
<Type or insert text here>
Narrative
Tonight's Council Meeting is scheduled for Council to continue their review, discussion, pose questions
and amendments regarding the Proposed 2020 Budget.
The following is a suggested process to keep the 2020 Budget review moving forward:
1) Amendment explanations PLEASE NOTE: Councilmembers and staff should be prepared to explain
the purpose or rational for their respective amendments during tonight's meeting. The amendments
submitted are listed in the November 26 Council Budget Review document, attached.
2) Next, Mayor to start the Council questions and answer (Q&A) process by selecting a Councilmember
on one end of the dais.
2) The Councilmember is allowed to pose a series of questions or comments related to one budget item,
before moving the Q&A to the next Councilmember. Please note that each Councilmember question
may elicit related questions or comments from other Councilmembers during the Q&A. These questions
or comments should be allowed before Mayor moves the Q&A to the next Councilmember. This process
is intended to allow all Councilmembers to pose their questions before returning to the first
Councilmember (round-robin).
Documents Attached:
November 26 Council Budget Review lists amendments submitted by Councilmembers and staff.
PLEASE NOTE: Councilmembers and staff should be prepared to explain the purpose or rational for their
respective amendments during tonight's meeting.
Council Questions with Administration Responses include questions from Council with staff responses
for most of the questions. Staff received several new questions that are highlighted in yellow. Staff will
Packet Pg. 349
10.1
continue working on the remaining responses and staff will forward them Council via email on Monday
November 25th at approximately 5:00.
Future Council action on the 2020 Budget are scheduled as follows:
December 3:
2020 Budget Review and Adoption of the 2020 Budget (if necessary).
Attachments:
November 26 Council Budget Review
Council Questions with Administration Responses for November 26 2019
Packet Pg. 350
2020 Budget
i�� ItItn1 n of
Amendments -a"
10.1.a
3
m
m
a
a�
m
0
N
O
N
m
m
r
a�
m
0
U
w
N
L
E
0
Z
CD
2
a
Packet Pg. 351
Council Proposed
Amendments
COUNCIL PROPOSED 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Page #
DP# Cash Increase
Item # New Item' Description (Decrease) Submitter
1 DP #2 Remove New Half-time Human Services Coordinator $63,814 Teitzel
D' -:1
D' =1
4
New
5
New
6
New
7
Page #57
8
DP # 10
9
DP #40
10
DP #42
11
DP #30
12
DP #81
Remove Willow Creek Daylighting Design
Reduce DP from $750,000 to $450,000
Add Full-time Arborist, truck & equipment
Add Non -represented Employee Salary Study
Add Contribution Support for Edmonds Chamber
Add $7,500 for Students Saving Salmon, to total $12,500
Move Health District contribution to Opioid Response Fund
Remove Professional Svcs for Code Updates
Remove/Change Construction Review Consultant
Remove Federal Lobbyist
Remove Marsh Restoration Consultant
Total of Councilme mbe r Re que s to d Change s
10.1.a
$750,000 Teitzel
$300,000 Buckshnis
($79,715) Buckshnis
($40,000) Mesaros
($10,000) Mesaros
($7,500) Buckshnis
$0 Teitzel
$25,000 Tibbott
$60,000 Tibbott
$72,000 Johnson, Buck
$25,000 Buckshnis
191589599
3
m
d
m
0
N
O
N
3
m
3
m
0
U
co
N
CD
0
z
a
1iPage #" refers to page number in the Proposed 2020 Budget book where the reference item can be found, and "DP#" refers to the
2020 Decision Package number and "New Item" refers to a new budget request being submitted for Council consideration.
Packet Pg. 352
10.1.a
Staff Proposed
Amendments
STAFF PROPOSED 2020 BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Cash Increase
Item # New Item' Description (Decrease) Submitter
1 DP #2 Correct Half-time Human Services Coordinator Costs $21,636 Doherty
2 Page #57 Add $2,500 for Students Saving Salmon, to total $5,000 ($2,500) James
3 DP #35 Adjust Purchase of Trolley & Operation of Service ($5,000) Doherty
4 New Add PUD Green Power Program ($30,000) Hope
Total of Staff Requested Changes (159864)
I" Page #" refers to page number in the Proposed 2020 Budget book where the reference item can be found, and "DP#" refers to the
2020 Decision Package number and "New Item" refers to a new budget request being submitted for Council consideration.
3
m
m
r
a�
a�
m
0
N
O
N
m
0
U
W
N
E
as
0
z
CD
E
z
U
2
r
Q
Packet Pg. 353
10.1.b
Council Questions / Proposed 2020 Budget Amendments
(Staff Responses are in red and Italicized)
Request # Proposed budget amendments or questions from Councilmember Teitzel:
1) DP #2 remove this request from the budget and defer a decision about staffing the Human
Services Coordinator position until later in 2020. There is an effort underway to assemble a
collaborative South County group of cities, Verdant, the Y, faith community and others to
determine how we can pool our resources to effectively address common issues —such as
homelessness and our common need to address contributing factors such as substance abuse —we
all share. This would be modeled on a similar collaborative initiative now in place in So. King
a,
County. This effort would likely require a level of investment by the participating cities, but may
m
be a way to attack the problem more cost-effectively than if we each staff up in-house. I strongly
o
believe the collaborative effort (which will initially be led by Stephanie Wright) needs to be
N
launched before we decide to add in-house FTEs. After the cities decide how best to pool
resources, we may still determine we need our own manager. If so, the request can be introduced
o
as a mid -year budget amendment.
W
This part-time Human Services Coordinator position is envisioned as a "community resource
L
guide" by providing direct information and referral to inquiring citizens of Edmonds in need.
Many services, resources and programs are not readily visible or accessible and may require a
guide or navigator for optimal access. This position would also work with regional partners and
z°
agencies, together with other jurisdictions, representing Edmonds to ensure that our city and
`o
citizens receive proportional and adequate resources. This is a different scope of services from the
N
Social Worker who works with the Police Dept in providing direct point -of -contact services to
individuals encountered through Police contact. The Social Worker's principal goal is to provide
a
immediate -need resources to these individuals, while the Human Resources Coordinator works at
a more comprehensive, system -wide level, addressing both individuals and systems. The County,
strapped financially and providing only the bare minimum to service countywide needs, is not in a
°
position to provide direct service to individual cities. This % FTE will also be seeking and
managing grants to fund this position and programs.
A
2) DP #80 I'd like to pull this item and abeyance it for future consideration. The fact is the transfer
E
of ownership of the Unocal property to WSDOT is still pending and it is not clear when it will
a
occur. That situation has prevented the designers from creating an optimal channelization design
r
to support salmon. There is a petition effort ongoing to have WSDOT turn over that property
y
(after they have ownership) to the city for permanent habitat for fish and wildlife. If that happens, c
the optimal stream channel will run through the old Unocal site. Proceeding with design now may a
end up costing our taxpayers more, as any design prior to finalization of the WSDOT issue may 3
CY
require significant redesign. It makes more sense to remove this item from the budget, abeyance it
and bring it back as a budget amendment once we have clarity about future use of the WSDOT
property. L)
Request # Proposed budget amendments or questions from Councilmember Buckshnis:
1) New: add Full-time Field Arborist — would replace the 10 hours per week ($20,000) outlined in
Decision Package #49. Net impact to the budget is $79,715.
2) New: Add $7,500 for Students Saving Salmon
Packet Pg. 354
10.1.b
Council Questions / Proposed 2020 Budget Amendments
(Staff Responses are in red and Italicized)
3) Council question cost center 511.60 fund 001
i. Professional services is at $62,160 - why has this odd number been chosen or is it a carry
forward?
This amounts represents the Baseline budget for Council's Professional Services account.
ii. DP 1 is for $19,300 and what part of the budget line items will this impact as I remember
travel, but can't recall the others - so can we see them itemized so the public can understand
as well.
DP #1 includes the following narrative, explaining the need for this budget increase:
Supplies for new Councilmembers $500
Small equipment for Council office $1, 000
Communications cost increase $2, 000
Travel & training expense increase
for new Councilmembers $10,800
Council Contingency increase in lieu of
leaving unexpended 2019 Professional
Services Budget $S, 000
Total $19,300
4) Mayor's Office
i. DP #2 This is a Manager level position out of the Mayor's office? Is this from the Kone
report and how will this .5 FTE coordinate with the Social worker out of the Police
department? Why not make the Social Worker in the Police Department a full-time FTE and
have that person perform these job duties?
Please see response to DP #2 under Teitzel's question.
5) Non -Departmental
i. DP 9 $245,650 being brought down to $236,975 - Great job Scott on this and the AAA
rating. Why is this a DP as Council has already approved these bonds - is this merely a
identifiable item for Council and the Public to know?
Yes, Council approved the issuance of the Civic Park bonds, however, Council still has to
approve the budget for the annual debt service for the bonds.
6) Technology
i. DP #14 at $183,434 - this is self -funding and Brian can you more fully explain the
composition of how this number was determined?
The Technology Rental Fund allocates IT services and equipment costs to City departments.
The $183,434 is being added to the budget for 2020 allocate the cost of decision package
numbers 15 —18, and 20 and 21, which collectively total $183,434.
7) Community Services
i. DP #30 Federal Lobbyist - I thought this person was for working on the connector - which
seemed to be the gist of what I saw from the meetings I attended with the Mayor. Shouldn't
this be a decision of the new Mayor? The federal lobbyist is an important resource in DC to
assist with seeking federal funds on any and all capital projects we may be pursuing at any
time, including the Edmonds Marsh restoration, Highway 99, etc., as well as monitoring and
responding to legislation of importance to us. Most of the cities in Snohomish County have
2
3
Packet Pg. 355
10.1.b
Council Questions / Proposed 2020 Budget Amendments
(Staff Responses are in red and Italicized)
federal lobbyists under contract. This DP is a budget line placeholder that appropriates the
funds for this contract position for 2020 to allow for the new Administration to decide to use
or not. This is not necessarily a renewal of the existing lobbyist contract.
ii. New comment for DP #30: remove Federal Lobbyist. Rationale - no need to put a
placeholder in the budget for Mike as he can always add it in the future as an amendment.
The $72K can either be used for his travel budget or split with his travel budget and the
Councils. The reasoning for this decision is I plan on attending Salmon Days on the Hill put
.5
on Puget Sound Partnership in conjunction with all the WRIA's and it is an invaluable
networking event and Patrick or Jason (WRIA 8) can schedule any legislator meet and greets
a,
with those that we should see (Governor's advisors, Cantwell, Murray, Jayapal, Del Bene,
Kilmer, Heck - etc) and Mike at that time can interview any consultants at that time and
c
make any decision. Since this is a May Salmon Days on the Hill soiree - it gives him time to
N
settle in and figure this area out as we can always put in a budget amendment.
iii. DP 31 PIO person - Patrick, can you explain this again to me as well as how this person is
different from what Carolyn Brown does or is this an enlargement of her work duties?
Please see response to DP #31 under Tibbott below.
iv. DP #35 Trolley - Patrick, can you explain to all about the process of operating the trolley and
insurance, etc and potential partnerships.
This DP is comprised of two parts: purchase of the trolley and operations/maintenance for
2020. Purchase could be approximately $50, 000 (although we would hope for a lower final
purchase price). Operation/maintenance, including staff hours, fuel, service, insurance, etc.,
for Saturdays and Sundays from mid -May to the beginning of October, plus December,
would cost approximately $25, 000. To date we have already secured partner commitments
in the form of $20, 000 from the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee and a pledge of up to
$11, 000 from the Edmonds Downtown Alliance. The Port has indicated interest. So we
believe we will be able to find additional contributions/sponsorships. This may end up
covering most of the cost of operations/maintenance.
V. DP 38 Lodging Tax was originally -$4K and I have it on my notes as $125,250 K - can you
explain that as it was estimated that $95K was the projected revenue vs $97K in expenses.
The Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) recommends expenditure of both its ongoing
revenue and fund balance funds. The ongoing revenue projected for 2020 is $95,250, plus
$2,500 in interest, for a total of $97, 750. Their proposed "ongoing" budget appropriates all
of these funds (including a $4, 763 contingency). The original DP failed to include two
proposed one-time expenditures from the lodging tax fund balance: $7, 500 for Downtown
Wayfinding, and $20, 000 for the trolley. This additional $27, 500 raises the total for this DP
to $125,250.
vi. DP #113 $80,510 to Ed! What does this amount represent?
This is the amount proposed to be spend by Ed! in 2020 from their fund, which will be
presented in detail, together with their proposed 2020 Work Plan, on 11119119. This is the
first time that we are formally including the Ed! budget in the City's overall budget approval
process, rather than treating is an outlier.
8) Parks and Recreation
i. DP #49 UFMP implementation - I have put through a request for a full-time arborist and
her replacement of a level F person to work under Rich Lindsay. Total salary and benefits
Packet Pg. 356
10.1.b
Council Questions / Proposed 2020 Budget Amendments
(Staff Responses are in red and Italicized)
change is about $6.5K per month (lots of emails back and forth regarding this with
Shannon, Jessica, Scott and Dave T if anyone interested).
See Councilmember Buckshnis' #1 above "new"
9) Street Fund
i. #63 - Phil would it be cheaper to rent a cement mixer for months working on streets - or
will this be used continually. >
This would be used very frequently. It is likely going to be a 2.5 to 3.0 cubic yard mixer that
can be skid mounted in our 5 yd dump truck. It will allow us to do larger pours with our a,
sidewalk crew while keeping our concrete fresh. It will also save considerable time during
clean-up each day. Renting one as frequently as we would be using it would not be cost- c
effective. o
N
10) Utility
i. DP#75 - Phil, just asking as there are so many 2019 carry -forwards so I will just ask on
this one carry -forward- well done on the explanation - is the contract services an inter -fund
like engineering or is it an expectation of contracting with an outside firm?
No. This $20, 000 is the overhead fee paid to the General Fund for staff time worked on
the project.
ii. DP #81 - contract work for Keeley O'Connell for the Edmonds Marsh grant writing - why
is this now being charged in Stormwater utility fund? Shouldn't this still reside in Parks
considering her expertise and training? How was this dollar amount determined?
This is the same amount as last year and it has proven to be a good tool for the City.
Keeley's technical expertise, relationships with regulatory agencies and funding sources,
and her familiarity with our project have made her very efficient and effective on this
project. She has been available to us on short notice and provides rapid turn -around on
tasks assigned to her. This indefinite scope arrangement is much like an on -call contract.
The REET budgets in 2020 Are very tight and revenues look to be decreasing slowly
beyond that. When we sat down internally to balance the BEET revenues against project
needs in 2020 it was decided to cover this contract with Stormwater funding. I had no
problem with that. Fund 422 will carry a heavy load in getting this project delivered. The
current cost estimate for the daylighting project is $16.65M. We have assumed this could
be 75% grant funded, although that might be optimistic. That suggests we will need more
than $4M in match for a mix of grants.
Fund 422 will be deeply invested in the project financially and the Public Works
Department will be managing the permitting, design, and construction phases of this large
capital project. We have the hydraulic, Stormwater engineering, contract administration,
construction management, and consultant contact management skills and experience to put
this complex project together. The Parks Department will be heavily involved throughout,
especially since they frequently access RCO funding and have good relationships there.
We have the relationships with WSDOT and the Ferries Division. Also, Parks will be the
lead on the follow-up project of re -constructing Marina Beach Park after the channel is
day -lighted through it.
iii. New comment on DP #81: remove this scientist grant writer from Stormwater and return
this position back to Parks and Recreations or remove all together until next year when
Council "scrubs the CIP/CFP" to look at all projects (especially capital) and determine if
M
Packet Pg. 357
10.1.b
Council Questions / Proposed 2020 Budget Amendments
(Staff Responses are in red and Italicized)
language is correct and dollar amounts are accurate for either the utility funds or the park
construction funds. In this regard, the scientific grant writer will concentrate on the "park
and ecological aspect of the restoration" rather than concentrate on the stormwater aspect
of this $16.6MM project.
iv. DP#85 - has carry forward of $38,402 and I can't seem to reconcile this amount to what is
being asked? Is the $48 new money or just total funds needed and includes the $38K carry .5
forward? (again good work on all these carry forwards)
The $38, 402 is the estimated carry forward from the 2019 budget to the 2020 budget. The a,
current and proposed Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) has $68, 000 programmed in
2020 to continue the Lake Ballinger work. This means an additional $29,598 in c
stormwater funds are needed to provide the $68, 000 budget in 2020. N
V. DP #94 is very complex and lots of dollars involved. Have we received written
commitments from the other cities on their share as this would be a large carry forward if c
we can't obtain those commitments in 2020. N
Our partners have been involved all the way through the development of this project.
Under our contract with them, they are required to provide their share of each project the
City of Edmonds, as the managing partner, determines is necessary. That said, we have
worked closely together as partners for many years. They all are aware of what is coming
with the incinerator replacement project. This is, as you point out, a big and expensive
project through and continued, frequent communication will be very important as we move
into final design and construction.
vi. New comment: DP #80, Change the language from Willow Creek Daylighting Design to
be Edmonds Marsh Estuary Restoration. Lower the amount to $450,000 (change BARS
code 422.000.72.594.31.41.00 from $700,000 to $400,000). Change the language of the
DP 80 to remove any direction for "design" and include some or more of the following
verbiage (CIP/CFP should also include language of this type as well) and Keeley or some
scientist can more effectively write this - but the City needs to move away from calling it
Willow Creek Daylighting. "The Edmonds Marsh near -shore estuary restoration will
restore the tidal exchange between the Puget Sound and the Edmonds Marsh. This
project, if completed successfully, will assist in restoring the Edmonds Marsh estuary to a
fully functioning Marsh that will enhance many features and wildlife found within the
interior of the Marsh. The restoration will allow Coho and chum salmon to again migrate
into Willow Creek for spawning. The tidal exchange will allow juvenile chick salmon and
other marine specifies to utilize the estuary and improve the conditions from wildlife such
as migratory birds and waterfowl. Further contaminants and other estuarine functions will
be improved by the saltwater exchange. Lastly, this project will increase the tourism both
at Marina Beach and the Marsh, bird watching, sea level rise and act as a natural carbon
sequestration spot (blue carbon offset) for all generation to enjoy, learn about and utilize as
a wildlife sanctuary in an urban environment." Until ownership of property is determined
funds will be utilized to work on areas within the Marsh with no presumption that the
current exhibit 6 present by Shannon Wilson will be the desired alternative.
11) Street Capital
i. Good work - on the DP's 98-99-100 - I imagine all those 2019 carry forwards are part of
these calculations?
5
Packet Pg. 358
10.1.b
Council Questions / Proposed 2020 Budget Amendments
(Staff Responses are in red and Italicized)
Yes, all three projects have carry forwards as part of the 2020 budget.
DP#98 has a carry forward of $458, 744 from the first $1, 000, 000 we received from the
$10, 000, 000 Connecting Washington allocation for HWY99.
DP#99 has a carry forward of $1, 613,137 to finish the project in 2020 which was always
anticipated. The expenditures out of Fund 112 will be reimbursed by a grant.
DP#100 is carrying forward all of the construction funding from the 2019 budget
($1,268,493) since the project was delayed
>
ii. DP #102 Guardrail - new program - how are guardrail locations determined? (note: There
was an issue with a potential guardrail to be installed on 190th street when there is already
a hardscape on the south side and a natural vegetation (guardrail) on the north side and all
neighbors in that area were upset that an armored guardrail was to be installed as it would
c
have narrowed the street - this issue was resolved to the neighbors satisfaction and I
N
appreciate you and Bertrand dealing with the neighbors).
Answer:
as
c
A detailed assessment of where guardrails are needed throughout the City was completed
N
in 2004 and this list was revised in 2019 to account for modified unit costs and establish a
N
priority rating (see attachment below). Since 2004, very few guardrail improvements have
.0
been made which is why Decision Packages were completed for the 2019 and 2020
Budgets. The 20 locations of existing or needed guardrails on the current list are
o
prioritized based on traffic volumes, and improvement costs. The locations in Priority #1
c
are estimated at approx. $100, 000 total cost, while those in Priority #2 and #3 each amount
N
to approximately $50, 000 for each priority category. Projects ID #1 and ID #3 will be
v
completed in 2019 (from $20, 000 budgeted for this program in 2019).
o
\\edmsvr-userfs\userprof$\williams\Documents\Copy of Revised Guardrail Assesment (002) (002) PHW
Guardrail Inventory (revised in 2019)
Project Project Note
ID
Priority
Location
Issue
Solution
Priority
Type
Costs
1
1
1231 - 12 Ave
2:1 slope, paralleling
Install guardrail approx. 150 LF
1
CIP
$10,000
to be completed
N
road and adjacent
in 2019
residences
2
1
9425 190th
Timber Guardrail with
Install Steel Beam Guardrail
1
CIP
$19,000
Could be re -
St. SW
Object Marker
evaluated in the
future
3
1
75th Ave W -
2:1 Slope, 60 LF Old
Install New Steel Guardrail 110
1
CIP
$8,000
to be completed
230th St. SW
Steel Guardrail
LF
I
in 2020
4
1
24305 Firdale
Multiple accidents
Install Steel Beam Guardrail with
1
CIP
$10,000
Considered for
Ave.
near day care facility
End Termination 100 LF
2020 (pending
budget)
5
1
24315 104th
3:1 Slope, 12' height
Install Steel Beam Guardrail with
1
CIP
$11,000
Considered for
Ave. W- West
End Termination 120 LF
2020 (pending
Side
budget)
6
1
1056 Alder
Old Steel Guardrail
Install Steel Beam Guardrail 65
1
CIP
$8,250
Considered for
Street
with Street End
LF
2020 (pending
Markers
I
budget)
7
1
23422 74th
2:1 Slope with Old 6" x
Interurban Trail Project will
1
CIP
$7,500
Considered for
Ave W
6" Timber Posts
Install Proper Railing
2020 (pending
budget)
8
1
842 Bell St.
1:1 Side Slope; 24 LF
Rebuild New STD; Make 30 LF;
1
CIP
$5,000
Considered for
Old Steel Guardrail
Add 2 End Street Markers
2020 (pending
budget)
9
1
827 Edmonds
1:1 Side Slope; 38
Rebuild to Correct Height; Add 2
1
CIP
$2,500
Considered for
St.
LFOld Wood Guardrail
End Street Markers
2020 (pending
budget)
0
Packet Pg. 359
10.1.b
Council Questions / Proposed 2020 Budget Amendments
(Staff Responses are in red and Italicized)
10
1
9425 19011
Timber Guardrail with
Install Steel Beam Guardrail
1
CIP
$12,500
Considered for
1
St. SW
Object Marker
2020 (pending
budget)
SUBTOTAL
$93, 750
11
2
10414 Robin
3:1 Slope, 10'
Install Steel Beam
2
CIP
$10,000
Hood Dr.- North
height, curbed
Guardrail with End
Side
street
Termination 90 LF
12
2
16116 68th Ave.
4:1 Slope, 4'
Install Chain Link
2
CIP
$12,000
W - North side
height,
Fence and Consider
Guardrail 130 LF
13
2
205th Street NW
100 LF of old
Install New Guardrail
2
CIP
$10,000
- 5th Ave
Guardrail
and Double Arrow Sign
at T- intersection
14
2
1040 Maple St.
12 LF Old Steel
Rebuild Guardrail 36
2
CIP
$7,800
Guardrail with 1
LF; Keep End of Street
end of Street
Markers
Markers
15 3 86th PI W - OVD 2:1 Slope, 10' Install Guardrail 80 LF 3 CIP
$9,000
height, 450 LF,
curbed street
Subtotal
$39,800
16
3
180th and OVD -
3:1 Slope, 10'
Install Guardrail 280 LF
3
CIP
$19,000
100' to East
height, curbed
street
17
3
180th - OVD
3:1 Slope, 8' -10'
Install Guardrail 280 LF
3
CIP
$19,000
North Side 100'
Off Roadway 100'
to East
to East
18
3
21318 - 21314
2:1 Side Slope,
Replace with Steel
3
CIP
$10,000
Pioneer Way
Wood Guardrail
Guardrail When Wood
100 LF
Guardrail Deteriorates
19
3
68th Ave W -
125 LF Wood
Replace With Chain-
3
CIP
$3,750
162nd PI SW
Railing
link Fence
20
3
68th Ave W -
150 LF Wood
Replace With Chain- 3 CIP $4,500
164th St SW
Railing
link Fence
$56,250
Subtotal
TOTAL
$200, 000
COST ESTIMATE DATA
Guide Post
$10.00
End Street Markers
$75.00
Other Signs
$150.00
Chain Link Fence
$30.00
Guardrail
$50.00
Guardrail Terminals
$2,500.00
12) Parks
i. DP # 106 Marina Beach Design - Shannon would you consider this contingent on the
stormwater ask of $750K for Edmonds Marsh Restoration? — No, this would be to advance
the technical aspects of the park design just enough to apply for RCO grants in 2020. This
does not rely on the stormwater funds to match, we have matching funds programmed in
REET in 2022 — 2025. While it is true we would not go into construction on this project
without the daylighting / marsh project; we anticipate the park portion of the project
taking more than one grant cycle to fund (RCO grants can be extended 2 years as needed)
and we want to be as prepared as possible for when/if the marsh ownership is transferred
and the project moves forward. Missing the 2020 (for 2021) grant cycle would limit our
ability to mobilize on the park portion down the road.
13) Development Services cost center 558.60
i. Shane - professional services are non -consistent with all our other departments and I am
guessing the UFMP contract has some play in this - but don't want to assume. So, can you
7
3
Packet Pg. 360
10.1.b
Council Questions / Proposed 2020 Budget Amendments
(Staff Responses are in red and Italicized)
explain its fluctuations? --The Development Services Cost Center 558.60 is for
professional services of the Planning Division. It includes Hearing Examiner services in
the amount of up to$42, 000 maximum per year (which is paid to the Hearing Examiner on
an hourly basis only after the work is done), as well as for minute -taker services for the
Planning Board, Architectural Design Board, and Historic Preservation Commission. It
also includes environmental/critical area reports and arborist reports that occasionally
the Department takes on. In the last couple years, professional service costs for the
Hearing Examiner have been considerably lower than budgeted; however, the maximum
contract amount is the same, recognizing that any unspent money from this cost center
a�
would not stay in the Planning Division budget past the current year but revert
unallocated to the City s General Fund for the following year, where it is available for
0°
0
other City Council purposes. The need for critical area and arborist reports also varies
N
from year to year; the Planning Division has historically had budget on hand to move
ahead immediately if a critical area or arborist report was needed because when such
c
items are needed, there usually isn't enough time to go through a quarterly budget
N
amendment process. Again, any unspent money reverts to GF use for other needs.
L
However, because of the lower annual expenditures, the budgeted amount for 2020 was
reduced by more than $6, 000 from the 2019 amount. We would monitor this next year
and, if the trend continues, reduce the 2021 budget for this cost center.
o
Request # Proposed budget amendments or questions from Councilmember Mesaros:
1) New: add $40,000 for a non -presented employee comparative salary study during 2020.
2) New: Add $10,000 for the Edmonds Chamber of Commerce to support their work in promoting
Edmonds and making this a worker friendly and visitor friendly city.
Request # Proposed budget amendments or questions from Councilmember Tibbott:
1) DP #13 I think the'/2 FTE for Human Services in Edmonds is premature. What options have we
explored with the County? What partnerships currently exist that we could buttress instead? Its
not clear what benefit we receive by providing these services via the city.
Please see response to DP#2 under Dave Teitzel above.
2) DP #6 What is Tyler?
Tyler is the software company that provides our ERP /financial software for finance, payroll,
accounts payable, budget, project accounting and utility billing. Decision Package #6 will cover
Tyler's anticipate annual maintenance fees for 2020.
3) DP #31 How does the proposed PIO/Communication strategist dovetail with the personnel helping
with the Housing Commission? Would it make more sense for the PIO to be aligned with the
Mayor's Office? Would it make sense to combine the consulting with the Housing Commission
and the PIO into one FTE and align the assignment with Community Services?
Since 2014 the Public Information Officer/Community Engagement Specialist has been a
contracted staff resource under the direction of the Community Services Director, yet at only
8
Packet Pg. 361
10.1.b
Council Questions / Proposed 2020 Budget Amendments
(Staff Responses are in red and Italicized)
approximately 50 hours per month. The proposal is to increase the commitment to public
information and community outreach/engagement to a 112 FTE, in-house regular position - an
almost doubling of the hours dedicated to this important function. As seen over the past year or
two, especially as related to major projects and programs, comprehensive, strategic community
engagement and outreach is needed within the City. This position would be in-house and
available most every day to be a valuable resource when planning public engagement processes
related to major projects and programs - someone who can be called into a meeting on short
notice as an in-house team player. Most cities have from 112 to full-time PIO/Community
Engagement positions. This position would be integrally involved in shaping and guiding the
a,
public engagement process related to the Housing Commission's work, as well as planning
processes, parks projects, public works projects, and other major city activities, events, etc. This
c
position would also pick up the functions that have been performed to date by the contractor,
N
including managing social media, conducting press relations (including oversight of press
releases), attending key community meetings and events, etc.
as
c
4) DP #40 While I support the update of the Development Code, this agenda item seems to be
04
inadequate for addressing the larger goal of revising the entire code. I would like to know if this is
N
a priority with the rest of the Council and how we could more adequately staff for this project
.0
besides the use of a consultant.
E
From Shane: The $25, 000 proposed would be added to a few thousand dollars of likely
carryforward from the 2019 budget. It would fund consultant assistance to existing staff for
updating the code. The main challenge of updating the development code is that it can't be done
adequately without considerable input from key Development Services staff (who already have full
workloads). The most efficient and timely way to move forward would be to hire an additional
experienced staff person who could either do the bulk of the code update work or take on other
duties from management level staff who could then do the code update work (perhaps with a small
amount of consultant support). A full time -staff person, with benefits, would be over $100 K. If
the position could be hired for two to three years, tremendous progress could be achieved. The
alternative is that, as other projects (such as the UFMP) get done, existing staff can focus
additional time on the code and, using a relatively small amount of consultant support (i.e., the
$25 K from DP # 40), get a lot done.
5) DP #42 Plan Review Consultant seems like a poor description for Construction review services.
Since these services are paid for through increased construction activity, does it make sense to
create an outgoing relationship with a review service and outsource the work when projects
require it? This is not a consultant relationship as much as it is an outside service.
• I think we depend on consultant to much.
• I think outsourcing review services is valuable especially to meet the demand for design
review.
From Shane: You are right; building plan review is not the City's typical consultant -type service,
but ` professional services " is the catch-all budget category that is the closest fit for this work. We
have been using building plan review consultants (contractors, you might call them) for complex
projects for years. While residential projects and small-scale commercial are reviewed by City
staff, the complex building plans (major commercial buildings, schools, etc) benefit from someone
with a structural engineering background or advanced commercial building review experience. As
you mention, these services are fully compensated from permit fees.
I
Packet Pg. 362
10.1.b
Council Questions / Proposed 2020 Budget Amendments
(Staff Responses are in red and Italicized)
DP #80 I have concerns with the timing of this budget item. I am not in favor of setting aside
funds for design until we're able to create an ILA. Perhaps we focus more on short-term
improvements. Like with DP 81
Request # Proposed budget amendments or questions from Councilmember Fraley-Monillas:
1) New Comment - Funding for Arborist: My question is to Shannon if this position was needed by
the department why hasn't it been asked for prior to this by the city staff? How will this affect
your FTE allotment? Will you have to cut back in other areas to pay for it? How much is
contracting a arborist cost in the past? Do you have enough work for a full-time position all year
long?
10
3
Packet Pg. 363
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/26/2019
Monthly Council Subcommittee Reports and Minutes
Staff Lead: Council
Department: City Clerk's Office
Preparer: Nicholas Falk
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A. For information only.
Narrative
This is an opportunity for Councilmembers to report on items discussed at their committee meetings
held the previous week. The committee meeting minutes are attached.
Attachments:
FC111219
P P W 111219
PSPP111219
Packet Pg. 364
FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
November 12, 2019
Elected Officials Present
Councilmember Diane Buckshnis (Chair)
Councilmember Tom Mesaros
Mayor Dave Earling (part of meeting)
Staff Present
Scott James, Finance Director
Dave Turley, Assistant Finance Director
Patrick Doherty, Econ. Dev./Comm. Serv. Dir.
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Jerrie Bevington, Recorder
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Jury Meeting Room. The agenda was reordered
EPFD Financial Update
Matt Keller, Director of Operations, Edmonds Center for the Arts, thanked Councilmember Mesaros for
serving as the EPFD liaison. He reviewed the Statement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Net
Position for the ten month period ending on October 31, 2019. He reviewed operating revenue,
highlighting revenue from the Gala ($435,000 actual compared to $390,000 budget), ticket sales and
fees ($510,797, up $78,000 from the September report), rentals, and concessions. He reviewed
operating expenses, highlighting the increase in payroll, taxes and employee benefits due to new
employees; and partial grant funding for two positions.
Questions and discussion included ways to cover the cost of new employees and reason for the deficit
due to the season start in September. Next update will be scheduled at the February Finance Committee
meeting.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
3. Increase of Tourism Promotion Area Lodging Fee
Mr. Doherty explained RCW 35.101.080 allows local municipalities to establish a Tourism Promotion
Area (TPA) and assess a fee of up to $2.00 per room per night. Snohomish County created the TPA in
2010 and a $1.00 per night assessment and executed interlocal agreements with the nine cities with
qualifying lodging businesses. In 2017 the TBA Advisory Board requested the County consider
increasing the TPA assessment to $2.00/room night and dedicate the additional revenue to construction
of an 80,000 square foot indoor multipurpose event facility. In 2018 County staff learned TPA funds
cannot be used for capital projects so the TPA Advisory Board and the Snohomish County Lodging Tax
Advisory Committee agreed to shift funding for tourism development and marketing to the TPA, freeing
up lodging tax funds for capital projects such as multipurpose facility. To backfill those funds, the TPA
would be raised to $2.00/room night. Snohomish County must execute an updated ILA with each TPA
collecting city which includes Edmonds.
Rich Huebner, Tourism Promotion Coordinator, Snohomish County, advised seven of the nine TPA
collecting cities in Snohomish County have ratified the ILA. The ninth city, Bothell, will consider it on
December 3rd
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
4. Development Fee Schedule Update
o�
N
r
U
a_
r
c
a�
E
CU
Q
Packet Pg. 365
11.1.a
11/12/19 Finance Committee Minutes, Page 2
Ms. Hope explained the City adopts development fees by resolution, typically every three years. She
reviewed proposed changes to the fees:
• Increasing the Technology Fee from $35 to $40.
• Increasing the hourly rate from $100 to $110 per hour of staff time (this has a ripple effect in
producing minor increases throughout the fee schedule where fees are based on staff time).
• Minor adjustments to fee descriptions to improve clarity or to reflect code changes or process
changes.
Discussion followed regarding rationale for the technology fee, changing the name of "technology fee,"
and charging the technology fee separately versus incorporating it into the permit fee.
Action: Schedule for adoption at full Council on December 10t"
2. Utility Overpayment Refund Policy
Mr. James explained in the past Snohomish County did billing for stormwater which reverted to the City
in the late 1990s/early 2000s. MSRC advised most cities' policies allowed refund to the customer of any
overpayment up to three years prior to the time the overpayment was first discovered. A court case in
Grays Harbor could be applicable and it may be appropriate to discuss this in executive session.
Action: Discuss in executive session
5. Accounts Receivable Write -Off
Mr. James advised Mr. Turley and Beth Ford, Lighthouse, drafted and sent letters to several customers
to collect on Local Improvement District (LID) payments. All the accounts were collected with the
exception of one in the amount of $196.91 which has been deemed as uncollectible and staff is
requesting approval to write off this receivable.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
6. Policv on Accountina for Leases
as
Mr. Turley explained this policy was the result of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)
issuing a statement regarding leases. He responded to questions regarding how the equipment lease
v
term of 12 months or longer with a present value of $5,000 or more was determined.
U_
c
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
E
to
The meeting was adjourned at 6:34 p.m. a
Packet Pg. 366
PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
November 12, 2019
Elected Officials Present
Councilmember Kristiana Johnson (Chair)
Councilmember Dave Teitzel
Mayor Dave Earling (part of meeting)
Staff Present
Phil Williams, Public Works Director
Rob English, City Engineer
Shannon Burley, Deputy Parks & Recreation Dir.
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Jeannie Dines, Recorder
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Amendment #3 to Herrera Professional Services Agreement -Waterfront Redevelopment
Ms. Burley explained this is the third amendment to the existing contract to change the scope of work
for two items, 1) additional fish forage surveys due to the extension of the fish window, and 2) continued
support from Herrera with regard to litigation including prep time and appearance and testimony at trial.
This is a scope of work change; no additional funding is requested.
Questions and discussion followed regarding there being no change in the cost, Exhibit A scope of work
referencing the walkway connector on the beach in front of the Ebbtide Condominium, the 2020 fish
window (July -October), and project elements that resulted in cost savings (reduction in landscaping,
boulders, and decorative paving around building). Staff was asked to determine and provide committee
members the cost to retain the decorative paving around the building.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
2. Walker Macy Addendum for Civic Field Design Contract
Ms. Burley reported exploration of Yost Park as an opportunity to exchange water mitigation credits for
the Civic Park project, capturing water off the Yost Park parking lot and directing it to bio retention
facilities near the parking lot and behind the pool, has been very favorable. This has the potential for
huge cost savings with regard to mitigating the water at Civic and would allow consideration of alternates
in the current plan. This would be a scope of work change and no additional cost. A feasibility study at
Yost found sand in the soil; this contract would allow Walker Macy to add Yost to the existing scope of
work. A complete update on Civic Park is scheduled to be presented to Council on December 10tn
Questions and discussion followed regarding concern with managing onsite stormwater at Civic Field,
difficulty with detention at Civic due to shallow ground water, onsite stormwater collection planned at
Civic in connection with mitigation credits at Yost, percentage of stormwater that can be captured at
Yost, raising the grade of Civic to mitigate for stormwater, how infiltrating water at Yost will improve
conditions at Civic, limited peat on the Civic Park site, whether the water feature could be incorporated
with groundwater retention/detention, and swales areas that are planned within the park.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
3. Community Health Center (CHC) Pedestrian Easement
Packet Pg. 367
11.1.b
11/12/19 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 2
Mr. English explained an addition to a development project on Hwy 99 built 3-4 years ago requires
construction of 7-foot sidewalks along the property frontage as well as street trees in tree grates. To
provide all the required frontage improvements, portions of the sidewalk will encroach onto private
property which requires a 3-foot public pedestrian easement be provided to the City along the Hwy 99
frontage.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
4. Transfer of Cable Franchise from Frontier Communications to WAVE Broadband
Mr. Taraday referred to materials in packet drafted by Mike Bradley, an attorney at Lighthouse familiar
with federal cable and telecommunications law. He explained the City has two cable providers, Comcast
and Frontier. Due to the City's franchise agreement, transfer of a cable franchise requires the City's
consent; however, the City does not have broad discretion in granting consent. Mr. Bradley has been
in contact with Frontier and Northwest Fiber, and prepared a resolution to formally grant that consent.
Mr. Taraday relayed issues raised with regard to this cable transition include whether Frontier was in
compliance with buildout requirements of the cable franchise. Frontier has submitted a "Confirmation of
Compliance with `Provision of Cable Service' Provisions in the Frontier Northwest Cable Franchise
Agreement." Transfer of the franchise to Northwest Fiber does not change the rights under franchise
agreement. Another issue raised is Frontier not carrying the local CBS station, KIRO. KIRO and Frontier
must reach a retransmission consent agreement (at a cost to Frontier) and the failure to reach an
agreement is a contact issue between the parties in which the City may not interfere or use as basis for
refusing to provide consent to transfer. The City has required Northwest Fiber to guarantee performance
of the cable franchise. Rates will not increase as a result of the transfer. Northwest Fiber has agreed to
pay for the City's costs in reviewing the proposed transfer.
Questions and discussion included the franchisee's responsibility for all provisions of the franchise
including Frontier's buildout requirements, whether the City has verified Frontier is in compliance with
regard to buildout, misrepresentation providing the City grounds to avoid consent, how issues with
buildout would come to the City's attention, and buildout requirements. Staff to research and provide
the relationship between Northwest Fiber and WAVE.
Action: Schedule for action at full Council
5. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement KPG for the Citywide Pedestrian Crossing
Enhancements Project
Mr. English advised this is a no cost supplement to extend the completion date of the KPG contract
from December 31, 2019 to December 31, 2020. Construction is scheduled to be completed by late
2020.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
6. Presentation of a Supplemental Agreement with WHPacific, Inc. for the 84th Ave Overlay
Project
Mr. English explained the duration of the project has been extended due to extra work and weather
days. The consultant's budget provided inspection services for 40 working days and more time has
been needed based on the contractor's progress and the authorized extra work. The concrete work will
be completed in the next couple week. The project will be suspended for the winter and the grind and
overlay done in the spring. The proposed fee for the supplemental agreement is $7,487 which will be
paid by the project funds.
Packet Pg. 368
11.1.b
11/12/19 PPW Committee Minutes, Page 3
Mr. English responded to questions about the cost to over -winter the project and citizens' concern about
bike lanes eliminating parking spaces.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
7. Presentation of the Water Quality Stormwater Capacity Grant from the Dept. of Ecology
Mr. English explained the Department of Ecology offers a grant to help local jurisdictions meet the
requirements of their NPDES permit. The grant value offered this year, consistent with previous cycles,
is $50,000 and has been offered on a 2-year cycle by Ecology since the initiation of the NPDES
program. Eligible expenses are identified in the grant agreement.
Action: Schedule for full Council
8. Miscellaneous Uodates
Mr. Williams reported a presentation to Council and recommendation regarding utility rates is scheduled
on November 19th. The Finance Committee recommended bonding separately for the pyrolysis project,
the Lake Ballinger Sewer replacement project and Pump Station 1 on Sunset Ave.
Mr. Williams reported Recycling Coordinator Steve Fisher is leaving the City at the end of 2019 after 27
years. He described past and current funding used for that position; the City will only receive
$13,500/year from Local Solid Waste Finance Assistance and Lynnwood is no longer interested in
partnering on the position. The cost of the position is approximately $120,000 including salary, benefits
and materials. When there was not enough to fund the position in the past it was funded by the Water
Fund but there is not a good nexus. Staff is discussing whether to fill the position.
Mr. Williams reported the 30-year WWTP Agreement that establishes the partnership between
Edmonds, Mountlake Terrace, Olympic View Water & Sewer District and Ronald Sewer/Shoreline that
was extended for two years is now ready to be signed and needs to be scheduled on the Council
agenda. Discussion followed regarding bonding for the pyrolysis project and future development of Pt.
Wells.
Councilmember Johnson asked why the 4th Ave Cultural Corridor project was delayed until 2020. Mr.
Williams explained the utility work in the alignment is not as extensive as originally thought which leaves
a bigger gap in the funding. Ms. Burley said the $50,000 budgeted in 2019 for design has been
expended primarily for a site survey related to right-of-way and encroachments. Funds to complete
design are programmed in 2020 ($100,000) and 2021 ($200,000). The design will support efforts to
obtain funds to construct the project (estimated at $4.5M for the complete project).
Discussion followed regarding whether funding was available through the Creative District and
considering this project further during the CIP discussion.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:57p.m.
Packet Pg. 369
PUBLIC SAFETY, PERSONNEL & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING
November 12, 2019
Elected Officials Present
Councilmember Neil Tibbott (Chair)
Council President Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
Staff Present
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Police Training Room.
Ordinance Requiring Open Public Meetings Act Training for Boards and Commissions
Ms. Hope explained Open Public Meetings Act training is required by state law but it would be easier
and clearer for boards and commissions if the requirement was included in the Edmonds Municipal
Code (EMC). Training is easy to obtain online and generate a certificate or the City Attorney's Office
or other agency can provide the training directly to a board or commission. The City Clerk would retain
the certificates. This ordinance would add a new section to Title 10 (Boards and Commissions) of the
EMC.
Discussion followed regarding training required for new board/commission members within 90 days of
their appointment, online training offered by the Secretary of State's office at no charge, and informing
current board/commission members of the requirement.
Action: Schedule on Consent Agenda
The meeting was adjourned at 6:07 p.m.
Packet Pg. 370